The Role Of Urban Functional Space And Combination Of Regional Network Has Facilitated A Completely New Model Of Urban Development

From 1890 to 1920, cities in the United States experienced a rapid growth that was unprecedented in years previous. This growth was caused by a number of factors and resulted in both positive and negative consequences. Such factors included, industrialization, technological advances, migration and immigration. Although American cities greatly improved by the expeditious urbanization, these factors also developed numerous challenges including pollution, sanitation problems, a need for environmental reform, political corruption, overcrowding, high crime rates and segregation.

The study of urban spaces, especially with respect to gentrification, has increased dramatically in significance and relevance in the past several decades. With the resurgence of city living’s popularity, urban revitalization has occurred in neighborhoods across the United States and brought with it significant economic and social change.

Interestingly enough, the decline of a major American suburban area went unnoticed for several years. Several economists realized that the failure could’ve been caused by the lack of actual “metropolitan-ness” in the area, meaning that the city wasn’t economically associated with the suburban towns that surround them.

There are many who suggest the solution to the decline of the suburbs is to urbanize the area by densifying and overall making the suburbs more similar to a city. Laura Vaughan argues that the development of a spatial layout similar to that of a city would help the suburbs to become more efficient socially and economically. However, this approach directly contrasts the purpose of the suburbs, which was originally meant to provide a private, quiet environment for single family homes away from loud and busy city life. In his book, “Sprawl: A Compact History,” Robert Bruegmann explains that suburbia is not a bad thing but possesses “benefits that urban planners fail to recognize” and is a natural process of the growth of urbanism. While the suburban landscape does possess much potential, those who support the continued existence of the suburbs as they exist are naive and fail to recognize the environmental, social, and economical impact that the suburbs impose. The suburbs possess many social and political issues that need to be addressed. There is no doubt that there is massive potential in the suburban

Urban sprawl was a major problem and had many negative effects. "Suburban sprawl, “called urban sprawl was a result of overpopulation. Sprawl occurred when cities spread outward. Forests and farmland were being destroyed to create new housing subdivisions, shopping centers, offices, parking areas, civic institutions and roadways. State governments built highways and roads to serve all the new commuters moving in and out of the city. Developers chose to build on less expensive land farther away from the urban core. Land prices were lower and housing in these developments was more affordable. Some people chose a longer commute in exchange for more comfortable, low-priced housing. The sprawl was a chronological process that devastated the land and life of the American people. This problem described here continues to be a problem. And many people are unaware that urban sprawl continues to be a problem. Friendly neighborhoods, traditional pedestrian have fallen victim to this problem. Environmental activists claimed that urban sprawl, was a substantial environmental threat. But activists concerned about sprawl should concentrate on existing government policies that encourage suburban development and prevent greater redevelopment of urban areas.

Gentrification is a general term for the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban, district a related increase in rents and property values and changes in district’s character and culture. Gentrification works by accretion which is gathering momentum like a snowball. Gentrification has been the cause of painful conflict in many American cities. America’s renewed interest in city life has put a premium on urban neighborhoods, some of which have been built since World War II. It tends to occur in districts with particular qualities that make them desirable and ripe for change. Word travels that an attractive neighborhood has been “discovered” and the pace of change accelerates rapidly. An increase in median income and a decline in the

Amid the last years of the 1800s, modern urban areas, with every one of the issues brought on by quick populace development and absence of foundation to bolster the development, involved an extraordinary place in U.S. history. For every one of the issues, and there were numerous, the urban communities advanced an uncommon security amongst individuals and established the framework for the multiethnic, multicultural society that we love today.

What comes to mind when you think of terms like: suburbia, urban sprawl, NIMBY, sustainability? We will discuss some of them in further detail, but one thing is for certain, these are all concepts that will effect every single American Citizen in the near future; if they do not already. The documentary Suburban America: Problems & Promises explores some of the intricacies and roles that suburban development has played in the past and gives us insight as to what might be see moving forward in to the future. This fascinating documentary is just shy of one hour, but it covers a surprising amount of ground in that time.

