SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
5 likes1,347 views
This document summarizes a study that analyzed the socio-economic determinants of mixed-use development through a case study of neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. The study examined 6 neighborhoods with varying densities and land use mixes. It found that more centrally located, high-density mixed-use neighborhoods like Buldi had better access to amenities, lower travel times and costs, a stronger sense of community, and felt safer. In contrast, newer suburban neighborhoods like Shambhu Nagar lacked infrastructure, had higher travel burdens, and less interaction. Overall, the study showed socio-economic benefits of mixed-use development including accessibility, viability, quality of life, and sense of place.
SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
- 1. SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Kolli Rajesh M.City Planning, B.Arch kollirajesh888@gmail.com
- 2. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Mixed use development can be defined as development which comprises of a mixture of two or more land uses, either comprised within a single building or multiple buildings of different uses within a distinct development site. VERTICAL • Different uses within the same building •Private areas on the upper floors •Public spaces on the lower floor HORIZONTOL •Single-use buildings within a mixed-use zoning •Complementary and integrated uses that are walkable BOTH •Combination of horizontal and vertical mixed use developm. TYPES OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (SPRAWL) LOW DENSITY • Low housing density of about 1 home for each 600 to 700 square metres MEDIUM DENSITY •Average Density may be about 1 home for each 300 square metres of land HIGH DENSITY •High Density will be around 1 home for each 150 square metres of land TYPES OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (DENSITY) SOURCE - Noha Ahmed Nabil, G. E. (2015). Influence of mixed land-use on realizing. Housing and Building National Research Center, 259-298.
- 3. 3500 B.C. to 1000 B.C. • The ancient civilizations emerged • Services were concentrated around the religious element and then the zones were allocated to residence 700 B.C. to 1900 A.D • The roman cities were the beginning of emergence of mixed use • Convergence of a group of services with each other 1750–1850 • Emergence of industrial revolution along with the problems such as health issues , pollution within the living areas emerged. • Existing towns expanded and new towns like industrial and satellite towns were created with strict land use zoning. 1910 to 1900 • Post world war a great increase in owning cars. • Migration started from the centralized cities to the suburbs • Mixed uses were cancelled from all new plans of cities 1960 to early 1970 • Mixed use became a rare development • Mixed use started to emerge again as a part of urban revitalization. 1970–1980 • Rehabilitation tolls of deteriorated zones and mixed use was applied on a smaller scale. • Return was made to the mixed-use as interest in historic preservation grew. 1990–2000 • Basic element in designing the sustainable residential neighborhood • It was a key component in transit orient development and traditional neighborhood development. • Contemporary planning principles , livable communities and smart growth principle. HISTORY OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Source -HBRC Journal
- 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FROM MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PARKING SUCCESS DEPENDS ON TWO DIFFERENT MARKETS SECURITY ISSUES NOISE TRANSFER TRASH AND SMELLS •ASSEMBLING LAND PARCELS • CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING AREA •COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ACCESIBILITY EQUITY AND DIVERSITY QUALITY OF LIFE VITALITY, ATTRACTIVENESS AND AESTHETICS INTERACTION , SENSE OF BELONGING •HEALTH •SAFETY AND SURVELLIENCE •EMPLOYMENT SOURCE - Noha Ahmed Nabil, G. E. (2015). Influence of mixed land-use on realizing. Housing and Building National Research Center, 259-298.
