Urban Consolidation
Factors and Fallacies in Urban Consolidation: Introduction As proponents of urban consolidation and consolidated living continue to manifest in our society, we must ensure that our acknowledgment of its benefits, and the problems of its agitator (sprawl), do not hinder our caution over its continually changing objectives.
Definition Like much urban policy, the potential benefits that urban consolidation and the urban village concept seek to offer are substantially undermined by ambiguous definition. This ambiguity, as expressed through a general lack of inter-governmental and inter-professional cohesion on this policy, can best be understood in terms of individual motives (AIUSH,1991).
State Government^s participatory role in the reduction of infrastructure spending.
Urban Professional^s recognition of the increased variability, robustness, and interest in both the urban area and their work. Conservation Activist^s commendation of the lower consumption of resources, and reduced pressure on sensitive environment areas, suggestive of a reduction in urban sprawl.
The Development Industry^s equations of profit established through better and higher levels of land use.
Essentially urban consolidation proposes an increase of either population or dwellings in an existing defined urban area (Roseth,1991). Furthermore, the suburban village seeks to establish this intensification within a more specific agenda, in which community is to be centred by public transport nodes, and housing choice is to be widened with increased diversity of housing type (Jackson,1998). The underlying premise of this swing towards urban regeneration, and the subsequent debate about higher-density development, is the reconsideration of the suburban ideal and the negative social and environmental implications inherent in its continuation (Johnson, 1994). In reference...
View Full Essay