Abstract

How does urban density affect the efficiency of access infrastructure? A novel approach considers both ‘outdoor’ and ‘indoor’ access infrastructure. A hypothesis is developed and tested to determine if spatial costs shift from ‘outdoors’ to ‘indoors’ in rising building densities. Taking into account the significance of theoretical research and its impact on decision-making practices on development, a case study in a Chinese city is conducted to assess the spatial costs of building-internal and building-external access for different types of residential neighbourhoods, thereby exploring the relationship between the number of floors and accessibility costs in terms of area consumption. Three different types of residential neighbourhood representing diverse density situations are analysed and evaluated. Although based on a single case study, the results provide valid arguments to substantiate the shift hypothesis. The findings challenge the existing planning notions regarding gains in infrastructural efficiency and instead show reduced efficiencies can occur in high-density development when indoor access is taken into account. Under comparable factors of access quality, compact settlements may even display lower efficiencies than less compact areas. These considerations indicate the need for a more critical and wider view of the efficiency gains provided by dense settlement forms. Policy relevance When building densities increase, the burden of spatial costs for access infrastructure (mobility, traffic access, vertical circulation and parking) shifts from ‘outdoors’ to ‘indoors’, potentially increasing in overall terms. This challenges current ideas in urban planning that higher density leads to gains in infrastructural efficiency. Economic and resource efficiency are clearly reduced when indoor access is taken into account. Indeed, under comparable factors of access quality, compact settlements may have lower efficiencies than less compact areas. These new insights indicate the need for a more critical and wider reappraisal of the efficiency gains provided by dense settlement forms, particularly high-density and high-rise residential development. Developers, planners and designers will need to develop new processes and guidance for evaluating efficiencies of urban settlement and their sustainability.

Highlights

  • Urban factors such as the settlement form and morphology, density and compactness determine the ways in which citizens live and move, and the ensuing costs for the provision and maintenance of technical and social infrastructures (Peterson & Schäfer 2004; EEA 2015; UN-Habitat 2016)

  • Evidence from a case study of Chicago has shown that the suburban low-rise lifestyle is more efficient than the downtown high-rise lifestyle in terms of per person operational energy consumption for buildings, transportation and transportation infrastructure (Du, Wood & Stephens 2016)

  • The results show that an increase in building density is not necessarily accompanied by efficiency gains in relation to spatial costs of development if the total spatial costs for such infrastructure are taken into account

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Urban factors such as the settlement form and morphology, density and compactness determine the ways in which citizens live and move, and the ensuing costs for the provision and maintenance of technical and social infrastructures (Peterson & Schäfer 2004; EEA 2015; UN-Habitat 2016). The United Nations’ New Urban Agenda (Habitat III) points out that ‘urban form, infrastructure and building design are among the greatest drivers of cost and resource efficiencies, through the benefits of economy of scale and agglomeration’ (United Nations 2017: 14). Based on empirical studies of German cities, Deilmann, Lehmann, Schumacher, & Behnisch (2017: 143) showed that ‘with increasing building compactness, the prerequisites for technical energy efficiency and resource efficiency are increasing’. Evidence from a case study of Chicago has shown that the suburban low-rise lifestyle is more efficient than the downtown high-rise lifestyle in terms of per person operational energy consumption for buildings, transportation and transportation infrastructure (Du, Wood & Stephens 2016)

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.