Compact cities can prevent many problems that urban sprawl brings to cities. The United States, unlike the UK or Japan, has encouraged urban sprawl with its policies based on the free market capitalism. As a result, in American cities, as suburbanization accerelates, economic segregation has also been expanded and thus, many economic and social inequality issues have been emerged. In contrast to a compact city, which is highly dense and mixed-use, urban sprawl is explained as a low-density land development pattern that characterized by the separation of residential from commercial land uses (Dreier, Mollenkopf, & Swanstrom, 2014, p. 54). In this sense, Dreier, Mollenkopf and Swanstrom equalize the term “urban sprawl” with suburbanization. Even
…show more content…
encouraged suburbanization with policies that support automobile-use and home ownership, it also allowed local autonomy over taxation, land-use, housing and education to encourage economic competition between locals in a society based upon a public choice theory and free-market economy. As a consequence, by designing the location for the wealthy population, each local competed to be more exclusive than others in order to invite more favored, upper-class residents (p. 111). Therefore, in the United States, urban sprawl has incurred economic segregation and pushed economic inequality so that “the place where we live makes a big difference in the equality of our lives and the opportunities open to us” (p. 3). As Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom (2014) argues the place where we live determines the quality of education and housing, health and security conditions, and the amount of job opportunities and information given to residents, in such economic segregated cities in the U.S., the place one lives has great impact on his/her current and future life. Thus, American cities show us that urban sprawl can cause economic segregation and subsequent economic inequality among the society that people believe a compact city can …show more content…
More specifically, similarly to American cities, where suburbanization has caused economic inequality in cities, the green belt is accused of excluding people from some opportunities offered in a city. According to Mace, Blanc, Gordon, and Scanlon (2016), even though the London’s Green Belt has successfully stopped the physical growth of towns and cities located immediately surrounding countryside, some developments has taken place in the country areas beyond the Green Belt in response to the housing shortage within the inner London. As a result, just as American suburbanization, the London Green Belt encourages the unequal distribution of opportunities and resources offered to citizens depending on where they live. Therefore, the constrained urban form of the city of London does have not only positive but also negative consequences. While the London’s Green Belt enables the city to be a compact structure, by drawing a clear boundary, it excludes some people from the outside of the
encouraged suburbanization with policies that support automobile-use and home ownership, it also allowed local autonomy over taxation, land-use, housing and education to encourage economic competition between locals in a society based upon a public choice theory and free-market economy. As a consequence, by designing the location for the wealthy population, each local competed to be more exclusive than others in order to invite more favored, upper-class residents (p. 111). Therefore, in the United States, urban sprawl has incurred economic segregation and pushed economic inequality so that “the place where we live makes a big difference in the equality of our lives and the opportunities open to us” (p. 3). As Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom (2014) argues the place where we live determines the quality of education and housing, health and security conditions, and the amount of job opportunities and information given to residents, in such economic segregated cities in the U.S., the place one lives has great impact on his/her current and future life. Thus, American cities show us that urban sprawl can cause economic segregation and subsequent economic inequality among the society that people believe a compact city can …show more content…
More specifically, similarly to American cities, where suburbanization has caused economic inequality in cities, the green belt is accused of excluding people from some opportunities offered in a city. According to Mace, Blanc, Gordon, and Scanlon (2016), even though the London’s Green Belt has successfully stopped the physical growth of towns and cities located immediately surrounding countryside, some developments has taken place in the country areas beyond the Green Belt in response to the housing shortage within the inner London. As a result, just as American suburbanization, the London Green Belt encourages the unequal distribution of opportunities and resources offered to citizens depending on where they live. Therefore, the constrained urban form of the city of London does have not only positive but also negative consequences. While the London’s Green Belt enables the city to be a compact structure, by drawing a clear boundary, it excludes some people from the outside of the