Urban Land Use Issues and Concepts within London - Essay Example

Topic: Urban Land use Issues and Concepts within London Urban land use issues and concepts have become prominent within London because of the strategic location and importance of London in the global business scenario. A range of economic, social and residential functions has created sustainability issues arising out of the spatial clustering effect. Urban designing requires to address the concepts of the compact city, increased density of land and space use and the resultant increase in social, leisure and employment activity incurring from tourism, live& work and mixed use design of the constructions. Research has been conducted for the urban sustainability of London, the twenty four hour city, to know the positive and negative impacts of the densification and diverse activity resulting from land uses for residents, businesses and reactions of the people over mixed use and increased development activity. Case study results of conceptual and empirical model were attempted by VIVA 2020 IN Clerkenwell, situated on the city fringe of London, a typical urban village. Survey results of a comparative study between central Sheffield where new apartments and mixed-use construction is going on and Manchester, making a secondary analysis of residential survey, besides other stakeholders including local authority planners (policy and development control), conservation and economic development & regeneration officers, local estate agents, developers and design firms to evaluate the quality of life realized and criteria that impacted decision making by the stakeholders (Viva 2020, 2010). As per the findings of the case study comparison between central Sheffield and Manchester, the social and economic uses can remain there to the limit of mixed-use at building, street and neighbourhood level. Some functions were deemed spatially different to be within walking distances like housing and nearby functions. Housing above the retailing at the level floor and entertainment was found practically discernible if rest of the issues could be looked after well by design quality and management (Viva 2020, 2010). Major issues faced were related to environment – litter/waste, noise, anti-social behaviour. Criminal activity was found related and associated with café and street culture near to residential areas and outsiders’ access to street and, but fringes of streets with poor security. Residents made choices between a lack of balcony space and reduced car use and trade-off it with public transport. Facilities like local shops, green area and play fields were prime quality of life needs, but required planning support and financial infrastructure to promote mixed economy (Viva 2020, 2010). Social mix was not limited to just income but it was meant for first time shifters from inner city to Sheffield and Manchester, hoping a cosmopolitan experience that included people like early retirees, singles and young couples, oblivion of the prevalent traditions and impacts. Designing element was not made optimum use although it was the ultimate planning and policy remedy of mixed-use, increased density of population and planned development. Designers and developers wanted guidance on activities that could be mixed and layouts that could deliver. Planning and policy level clarifications were sought on the sustainability of social and economic mix, the spatial level of full urban development limit at different parameters (Viva 2020, 2010). Robertson & Walford (2000) have made a number of surveys of one-kilometre grid squares, as has been attempted earlier by L. Dudley Stamp in 1950 and Alice Coleman in 1976 and 1977 to know the issues of concern in urban land use. Responses of school children formed the major part of the report that was aimed to gather first hand knowledge from the data shared by school going children and the community facing certain issues in local squares. The urban sample reported six major issues related to residential developments, lack and loss of green spaces, traffic-related issues, pollution and litter, entertainment facilities and issues concerning aesthetics and feelings. Outlook on urban key areas was related to build environment. Housing and shops were found equally important issues but green spaces and traffic was at the same time not an issue of less importance. Responses were practical but there was inherent a sense for aesthetics. The six main themes were noticed. 1. Housing developments—Vision of the 54% respondents revolved around housing and residential features. The majority of respondents were worried over the loss of green spaces, as in future buildings could be constructed over park areas other than infill of large gardens, open spaces and allotments. 20% respondents wanted fewer houses with more range and better quality. 2. Green spaces--32% participants in the survey were worried over the loss of green spaces including parks, sports grounds, woodlands and allotments in future. 30% of them wanted more green spaces, parks and trees. 3. Traffic issues—Opinion was pessimistic over the future regarding traffic problems. Future of the square was measured in terms of increased rush and parking issues. Respondents wanted easy access to roads, increased parking amenities and traffic controlling steps besides better reach to public transport and paths for cycle and pedestrians. 4. Management of pollution and litter—Liter, decay, increased neglect and feeling of ‘run down’ was felt by 44% of surveyors. Cleanliness of the square was a major issue by 22% of the surveyors with suggestions to provide dustbins and take measures to control the nuisance of dog litter. 5. Recreation facilities—21% of the surveyors wanted more relaxation facilities for the young like youth clubs, sports fields, play areas and leisure activities. Only 6% were optimistic that such facilities would be provided. This data might help the future planners to plan urban land use accordingly. 