Manuel Köberl , Michael Wurm , Ariane Droin , Oana M. Garbasevschi , Mathias Dolls , Hannes Taubenböck
{"title":"德国大型住宅区的宜居性--根据步行城市的新概念确定差异","authors":"Manuel Köberl , Michael Wurm , Ariane Droin , Oana M. Garbasevschi , Mathias Dolls , Hannes Taubenböck","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In times of rapid urban expansion, urgent demand for housing and simultaneously efforts to minimise the use of urban land are competing objectives. The concept of large housing estates (LHE) has therefore regained interest. This resurgence raises questions about the living conditions within these historically stigmatised complexes. While liveability studies often rely on surveys, we present a globally applicable quantitative approach to assess liveability along the dimensions of walkability, accessibility and built-up morphology. Using geospatial data and a delineation framework based on walking distances, we identify disparities in liveability. We identified three different planning paradigms for LHEs in Germany: the ‘structured and low-dense’ type, the ‘urbanity by density’ type in Western Germany and the ‘socialistic city’ type in Eastern Germany. Our analysis reveals significant differences in accessibility and morphology, that can be attributed to the historical guiding principles. Walkability, in contrast, seems to be influenced more by environmental elements (rivers, forests) and artificial barriers (railway lines, motorways) than by planning paradigms. The ‘structured’ type is characterised by monofunctionality, limited access to urban infrastructure, low building density, but a high proportion of green spaces. The ‘urbanity by density’ type has significantly higher building densities, better accessibility, but less urban green. The ‘socialistic’ urban type could not be clearly categorised, but seems to be a mixture of the other two types. In our analysis, the <em>‘</em>urbanity by density’ typology predominantly performed the best and, as such, emerges as the most liveable typology, potentially serving as a guiding model for future construction projects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":"251 ","pages":"Article 105150"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920462400149X/pdfft?md5=4020d563b355c7b5d83df26bfe58d979&pid=1-s2.0-S016920462400149X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liveability in large housing estates in Germany – Identifying differences based on a novel concept for a walkable city\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Köberl , Michael Wurm , Ariane Droin , Oana M. Garbasevschi , Mathias Dolls , Hannes Taubenböck\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In times of rapid urban expansion, urgent demand for housing and simultaneously efforts to minimise the use of urban land are competing objectives. The concept of large housing estates (LHE) has therefore regained interest. This resurgence raises questions about the living conditions within these historically stigmatised complexes. While liveability studies often rely on surveys, we present a globally applicable quantitative approach to assess liveability along the dimensions of walkability, accessibility and built-up morphology. Using geospatial data and a delineation framework based on walking distances, we identify disparities in liveability. We identified three different planning paradigms for LHEs in Germany: the ‘structured and low-dense’ type, the ‘urbanity by density’ type in Western Germany and the ‘socialistic city’ type in Eastern Germany. Our analysis reveals significant differences in accessibility and morphology, that can be attributed to the historical guiding principles. Walkability, in contrast, seems to be influenced more by environmental elements (rivers, forests) and artificial barriers (railway lines, motorways) than by planning paradigms. The ‘structured’ type is characterised by monofunctionality, limited access to urban infrastructure, low building density, but a high proportion of green spaces. The ‘urbanity by density’ type has significantly higher building densities, better accessibility, but less urban green. The ‘socialistic’ urban type could not be clearly categorised, but seems to be a mixture of the other two types. In our analysis, the <em>‘</em>urbanity by density’ typology predominantly performed the best and, as such, emerges as the most liveable typology, potentially serving as a guiding model for future construction projects.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Landscape and Urban Planning\",\"volume\":\"251 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920462400149X/pdfft?md5=4020d563b355c7b5d83df26bfe58d979&pid=1-s2.0-S016920462400149X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Landscape and Urban Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920462400149X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape and Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920462400149X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Liveability in large housing estates in Germany – Identifying differences based on a novel concept for a walkable city
In times of rapid urban expansion, urgent demand for housing and simultaneously efforts to minimise the use of urban land are competing objectives. The concept of large housing estates (LHE) has therefore regained interest. This resurgence raises questions about the living conditions within these historically stigmatised complexes. While liveability studies often rely on surveys, we present a globally applicable quantitative approach to assess liveability along the dimensions of walkability, accessibility and built-up morphology. Using geospatial data and a delineation framework based on walking distances, we identify disparities in liveability. We identified three different planning paradigms for LHEs in Germany: the ‘structured and low-dense’ type, the ‘urbanity by density’ type in Western Germany and the ‘socialistic city’ type in Eastern Germany. Our analysis reveals significant differences in accessibility and morphology, that can be attributed to the historical guiding principles. Walkability, in contrast, seems to be influenced more by environmental elements (rivers, forests) and artificial barriers (railway lines, motorways) than by planning paradigms. The ‘structured’ type is characterised by monofunctionality, limited access to urban infrastructure, low building density, but a high proportion of green spaces. The ‘urbanity by density’ type has significantly higher building densities, better accessibility, but less urban green. The ‘socialistic’ urban type could not be clearly categorised, but seems to be a mixture of the other two types. In our analysis, the ‘urbanity by density’ typology predominantly performed the best and, as such, emerges as the most liveable typology, potentially serving as a guiding model for future construction projects.
期刊介绍:
Landscape and Urban Planning is an international journal that aims to enhance our understanding of landscapes and promote sustainable solutions for landscape change. The journal focuses on landscapes as complex social-ecological systems that encompass various spatial and temporal dimensions. These landscapes possess aesthetic, natural, and cultural qualities that are valued by individuals in different ways, leading to actions that alter the landscape. With increasing urbanization and the need for ecological and cultural sensitivity at various scales, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to comprehend and align social and ecological values for landscape sustainability. The journal believes that combining landscape science with planning and design can yield positive outcomes for both people and nature.