Esther Zipori & Maurie J. Cohen (2015): Anticipating post-automobility: design policies for fostering urban mobility transitions, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development

 

access paper at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19463138.2014.991737

​

Most analyses of the urban environment unhelpfully separate the physical form of the built environment from its human dimensions. In addition, contemporary urban infrastructure is evaluated not as a complete system but as disaggregated parts with little connection to one another. With respect to mobility, researchers typically focus on pedestrians or cyclists and the availability (or lack thereof) of adequate roadway capacity and fail to appreciate the wider context in terms of, say, zoning requirements, weather, cultural practices and actual use of particular spaces. The main problem that derives from considering walkability or cyclability in such reductionistic terms, and without sufficient appreciation of the entire spectrum of factors that constitute a place, is that such analyses fail to consider the city as a complex and interwoven system comprising co-evolving physical and social elements.

 

We aim to create a more holistic and comprehensive framework to evaluate both the built and sociocultural environments of several paradigmatic urban areas and to identify several criteria necessary for beginning to plan for post-automobility. In contrast to the perspectives developed to date for assessing walkability/cyclability, we seek to capture in a fully integrated way the urban design and human dimensions of such places.

 

We begin by developing a taxonomy of substantially non-motorised cities that distinguishes three different archetypes and then examine a representative real-world example for each of them. First, heritage cities are urban places that have been continuously occupied for hundreds (or even thousands) of years and have physical infrastructures that have significantly impeded (and in many cases largely precluded) adaptation to the automobile. Our paradigmatic case of a heritage city is the Old City of Jerusalem.

Second, so-called modern green metropolises are cities that initially sought during the twentieth century to accommodate the private car, but have more recently adopted planning priorities that emphasise walking and cycling. This category of non-motorised cities is quite expansive and includes both medieval European cities such as Amsterdam and ‘new world’ counterparts like Vancouver. Copenhagen serves as our case study of a modern green metropolis.

 

Finally, during the last few years, there has been considerable interest in new ecological cities (or urban districts) that enable planners to transcend the complex problems of retrofitting existing places. Several self-styled eco-cities have been designed in China as well as in Europe and elsewhere around the world. We focus on Masdar City, an ambitious project in Abu Dhabi, as an exemplary eco-city.

 

Our typology – and by extension the three case studies – encompasses a diverse range of urban forms and the different challenges associated with non-motorisation. We overlay on this basic framework 10 evaluative criteria: residential density and land-use variation, human dimensions, versatility and complexity of activities, availability of urban amenities, adaptive reuse of existing infrastructure, level of flexibility, safety and health, social inclusion, travel speed and experiential quality, and ease of intermodality.

The evaluation criteria are based on our view that a city comprises three analytic categories: the users, the built environment and the means for movement. These elements obviously cannot be completely treated as single pillars, but are rather intertwined, creating the complex system that is urban living. The ways that users occupy and inhabit the built environment influence its mobility practices. Changes in the types of mobility and their availability precipitate alterations in the urban environment which causes users to modify their behaviors in accordance with the feedback loops depicted in Figure 1.

 

Three criteria are designed to

capture those relationships

in which users are the

dominant cause-and-effect 

instigators. First, human 

dimensions refer to how 

residents perceive the 

environment and the physical 

services that it provides.

 

Second, versatility and 

the complexity of activities denotes the social need for elaborate and entangled purposes and spontaneous actions in the same physical environment. Finally, social inclusion captures the way in which planning is used to positively affect socioeconomically and politically disadvantaged populations and their use of the built environment.

 

The built environment is then analyzed by means of three further criteria that are considered as multiple moments in time: residential density and land-use variation, availability of urban amenities, and adaptive reuse of existing infrastructure. The ensemble of built environment criteria takes into consideration the extent of government policy involvement, public interest, and private investment. First, the parameter residential density and land-use variation highlight the socio-demographic composition of a place as dictated by local government through zoning and planning with respect to infrastructure provisioning. Second, availability of urban amenities refers to the scope and operational performance of facilities such as traffic control, lighting and public transport. Finally, adaptive reuse of existing infrastructure is the criterion that determines the changing potential of the urban environment. The durability of a place is predicated on the capacity for the reclamation and repurposing of assets so that current use can fuse with the realization of future potential.

 

Mobility in the city is inherently complex. Beyond the availability of multiple mobilities in the urban environment, such as complex public transit systems and non-motorised transportation options, the mobility of a place can be ascertained in terms of functionality involving the level of flexibility, travel speed and quality of the overall experience, and ease of intermodality. The range and coverage of mobility options provided in a city are the main determents of the level of flexibility. In general terms, the extent of multi-functionality, allowing different user groups to access a diverse number of different forms of mobility, can be regarded as an indicator of a successful city. Functionality can also be assessed with respect to travel speed and experiential quality. Ease of intermodality is indicative of the ability of a user to transfer as required between different types of mobilities available in the urban environment and to maximize the potentialities of the overall system.

 

Ten planning criteria are used to appraise an urban environment as a holistic system. Considering a city through these parameters enables a preliminary understanding of the three basic driving forces of the city: the users, the built environment and the means for movement. By evaluating each of these determinants, it is possible to identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of a city with respect to its capacity to enable non-motorised transport.