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

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
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 ,&nbsp;Michael Wurm ,&nbsp;Ariane Droin ,&nbsp;Oana M. Garbasevschi ,&nbsp;Mathias Dolls ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Michael Wurm ,&nbsp;Ariane Droin ,&nbsp;Oana M. Garbasevschi ,&nbsp;Mathias Dolls ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在城市迅速扩张的时代,住房需求迫切,同时又要尽量减少城市土地的使用,这是两个相互竞争的目标。因此,大型住宅区(LHE)的概念再次受到关注。这种回潮引发了人们对这些历史上被污名化的建筑群内居住条件的质疑。虽然宜居性研究通常依赖于调查,但我们提出了一种全球适用的定量方法,从步行能力、可达性和建筑形态等维度评估宜居性。利用地理空间数据和基于步行距离的划分框架,我们确定了宜居性的差异。我们为德国的低密度住宅区确定了三种不同的规划模式:"结构化低密度 "型、德国西部的 "密度城市 "型和德国东部的 "社会主义城市 "型。我们的分析表明,在可达性和形态方面存在显著差异,这可归因于历史指导原则。相比之下,步行能力似乎更多地受到环境因素(河流、森林)和人工障碍(铁路线、高速公路)的影响,而不是规划范式的影响。结构化 "类型的特点是功能单一、城市基础设施有限、建筑密度低,但绿地比例高。密度城市化 "类型的建筑密度明显较高,交通便利,但城市绿化较少。社会主义 "城市类型无法明确分类,但似乎是其他两种类型的混合体。在我们的分析中,"按密度城市化 "类型的表现最好,因此成为最宜居的类型,有可能成为未来建设项目的指导模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Landscape and Urban Planning
Landscape and Urban Planning 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
6 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信