Compact city policies: a comparative assessment

TADASHI MATSUMOTO

松本 忠

Organisation for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD)

March 12, 2012

US Department of Housing and Urban Development;

Washington, DC

Aim of the study

1. To better understand the compact city concept and the implications of today’s urban contexts

2. To better understand potential outcomes, particularly in terms of Green Growth

3. To develop indicators to monitor compact cities

4. To examine current compact city practices in OECD

5. To propose key compact city strategies

Compact City?

Dense and proximate development

patterns

• Urban land is intensively utilized

• Urban agglomerations are contiguous or close together

• Distinct border between urban and rural land use

• Public spaces are secured

Urban areas linked by public transport

systems

• Effective use of urban land

• Public transport systems facilitate mobility in urban areas

Accessibility to local services and jobs

• Land use is mixed

• Most residents have access to local services either on foot or using public transport

At the metropolitan scale:

Key findings

Five key urban trends

1. Urbanisation and the increasing need to conserve land resources

2. The threat of climate change to cities

3. The rise in energy prices

4. The challenge of sustainable economic growth

5. Declining population, ageing and smaller households in cities

Urban population keeps increasing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

50

19

55

19

60

19

65

19

70

19

75

19

80

19

85

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

05

20

09

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

OECD urban OECD rural

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

50

19

55

19

60

19

65

19

70

19

75

19

80

19

85

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

05

20

09

20

10

20

15

20

20

20

25

20

30

20

35

20

40

20

45

World urban World rural

OECD countries (left) and World (right)

Land is consumed at a faster rate…

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Urb

an

bu

ilt-

up

are

a (

in k

m2

)

OECD BRICs Rest of the world

…than population growth

Australia

Austria

Belgium

CanadaChile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

FinlandFrance

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

JapanKorea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New ZealandNorway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

SpainSweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

-0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

-0.6% -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%

An

nu

al a

ve

rag

e t

ota

l bu

ilt-u

p a

rea

gro

wth

ra

te (2

00

0-2

05

0)

Annual average total population growth rate (2000-2050)

Energy price affects location choice

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Re

al in

de

x fo

r In

du

stry

an

d H

ou

seh

old

Coal Electricity (kWh) Oil Products Total Energy

More demands for smaller houses…

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1980 2008

Average household size

…and urban living

Percentage of one-person households

2. How can compact city policies contribute to urban

sustainability and green growth?

6 sub-characteristics

1. shorter intra-urban travel distances

2. less automobile dependency

3. more district-wide energy utilisation and local energy generation

4. optimal use of land resources and more opportunity for urban-rural linkages

5. more efficient public services delivery

6. better access to a diversity of local services and jobs

Environmental benefits

Australia

Austria Belgium Denmark

Czech Republic

Canada

Finland

France

Germany Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy Japan Korea

Mexico

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Turkey

United States

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

pe

r ca

pit

a tr

ansp

ort

CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns

in 2

00

6

(kg

CO

2/

po

pu

lati

on

)

Urban density in 2005 (population/ km2)

A

B

C

CO2 emissions per capita in transport and density in predominantly urban areas, 2005-06

Lower expenditure on public service

Administrative cost in low-density urban areas

Average cost per

resident as a

metropolitan region

Population density (X-axis) and cost of

infrastructure maintenance per capita

(Y-axis)

Population density that

meets the average cost

(40 persons/ha )

Source: "Toyama City Compact Urban Development Investigative Research Report"

Walkability to local service

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Population density (persons/ sq.Km.)

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% d

we

lin

gs

wit

nin

50

0m

Distance to the nearest Convenience store

Aichi

Gifu

Nagoya

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Population density (persons/ sq.Km.)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% d

we

lin

gs

wit

nin

50

0m

Distance to the nearest post of f ice or bank

Region

Aichi

Gifu

Nagoya

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Population density (persons/ sq.Km.)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% d

we

lin

gs

wit

nin

50

0m

Distance to the nearest medical fac ilit ies

Aichi

Gifu

Nagoya

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Population density (persons/ sq.Km.)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% d

we

lin

gs

wit

nin

50

0m

Distance to the nearest station

Aichi

Gifu

Nagoya

Distance to the nearest medical facilities

Source: Kaido and Kwon (2008)

Mobility

• Affordability : compact city can achieve lower transport costs

• Higher mobility for people without access to a car

Concerns

• Potential adverse negative effects

1. Traffic congestion

2. Housing affordability

3. Quality of life (loss of open and recreational spaces, etc.)

4. Energy (urban heat islands, etc.)

• Lack of local balances

• Long-term policy effects

3. Measuring the performance of a compact city

The proposed 18 indicators

• Population and urban land growth

• Population density on urban land

• Retrofitting existing urban land

• Intensive use of buildings

• Housing form

• Trip distance

• Urban land cover

:

3-D density map: Portland

Source: OECD (2012), Compact City Policies: A Comparative Assessment, OECD, Paris.

