Full Good Forms and Healthy Communities 05 February (estimated word count = 640) Environmental Studies The article is titled “Lynch revisited: New urbanism and theories of good city form” written by Larry R. Ford from the San Diego State University of San Diego, California, USA. it was first published in 1999 in the journal Cities and discussed how modern cities have been marketed to appeal to various segments of buyers, without consideration of how these cities provide the necessities of modern living. the new urban communities are not authentic, and in many ways, are dull, alienating and isolating, which contradict those basic criteria used by David Lynch to judge how good a city is, which are: vitality, sense, fit, control, and access. In the article, the author argues going back to these basics to make new cities worth living in. A re-examination of the urban planning ideas of Lynch includes efficiency and justice as well. It further appeals to consider city size, future growth, and conservation measures when making plans, as most cities today are also ill and sterile, lacking diversity and vibrancy (Ford 247).
In this second article by Y. R. Jabareen, entitled “Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts” and published in the Journal of Planning Education and Research back in September of 2006, the author who is connected with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in the Department of Urban Studies, he identifies the four sustainable types of major urban forms, namely: neotraditional development, the compact city, urban containment, and lastly, the ecological city. Any of these urban forms utilizes a combination of the seven main design concepts in terms of environmental planning for sustainability which are compactness, transport, density, mixed-land use, diversity, passive solar design, and lastly, greening (Jabareen 39), which is essentially just an elaboration of the ideas of David Lynch.
In “Urban Development and Climate Change” and published in 2008, an entirely new perspective was drawn based on concerns of climate change as countries grapple with the issue of urban sprawl, and that is how to reduce gas emission by reducing the vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) by using compact development as the role model (Ewing et al. 201). By their estimates, compactness helps to reduce VMT by approximately 20% to 40% because it eliminates long commutes, which in turn reduces the gas emissions by around 7% to 10% as they made some plausible assumptions in their study models, up to the year 2050. For most of local governments worried about global warming, it is a good idea as it helps to mitigate the bad effects of carbon dioxide emissions from land transport by reducing the need to travel.
The article “Growing Cities Sustainably: Does Urban Form Really Matter?” by these authors Marcial H. Echenique et al., they contend compact development is not necessarily the best form as it only addresses the twin issues of land conservation and a reduction in travel distances. Further, they found spatial options in their statistical models can only have limited impact on energy consumption and land use. rather, a change in lifestyles as accompanied by controlled population growth contributes more to healthy communities. This in turn has a greater impact on natural resources and the environment, contributing to a higher quality of life as perceived by residents, and an inclusive growth in social equity (Echenique et al., 122).
The fifth article discusses how greater street connectivity prevents urban decay and a subsequent migration to suburbs which in turn leads to urban sprawl. The authors indicated an emphasis on retention and enhancement of the unique downtown physical characteristics can contribute to a healthy community by reduced traffic on arterial or secondary streets and gives both better utility connections and faster access for emergency vehicles (Filion et al. 328), minimum requirements for a healthy community. This article “The Successful Few: Healthy Downtowns of Small Metropolitan Regions” first appeared on November 26, 2007.
Echenique, Marcial H., Anthony J. Hargreaves, Gordon Mitchell, and Anil Namdeo. “Growing Cities Sustainably: Does Urban Form Really Matter?” Journal of the American Planning Association, 78.2 (03 May 2012): 121-137. Print.
Ewing, Reid, Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Walters, and Geoffrey Anderson. “Urban Development and Climate Change.” Journal of Urbanism, 1.3 (27 Nov. 2008): 201-216. Print.
Filion, Pierre, Heidi Hoernig, Trudi Bunting, and Gary Sands. “The Successful Few: Healthy Downtowns of Small Metropolitan Regions.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 70.3 (26 Nov. 2007): 328-343. Print.
Ford, Larry R. “Lynch revisited: New urbanism and theories of good city form.” Cities, 16.4 (1999): 247-257. Print.
Jabareen, Yosef Rafeq. “Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26.1 (Sept. 2006): 38-52. Print.