- 5. KEY DESIGN CONSIDERATION BEHAVIOUR PATTERN MANIFESTATION/ACTION Walkability People prefer to walk/cycle for basic needs; Visual/ verbal Interaction Less use of automobile; Health issues reduces; Open spaces with human scale Group Dynamics; Surveillance; Kids play without fear; Elderly people relax Interaction among different age groups; Frontage/ Openings/Blank facade Closeness of different land-uses Reduce need for automobile; Time Saving; Association and interaction Less pollution/ less carbon footprint; Time for self and community; Efficiency; Compatibility of uses Mix of tenure and housing typology Diversity; Synergy increases; Group dynamics and; Inclusive community Affiliation; Instrumental and Classical Learning Financing and Feasibility Networking & coordination; Awareness; Cost efficiency Acceptability; Public subsides; Location (dis-advantages; Public revenue ) Governance Learned behaviour; Social awareness; Leadership; Motivation Learned behaviour; Social awareness; Leadership; Motivation Planning and Design Complex (norms, design); Decision making; Functional utility and economical Dedication; Harmonizing Conflicting land uses; Innovation and creativity Life and Quality Vibrant and active; Inclusive; Strong social networking Attention; Affiliation Design Quality and Context Aesthetics; Diversity & Attractive; Socio-economic wellbeing Characteristic across an Urban area; Positive contribution
- 6. O URDPFI 2015, LAWS GOVERNING MIXED USE ZONING • MIXED USE ZONE (M) The Mixed‐use Zone can be subdivided into - 1. Mixed Industrial use: M1 2. Mixed Residential use: M2 3. Mixed Commercial use: M3 • The activities permissible, restricted and prohibited shall be as given below. • In M1 Zone activities falling within non‐ polluting industry/ service industry (dominant land use) categories can coexist with maximum up to 20‐30% of commercial, institutional, recreational and residential land use. • In M2 Zone all activities falling within permitted residential land use (dominant land use) shall be minimum 60% and to coexist with commercial, institutional, recreational. • In M3 Zone all activities falling within permitted commercial, institutional land use dominant land use) shall be minimum 60% and to coexist with residential, recreational and non‐ polluting and household industry.Restricted Uses/Activities • Activities related to commercial, institutional and residential landuse in M1 Zone and non‐polluting industrial land use in M2 Zone can be increased to between 20‐50% depending on the contextual and locational feasibility of the area. Prohibited Uses/Activities • All other activities especially industrial which are polluting in nature and which will have an adverse impact on the overall activities of this zone Note: Mixed land use to be well defined by the Development control body by prescribing the limits on the use of activity based on the abutting road width, compatible uses, plots size, ground coverage, FAR/FSI, density, any other urban design guideline.
- 7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Case Study of Neighbourhoods in Nagpur, India SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012 Sustainability and Mixed Land use, Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, I International Journal of Industrial Engineer Management Science, 76-82.
- 8. NAGPUR- CASE STUDY • Nagpur is centrally located and well connected to major cities in India by air, rail and road. The total area of Nagpur Municipal Corporation is 21,756 hectors with a population of 2.4 million. • The city has different typology of segregated and mixed land use. 1. The old areas has vibrant mixed use environment that have evolved over time. 2. The commercial or employment centre (Central business district (CBD) and sub CBD) has dominant commercial land use. These areas have high land and rental value making it non feasible for pure residential use so mixed land-use leads other uses 3. There are planned and semi-planned areas with a balance of residential and non residential activities. 4. There are planned segregated residential areas known as civil lines designed for automobile and not for pedestrian, but they form the greenest part of the city. 5. The last type is the sprawl areas in the suburb planned or unplanned plotted development with residential development. SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012). Social Sustainability and Mixed Land use, Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 76-82.
- 9. 1636-1743 • Fortified city with 6 major gates • Kings and nobles in the fort to the east • Commoners in the west outside the fort. • Commercial area comprised of open area market. 1743-1854 • Palace formed the center of a radical street system. • Hirarchy of neighbourhood based on occupation and caste system. • Mixed land-use of house+shop+cottage industry was the prominent housing typology. 1854-1947 • The civil stn (the situbaldi fort) formed the nucleus of the settlement. • New British settlement on the west-side. • Well defined land-use pattern. • Housing development in the form of colonies for security reasons SION UNDER GOND, BHONSALA AND COLONIAL RULE
- 10. 1947-1976 • Civil lines area continue to serve as the administrative zone. • Low rise low density development. • Academic & Medical institutes were developed in the south-west and north-east regions. 1976-2000 • Nagpur improvement trust took initiative to build transportation networks and residences in the fringe areas. • Inner ring road was constructed for ease of traffic movement. EXPANSION OF NAGPUR IN POST-INDEPENDENCE PERIOD SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012). Social Sustainability and Mixed Land use, Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 76-82.
- 11. SPACIAL LOCATION OF SELECTED NEIGHBOURHOODS FOR CASE STUDY L1-Neighborhood One (NH1) Buldi: Buldi, a 150 year old neighborhood is currently the CBD with a medium rise high density. L2-Neighborhood two (NH2) Buddha Nagar: Buddha Nagar is a part of the sub-CBD with medium rise medium density. L3-Neighborhood three (NH3) Aahuja Nagar and Neighborhood four (NH4) Kukreja Nagar: Aahuja Nagar and Kukreja Nagar 20-30 years planned neighborhoods are on the either side of the major sixty feet wide Nara road with low rise medium density development pattern. L3-Neighborhood five (NH5) Kalpana Nagar: Kalpana Nagar is low rise low density, a decade old planned-plotted neighborhood along ring road. L4-Neighborhood six (NH6) Shambhu Nagar and Dhobale Layout: A sprawling development in the prior green zone with low rise low density development pattern. NH6 NH5 NH4 NH7 NH1 NH2 NH3 SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012). Social Sustainability and Mixed Land use, Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 76-82.