Source: OECD work with data from Landscan (2009)

3-D density map: Paris

Source: OECD (2012), Compact City Policies: A Comparative Assessment, OECD, Paris.

3-D density map: Vancouver

Source: OECD (2012), Compact City Policies: A Comparative Assessment, OECD, Paris.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30- AllS

ha

re o

f g

rid

ce

lls

by d

en

sit

y le

ve

l in

urb

an

lan

d

Distance from the centre (km)

High (>=5000 pop/km2)

Medium (2,500-4,999 pop/km2)

Low (0-2,499 pop/km2)

Density gradient graph Vancouver (Canada)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30- All

Sh

are

of g

rid

ce

lls

by d

en

sit

y in

urb

an

lan

d

Distance from the centre (km)

High (>=5000 pop/km2)Medium (2,500-4,999 pop/km2)Low (0-2,499 pop/km2)

Portland (US)

Urban land cover

Athens (3.4 million) Atlanta (4.6 million)

Population living close to transport stations/network

97.7%

42.2%

13.8%

83.9%

63.7%

29.8%

Within 400 m of bus service

Within 400 m of FTN

Within 800 m of rapid transit

Within 800 m of bus service

Within 400 m of bus service

Within 800 m of rail service

Vanc

ouve

rTo

yam

a

Matching local services and homes

Policy practices in use

Regulatory / informative Fiscal

Public

investment /

partnership

Master plan with explicit compact

city goals / instruments

Urban design guidelines

Urban growth boundary / urban

containment boundary

Greenbelt

Urban service boundary

Agricultural / natural land reserve

Minimum density requirement

Mixed-use requirement

Restriction on green-field

development

Restricting location of facilities

causing high trip frequency

Taxation of under-

density

Congestion tax /

fee / charges

Subsidies for

densification

Tax incentives for

promoting

development near

transit stations

Location Efficient

Mortgage

Split-rate property

tax

Purchasing

land for

natural

reserve

Development

agreement for

dense/mixed-

use

development

Source: OECD compact city survey

The five key strategies • Establish a national urban policy framework that includes compact city

policies

• Encourage metropolitan-wide strategic planning

1. Set explicit compact city goals

• Increase effectiveness of regulatory tools

• Target compact urban development in green-field areas

• Set minimum density requirements for new development

• Establish mechanisms to reconcile conflicts of interests

• Strengthen urban-rural linkage

2. Encourage dense and proximate

development

• Promote brown-field development

• Harmonise industrial policies with compact city policies

• Regenerate existing residential areas

• Promote transit-oriented development in built-up areas

• Encourage “intensification” of existing urban assets

3. Retrofit existing built-up areas

• Promote mixed land use

• Improve the match between residents and local services and jobs

• Encourage focused investment in public space and foster a “sense of place”

• Promote a walking and cycling environment

4. Enhance diversity and quality of life

• Counteract traffic congestion

• Encourage the provision of affordable housing

• Promote high-quality urban design to lower “perceived” density

• Encourage greening of built-up areas

5. Minimise adverse negative

effects

30

Inner-city TOD (LRT, Toyama)

Transfer between the transport modes (LRT, Toyama)

Retrofitting built-up areas + housing affordability (Laneway Housing, Vancouver)

Urban design in contexts (Southeast False Creek, Vancouver)

Storm water + heat island + perceived density (green street, Portland)

Public and private green space (Paris)

Improving metropolitan governance

• A vision: region-wide, integrated, long-term

• Articulate the roles and responsibilities of all key actors and stakeholders in the vision

• Vertical and horizontal coordination

• Accountability, transparency and reporting

Next steps

• More case studies

– Fast-growing metropolitan areas (Asia)

– Shrinking metropolitan areas (US, Japan, Europe)

• Theme specific studies

– Housing and compact city

– Energy and compact city

• Indicators

Thank you

Tadashi.Matsumoto@oecd.org