6. Aesthetics and feelings—it pertained to quality of living the urban landscape. The most likeable aspects of living aesthetically in squares were phrased by 38% surveyors for housing while 17% clearly stated aesthetics as the criteria of good housing, expressed as quiet residential, variety of houses, big houses with nice gardens, well maintained, friendly atmosphere, beautiful views and cosmopolitan character. By contrast, the most vulnerable features included phrase expressions like lack of character, lack of variety and hostile atmosphere. monotonous landscapes, unattractive and sameness. A kind of humanizing of the surrounding through colourful and varied look possibly could add to the aesthetic sense. It could come through shops close by where residents need not go on a car, more playfields far from the roads, more greener and open spaces, and range of shopping, more of crossings across the main roads and less density of people in the houses (Robertson & Walford, 2000). Views of the people reflect both, the symptoms of age-old history of the landscape and complexities of the ongoing life experiences, making their visions hard to materialise. People wanted a multi-dimensional view of their surroundings. Besides maintaining the visual beauty and traditions, people were keen to fulfill their life style needs to be on the practical side of the theme of aesthetics (Robertson & Walford, 2000). Nevin et al. (2001) has discussed the urban regeneration in the M62 corridor with its contemporary social housing problems. The waiting lists for social housing are getting shortened with the changes in the market. There are three types of housing accommodations available; one type is difficult to let, the other housing is very popular location-wise while the third is average in popularity. This trend has been exhibited through a data of 464 tenants of the market for council housing (p. 59). As per the social and economic features of tenants for the council housing, it seems that the customer-base is getting economically weaker as only 16% tenants are working full time, 37.4% are in search of employment and 86.4% are getting help from the state. In comparison to private rented sector where 64% tenants are working, only 31% of council’s ates the weaker economic graph of the tenants of city council houses. Tenants give top priority to such tenancies which are of their preferred size, are situated in the right localities, family and friends are easily reachable and environment is healthy (Nevin et al., 2001, p. 60). Trends are similar in geographical diverse areas such as Knowsley, Wigan and Stockport. As per the 1999 housing investment data, the social rented housing in Knowlsey was high with a population of 154,562 (38%), out of which local authority possessed 19,187 units (31%) and housing association owned 4,344 (7.1%). In Wigan the difference between the local authority and the housing association in the social housing segment was 24%. It was quite vast with local authority houses 21% and housing association houses just 2%. In Stockport the percentage of social housing was 16 while council share was 11% (Nevin et al., 2001, p. 63). According to Towse (1988), industrial estates in part of South West London’s metropolitan green belt have no scope of expansion, as small firms have to manage in the old shed like industrial facilities. Modern high tech firms need more space for which rental rates go high. Same is the condition of older industrial estates that need outdoor warehouses and accommodation at flexible rentals. Estates so far have catered to the local needs by making local initiatives. It has hindered entrepreneurial growth to the extent of killing enterprising spirit. Future opportunities and sites have to be found. Developers are constructing industrial properties of particular design to meet the dynamic industry needs that add value to the location. Future needs of industrial land depend on special planning permissions, local plan land distribution and currently lying vacant land. It is not just the area of land that matters the most in current scenario but effective planning of land into industrial parks. The West London’s metropolitan green belt can be used in stead of temporary arrangements in industrial estates. Large pockets of institutional lands such as for ‘Epsom Hospitals Cluster’ can make good the mixed-use of green belt by developing quality industrial parks. ‘Grey belt’ within the green belt can be made use of for campuses and business parks. Such an initiative will help in shedding pressures on the traditional industrial estates and provide space for local firms. Policy makers need to consider the demand and supply mechanism of spatial surface of property in the context of limited availability of land in a particular geographical location hence lays the crucial importance of the role of industrial estates. In land use diversity, green belts, Cohen (1994), provide open space on the periphery of the constructed areas. Green belts are a dependable planning strategy to control and organise urban development and arrange for the welfare of the residents. The history of green belt use is a proof of its use for more than a century in London. The issues still are not different than they were before. Challenges facing the green belts have increased. There have been question tags over the cost and uses of maintaining green belts. With the development of open space, a part of the green belt gets devoured. The government favours no compromise on the green belts. For development purpose, the use of green belt is supported and granted. Developers, both public and private support the use of green belt for providing facilities in the current plans but do not meddling with them. There are a number of factors that affect the balance between the developers and the environmentalists in England (Cohen, 1994). Maintenance of green belts creates housing development issues by limiting the growth of the urban central part, thus blocking the solution to urban land use issues (Correll and others 1978; Munton 1983; Nelson 1985, 1988)). Growth on the periphery happens in a haphazard way, which currently is the feature in Greater London area although green belt area has been increased but it is criticised as a blot on the infrastructure, a