Residential, commercial and industrial development is the largest contributors to landscape change in the state of New Jersey. When buildout occurs in one region, development pressure begins in another, virtually insuring the Megalopolis concept of one huge urban corridor stretching between Boston and Washington D.C. Year after year, farmland dwindles, roads become congested, and more residents are left to compete for diminishing natural resources. Desperate measures and newer technologies are incorporated to replace poor planning and lack of vision on behalf of decision-makers caught between competing interests. When the long term health and wellbeing of the established population and the short term gain of a

Human Geographer David Ley defines Gentrification as “the transition of inner-city neighborhoods from a status of relative property and limited property investment to a state of commodification and reinvestment.” (Ley Artists 1) In the past 50 years gentrification has swept over cities across the globe and has completely reshaped the way people think about why people live in certain neighborhoods. British sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term gentrification in 1964 to describe what was happening in the London borough of Islington, where Indian immigrants were being forced out in favor of creative young professionals. (Thomson). The term comes from the old english word gentry, which generally means wellborn well-bred and upper class people. For the most part of the last five decades gentrification has made large cities and downtown urban areas safer, more desirable for commercialization, more affluent, greener and more eco-friendly and has played a role in the vast change of demographics of many neighborhoods. This ‘urban renewal’ has been subject to many political debates, academic studies and research to figure out its positive and negative impacts on the socioeconomic nature of the cities it takes place in. Here on the eastern seaboard of the US we see gentrification in every city from Center City Philadelphia, to Chelsea, to Columbia Heights in DC. However this movement to gentrify is not reserved for the

Many downtowns first emerged as a distinctive place due to elite residents with homes in the area, which served as meeting places for important business transactions. By the late 19th century downtowns had typically been laid out with designated business blocks (Ford 2003). The growth of the business block as an economic center and booming downtown forced out any competition that were not appropriate with “high rents, social pressure and architectural change” (Ford 2003, pp 45). This was the origin of the spatial structure and land use patterns that are associated with contemporary downtowns. The origin of the town structure is most commonly affiliated with European cities as models of spatial layout. Specialty business and retail districts that characterized American downtowns and what we now image a good downtown to be are directly linked to it European counterpart. The key characteristic that defer from the European model was the tendency for American cities to be street-oriented rather then place-oriented. This contributed to the more linear structure of the city, business pursued locations on the “main street” rather then near major plazas or religious buildings (Robertson 1997).

Burgess’s concentric zone theory was presented in 1924. He presented a descriptive urban land use model that divided cities in a set of concentric circles expanding from downtown to the suburbs. His representation came from Burgess’ observations of various American cities, especially Chicago. Burgess model assumes a relationship between the socio-economic status of households and the distance from the Central Business District. The further from the district, the better the quality of housing, but the longer the commuting time. Making this Accessing better housing is done at the expense of longer commuting times and costs as well. According to Burgess, urban growth is a process of expansion and reconversion of land uses, with a tendency of each inner zone to expand in the outer zone. According to Burgess’ theory, a large city is divided in six concentric zones, Burgess’s model has its cons according to critics. It is said to be a product of its time. That is, it won’t work the same with present cities. The model was developed when American cities were growing very fast and when motorized transportation was still uncommon as most people used public transit. Thus the concept cannot be applied to those from the second half to the twentieth century where highways have enabled urban development to escape the reconversion process and to take place directly in the suburbs. The model in this case was developed for American cities and is limited elsewhere.

Metropolitan areas exhibit an amazing diversity of features, economic structures, amounts of infrastructure, historic roots, patterns of development, and degrees of conventional planning. Yet, lots of the problems that they deal with are strikingly acquainted. For example, as metropolitan areas grow, they grow to be increasingly diverse.

New Urbanism, a burgeoning genre of architecture and city planning, is a movement that has come about only in the past decade. This movement is a response to the proliferation of conventional suburban development (CSD), the most popular form of suburban expansion that has taken place since World War II. Wrote Robert Steuteville, "Lacking a town center or pedestrian scale, CSD spreads out to consume large areas of countryside even as population grows relatively slowly. Automobile use per capita has soared, because a motor vehicle is required for nearly all human transportation"1. New Urbanism, therefore, represents the converse of this planning ideology. It stresses traditional planning, including multi-purpose zoning,

An emerging issue is that of urban sprawl. While some aspects of urban sprawl has been seen since ancient times, this phenomenon has started gaining the most momentum in the past century, aided by the advancement of technology, especially with the rise of mass produced automobiles, houses and highway systems. Many people unknowingly contribute to this environmental problem, as is the nature of it. Urban sprawl deals with the growth of the suburbs, the area between the urban and rural areas of a city. Most of America’s largest cities and states, in terms of population, are prime examples of urban sprawl. Opponents of urban sprawl usually cite the government as a major cause of sprawl. The government may be a major catalyst of