- 12. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOODS L1-Neighborhood One (NH1) Buldi: • Accessibility (walkable) • Low travel cost and time(railway/road) • Employment • Middle and low income groups • Vertical sprawl of mixed-use buildings • Safety and surveillance. • Very high sense of belonging/interaction
- 13. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOODS L2-Neighborhood two (NH2) Buddha Nagar NH2 • Accessibility (walkable) • Low travel cost and time • Employment • Middle income groups • Medium cost for plots and apartments. • Safety and surveillance. • High sense of belonging/ interaction
- 14. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOODS L3-Neighborhood three (NH3) Kukreja Nagar and Neighborhood four (NH4) Aahuja Nagar: NH3 • Accessibility (vehicular/walkable) • Moderate travel cost and time • Partial employment • Lower income groups • Safety and security. • High sense of belonging
- 15. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOODS L3-Neighborhood three (NH3) Kukreja Nagar and Neighborhood four (NH4) Aahuja Nagar: NH4 • Accessibility (vehicular/walkable) • Moderate travel cost and time • Partial employment • Middle income groups • Safety and security. • High sense of belonging
- 16. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOODS L3-Neighborhood five (NH5) Kalpana Nagar: NH6 • Accessibility (vehicular/walkable) • High travel cost and time • Medium cost for plots and apartments. • Partial employment • Middle income groups • Safety and security. • High sense of belonging NH5
- 17. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOODS L4-Neighborhood eleven (NH11) Shambhu Nagar and Dhobale (NH12) : Shambhu nagar- sprawl growth Dhobale- sprawl NH6 • Accessibility (vehicular) • Very high travel cost and time • Low cost for plots and apartments. • Lack of employment • Low and middle income groups • Crime and theft prone. • Less interaction and sense of belonging. • Lack of physical and social infrastructure.
- 18. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEIGHBOURHOODS FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS 1. Accessibility • High mix neighbourhood has better access to both physical and social infrastructure as against segregated areas. • NH1 being CBD acts as a transit node and is well connected to all parts of Nagpur with transit facility. • NH2 also has good transit facility followed by NH3 and NH4, fairly in NH5 but NH6 lacks transit facility. 2. Travel time Proximity of the basic amenities in the neighbourhood • Increase in trip length also increases the travel time for both work and education trip in all neighbourhoods except in NH1 for work trip. • The trip length for education of school going students is less in NH3 but time consumed is more due to the mode of travel which is either cycle or walk. • Higher travel time consumption leads to less quality time available for the personal and family enrichment. Travel time in minutes SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012). Social Sustainability and Mixed Land use, Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 76-82.
- 19. 3. Economic status and travel habits • Overall the residents in all neighbourhood except NH3 had higher range of selected middle and higher income group households. • All the facilities in NH1are in close proximity thus residents spend less capital and time on travel as against NH5 and 6 where the residents need to move out for all amenities. • The ownership of vehicles is less significant to the land use mix but is more associated with the economic status of the individuals as against the common notion. Travel Cost in Rupees and Percentage of Income 4. Sense of belonging /Interaction Vehicle Ownership in Percentage • None of the residents feel that they have poor sense of belonging (figure 6) irrespective of the lack of the facilities in some neighbourhoods. • Sense of belonging is also directly related to the age of the neighbourhood.
- 20. 5. Safety and Surveillance • NH1 is safe except at few commercial pockets which tend to remain vacant during night hours. • Residents in NH2, 3 and 4 feel safe both on streets and home and has natural surveillance due to diverse mix. The mix of business and service oriented occupation make it vibrant and active even till late night. • Except on the major periphery roads the neighbourhoods are safe for all age group people. 6. Employment • NH1 being the CBD, is the main source of employment generation, so has an intrusion of floating population. • NH2, 3 and 4 has a mix of both resident’s comprising their workplace nearby (business) and at other places • Residents in NH5 and 6 has to move out from their neighbourhood for work. 7. Infrastructure Quality • NH1 has overloaded physical and social infrastructure. There is lack of open spaces, natural light and ventilation. The major problem is noise and air pollution caused by the floating population. • Nh2, 3 and 4 has moderate to good social and physical infrastructure. Major problem is in NH6 which lacks the provision of basic infrastructure like municipal water supply, sewage line and street lights. • There is also lack of social infrastructure like health, education and recreation facilities in nh6 making it more vulnerable to unsocial activities like crime and theft. SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012). Social Sustainability and Mixed Land use, Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 76-82.