reason to show anger by the travellers and a dark spot on the landscape (Cohen, 1994). The planners in London have desired the shifting of population away from London till the green belt is enlarged. In England, the government agencies responsible for housing share common political and economic interests that often clash with the planning of green belt. The practice of preserving the green belt is credited to the British planners with the cherished aim but its future is uncertain. It has been noticed that urban expansion increased over a period of time due to and despite the institutionalisation and increase in the area of green belt. In London, green belts have become a reason of dispute and a party to the land use disputes. Private housing is posing a challenge to the existence of green belts rather than industry or business. There are political and economic coercions from private and from the government via the ministry of housing to develop the green belts, as there are a number of benefits because of nearness to greet belts, lower density and privileges without facing the negative repercussions. Use of greenbelts with right management to maintain the main feature of green belts could prove to be an asset to the urban landscape nearby by keeping safe the goals and visions of developing green belts with specific improvements in the context of current and future requirements of urban land development (Cohen, 1994). The development of land by The London Docklands Development Corporation is a good example on the case study on London. It is yet another front of multifunctional land use in the harbor area where patterns of physical distribution of land’s urban functions can be seen. The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) came into existence after the economic, physical and social loss caused to East London by the shutting down of Londons docks. The LDDC finished its job in 1999.The Urban Development Area (UDA) of the London Docklands is eight and a half square miles (2,146 ha.) going six miles (10.8 km) down river from London Bridge to the south and Tower Bridge to the north, and comprised parts of the London Boroughs of Southwark, Newham and Tower Hamlets (nr, 2004). The LDDC saw to it that market failures get rectified as the economy before the coming of LDDC was in shatters with the closing of docks, the population had decreased greatly, the unemployment rate was high, jobs were scarce and 60% of the area was under-used, deserted or was lying vacant. LDDC created transport infrastructure with funds from private investment for the economic regeneration of London Dockyards. It worked to upgrade the social infrastructure and public facilities (nr, 2004). Land Disposals by Land Use in the LDDC were, as given in the table below: ______________________________________________________________________________ SQUARE METRES ROYALS SURREY DOCKS WAPPING, LIMMEHAOUS AND ISLE OF DOGS TOTAL _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ AIRPORT 412.779 0 0 412.779 OFFICE 52.609 4.047 372.311 428.967 CANARY WHARF 0 0 125.453 125.453 OTHER COMMERCIAL 736.528 76.890 194.249 1.007.667 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 8.094 12.141 12.141 32.375 EDUCATION 32.375 28.328 20.234 80.937 LEISURE 36.422 4.047 16.187 56.656 RESIDENTIAL 797.231 465.388 461.342 1.723.961 RETAIL 121.406 129.499 16.187 267.092 ROADS & TRANSPORT 48.562 0 8.094 56.656 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ UNIVERSITY 101.171 0 0 101.171 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.347.176 720.340 1.226.197 4.293.714 WATER 1.687.539 ROADS&TRANSPORT 2.225.771 TO SELL 586.794 8.793.818 After working for 17 years, the LDDC published its annual report in 1998, mentioning distribution of gains in public sector investment, private sector investment, land sold for redevelopment, new and better roads, making of the Docklands Light Railway, commercial & industrial floor space development, reclamation of derelict land, building of new homes, businesses trading; contributions to 5 new health centres and the redevelopment of 6 more besides funding for new primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and 9 vocational training centres. It won 94 awards for architecture, conservation and landscaping, and generated employment in London Docklands. Canary Wharfs large size helped to create a transport revolution, which included the upgrading and extension of the DLR to Bank, the Jubilee Line Extension, the Limehouse Link and Docklands Highways (agreed by the LDDC in 1986) an the first River Bus service. It could be achieved with the estimated development for the Island in the Canary Wharf (nr, 2004). The performance of LDDC is an example to be followed by the different stakeholders of London for resolving urban land use issues. References: Cohen, Shaul E 1994, ‘Green belts in London and Jerusalem’, Geographical Review, vol. 84, no. 1, http://www.jstor.org/stable/215782, (accessed 28 April 2010). Nevin, Brendan., Lee, Peter., Goodson, Lisa., Murie, Alan., Philimore, Jenny 2001,.’Changing the housing markets and urban regeneration in the M62 corridor’, Birmingham University’. http://www.nwrhb.org.uk/%5Carticleimages%5Cm62%20study.pdf. [Accessed 28 April 2010]. Promotional Document nr, 6, September 2004. Multifunctional land use in the renewal of harbor areas: patterns of physical distribution of the urban functions, www, http://www.ub.es/escult/Water/waterf_06/W06_02.pdf, (accessed 28 April 2010). Robertson, Margaret. & Walford, Rex. ‘Views and visions of land use in the United Kingdom’, The Geographical Journal, vol. 166, No. 3,(2000), http://www.jstor.org/stable/823075, (accessed 28 April 2010). Towse, R.J. 1998, ‘Industrial Location and site provision in an area of planning restraint: part of South West’, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 20, no. 4, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002645, (accessed 28 April 2010). Viva 2020, ‘2 and 5: Generation and Evolution of Land Use Diversity’, www, http://www.vivacity2020.eu/sustainability-issues/2-generation-of-land-use-diversity, (accessed 28 April 2010). Read More