No replies to this topic

[amor de cosmos]

once again:

Hans Blumenfeld, urban and regional planner, educator, author, consultant (b at Osnabrück, Ger 18 Oct 1892; d at Toronto, Ont 30 Jan 1988). Appointed to the Russian State City Planning Institute from 1930 to 1933, Blumenfeld left the USSR in 1937 for the US where he worked primarily for the Philadelphia Planning Commission. He came to Canada in 1955 as assistant director of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board and was instrumental in shaping Toronto and its hinterland.

In 1961 he became a private consultant and in 1964 a professor at University of Toronto. He was the author of numerous acclaimed articles and books, including The Modern Metropolis (1967) and Metropolis and Beyond (1979). His most significant contribution was his vision of the "metropolis" as a new urban organism whose unique scale and structure require diagnosis and treatment.

Acknowledged as one of the leading figures in 20th-century URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING, he was a fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners and was a recipient of the American Institute of Planners' Distinguished Service Award. He had a lifelong involvement in the world peace movement. His autobiography, Life Begins at 65 ..., was published in 1986.

http://www.thecanadi...s=A1ARTA0000840
according to Wiki he was also an Officer of the Order of Canada

This was originally published in Planning 1957: Yearbook of the American Society of Planning Officials, pp.119-122. He starts with the "right" range of density:

... the present discussion is concerned primarily not with prediction, but with prescription, with the means for bringing about the "right" residential density in urban areas.

Does anybody know what the "right" density is? I do. It is 12,000 to 60,000 persons per square mile of residential area (20 to 100 persons per acre).

In other words, acceptable conditions can be created within a wide range of densities; and the location, family type, and consumer's preferences determine which one is appropriate in any particular case. But there are upper & lower limits beyond which serious disadvantages appear.

& then the problem with too much density & what city councils have done to minimise it (sound familiar? ):

With poorly developed means of transportation and the resultant excessive concentration of population, too high densities have been - and still are - the main danger that planners have tried to prevent by prescription, mainly by zoning regulations requiring minimum lot sizes, setbacks and yards, and maximum coverage and height or floor area ratio (the proportion between lot area and a building's total floor area). These prescriptions are fairly effective in setting an upper limit. As economic pressure has tended to cause full utilization of the zoning "envelope," they are also reasonably close indicators for prediction.

& then the problems with not enough density:

The disadvantages of excessively low density development, of 4.5 houses of less per acre of residential area, can be summarized under three headings: 1) overextension of urbanized area; 2) isolation of daily life; 3) difficulty in finding labour for industry & commerce.

• Urbanization of a very extensive area has the following inconveniences:
  
  • Very large investments for roads & utilities to serve this extensive area
  • Very long travel distances from the inner areas to open areas.
  • Very long travel distances from the outer areas to the commercial, civic, and cultural faciities in the centre.
  • An increase of daily vehicle-miles roughly equal to the square of population increase.
  
  
• Even more serious may be the effect on the daily lives of the residents in the newly developed residential areas. Most residents of such areas who work in the city centre and practically all who work in other areas travel by car. With growing dispersal of places of work, the percentage of those travelling to work by car will tend to increase.
  
  It must be assumed that the great majority of residents will, in the future, as at present, consist of one-car families. It is therefore important that transit stops and neighbourhood facilities such as local shopping and community centres, schools, churches, etc., should be within walking distance of the homes.
  
  Walking distance may defined as one quarter of a mile as the maximum, or a circular area of less than one fifth of a square mile, which, at a density of 4.5 families per acre, contains not more than 500 to 600 families. This has the following effects:
  
  • Bus service at adequate headways of 10 minutes or less can be maintained only during rush hours in the direction to and from the central city. At other hours and in other directions, service can only be maintained only at headways of 30 minutes or more. Even such a limited service can be maintained only if heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.
  • A population of 500 to 600 families can just barely maintain a public elementary school of eight classes (or six classes with a three-level system) and kindergarten), if 80 to 90 percent of all children in this age group attended the public elementary school. If higher percentages of children go to separate schools, public schools have to be more widely spaced. Separate schools as well as junior and senior high schools are beyond the normal walking distance for most of the students.
  • A local shopping centre requires a market area of at least 1000 to 1200 families. Consequently, at least half of the families in such areas live beyond the normal walking distance from a shopping centre.
  • The same holds true of churches, clubs, and other community facilities. Observations in large communities that have developed at such low densities confirm that housewives lead isolated lives, restricted to contact only with their immediate neighbours, resulting in lack of participitation in civic, school, church, social, and cultural affairs and ultimately in a sense of frustration.
  
  
• Most municipalities designate extensive areas for industry and commerce and want to encourage their development. Practically all industrial and commercial enterprises require a certain percentage of low-wage earners. Many of these workers, notably female labour, do not have cars at their disposal. On the other hand, few workers of this type will be found in detached houses on faily large lots. The consequences are:
  
  • At best, many workers have to travel long ways, with adverse effects on morale and productivity; at worst, employers are unable to recruit a full staff.
  • In the long run, the neighbouring communities cannot be expected to supply the lower-paid segment of workers but will adopt similar restrictive zoning policies. Carried to its ultimate consequence, this would undermine the economic base of the entire area from which the people occupying the more expensive homes derive their income.
  
  Thus the policy of picking the raisins out of the cake and throwing the crumbs to one's neighbours finally defeats itself. We cannot go on developing all new areas at the densities of 4.5 houses per acre of residential area such as those now prevailing in new subdivisions. There must be a floor as well as a ceiling for densities.
  
  That is easier said than done. Under our system of private land ownership and land development, the function of municipal planning is largely negative. We can and do say "no" to the developer. We can, within limits, tell a fellow: "Thou shalt not live here." We cannot - thank God - prescribe: "Thou shalt live where I think it is good for you." The "enlightened" absolutists of the eighteenth century did prescribe that on a certain street everybody must build three stories high over his entire frontage. I do not suggest that we follow their example.
  
  Nor do I suggest that we tailor our residential zones so tightly to the anticipated demand that the resulting land monopoly raises land prices to a point where people are forced to build at higher density than they want to.

We can and should do two things: first, advise and encourage people to build, in suitable locations, apartments, row houses, and other types of group housing less wasteful of land than the detached house on its 60- or 80-foot lot; and second, remove the zoning and subdivision restrictions that now prevent this type of development.