- 21. Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, Arlington County, VIrginia
- 24. This vision for Crystal City Conceptis expressed through the following seven goals and supporting objectives which are reflected in the concept plan and policy framework: 1. Create a High Quality Public Realm that Strengthens the Sense of Place • Coordinate the public realm so that the street system, transit system, sidewalks and interior walkway system, and a variety of public open spaces work together to establish the framework around which redevelopment shall occur. • Improve the urban form and pedestrian experience while enhancing street-level activity and connectivity for all users by designing smaller, tree-lined neighborhood blocks. • Target existing underutilized paved spaces for consolidation into development sites before impacting existing green spaces. • Increase the amount of high-quality, accessible and “usable” public open space in Crystal City. • Create a variety of accessible public spaces that are strategically phased and located throughout Crystal City. These public spaces should be appropriately sized, designed, and programmed to attract, serve and support the anticipated population of residents, workers, and visitors including their recreation, leisure, social and cultural needs. • Acknowledge residual open spaces between buildings for their ability to provide visual relief and a calming influence. FACTORS LEADING TO INCEPTION
- 25. 2. Provide a Mix of Uses by balancing office, residential, retail, cultural, and civic uses among several defined neighborhood centers. • Define the City by its neighborhoods, including the northern neighborhood, the central Metro station district, the entertainment district, and the hotel district. • Create a more even balance between residential and office uses and daytime and evening populations, and maintain an economically sustainable hotel base. • Improve the availability of primary elements of daily living within Crystal City. • Create a thriving “Class A” office environment. • Provide a mix of housing options to accommodate households with differing income levels, family composition, and accessibility requirements. • Provide varied cultural and civic facilities and uses (such as theaters, emergency service facilities, health care, day care, urgent medical care, meeting spaces, etc.) for all age groups, and strategically locate them near transit centers, public spaces, and restaurants to promote those venues and help define neighborhood centers. • Encourage a diverse mix of retail spaces, including grocery stores, to maintain and attract local retail and neighborhood services in addition to major and national retailers.
- 26. 3. Relate Architectural and Urban Design to the Human Scale • Create new buildings where the base of at least one or two stories relates to the street level and the top creates a meaningful connection to the sky. • Use wide expanses of glass for the base of building retail spaces to promote street activity. • Use building massing and elevations to create and frame the public realm and to preserve and enhance views from within the public realm. • Create distinct and defined block edges. • Provide a meaningful and careful transition from the core of the city to the adjacent single family neighborhood. 4. Enhance Multimodal Access and Connectivity • Improve transportation and land-use connections within and beyond Crystal City through transit-oriented development. • Enhance City’s transit orientation with new and better transit services and facilities designed to meet the future needs of the city, and to further encourage residents, workers, and visitors to select transit over personal vehicles. • Enhance City’s multimodal transportation infrastructure by designing transit facilities as integral architectural elements and improving overall transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access and connectivity. • Provide high quality surface transit service that has travel times competitive with private automobiles, attracts riders.
- 27. Economic Aspects Observed- • Transit Orientation- The corridor comprises of Metro rail transit around which each zone is planned in a concentric pattern. • Cheaper Than Sectored Layout- It is much cheaper and logical when majority of the population is centred around a major transit route utilised by many. • Long-Term Economic Sustainability- Provide flexibility to phase development to meet market conditions, support timely redevelopment of properties most impacted by BRAC, encourage redevelopment, andaddress future public improvements. • The Revenue Generation Boom-The result is seven mixed-use, walkable and bicycle-friendly Metro transit villages. Two Metro corridors accommodate 36 million square feet of office space, 6 million square feet of retail space and over 47,000 residential units. Basically, higher revenue per sq km of area. Social Aspects Observed- • High Quality Public Realm- Due to closeness of every facility, the quality of life has a higher median index. • Integrity of the Single-Family Neighborhood- Provide improved pedestrian, bike and other connections between the corridor and adjacent single-family neighborhoods, to help reduce the barrier effect of the highway. • Cultural Enhancement- Establishment of identifiable landscape, public art, or architectural features at gateway locations, as much land is preserved for a cultural scenario, in a compact establishment. • Defining neighborhood centers- Varied cultural and civic facilities and uses (such as theaters, emergency service facilities, health care, day care, urgent medical care, meeting spaces, etc.) for all age groups can be strategically located near transit centers, public spaces, and restaurants to promote those venues and help define neighborhood centers.
- 28. Kolli Rajesh M.City Planning, B.Arch kollirajesh888@gmail.com Thank You