Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
HOUSING IN THE URBAN FRINGE PERCEPTIONS ON CYPRUS AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Professor Malachy McEldowney PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
HOUSING IN THE URBAN FRINGE PERCEPTIONS ON CYPRUS AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Professor Malachy McEldowney

HOUSING IN THE URBAN FRINGE PERCEPTIONS ON CYPRUS AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Professor Malachy McEldowney

452 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

HOUSING IN THE URBAN FRINGE PERCEPTIONS ON CYPRUS AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Professor Malachy McEldowney

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. HOUSING IN THE URBAN FRINGEPERCEPTIONS ON CYPRUSAND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIESProfessor Malachy McEldowney

  2. CYPRUS - PERCEPTIONS FROM OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES EU COST Action C10

  3. Perceptions on Cyprus:from Austria (Axel Borsdorf) • Nicosia as series of towns – cultural centre town, shopping centre town, university town • Surburbia more important than outskirts • Evidence of buoyant economy in Cyprus • Lack of public open space, public transport • Problem of derelict sites, lack of maintenance

  4. Perceptions on Cyprus: from Denmark (John Jorgensen) • Cyprus wants planning - but not too much • British system – but not enthusiastic • Re-centring Nicosia – like Berlin • Piecemeal development/lack of footpaths etc. • Buffer-zone – great public landscape opportunity

  5. Perceptions on Cyprus: from Belgium (Jean-Marie Halleux) • Dominance of the single-family house syndrome • Nicosia - 200.000 people in space for 1 million people • Most intensive outskirtisation of all COST cities • House building as dominant sector of economy? • Housing demand rather than housing need?

  6. Perceptions on Cyprus:from Slovenia (Metka Sitar) • Similarities with Slovenia and Mediterranean area • Much work for developers and architects, but not for urban designers • Communal space limited; residential space privatised • Houses close together – people are private but friendly!

  7. Perceptions on Cyprus:from Switzerland (Maresa Schumacher) • Compared to Switzerland, Cyprus uses land very inefficiently • Interesting architecture – high quality, organic, refugee housing • Taxis for everything – to airport, to pub, to shops • Buffer zone – outskirts in centre of city

  8. Perceptions on Cyprus:from Spain (Andrés Walliser) • Familiar Mediterranean, plus unfamiliar (British?) character • Family-focus rather than community-focus • Organic architecture - houses to grow as family grows • Extensive middle-class – prosperous • Immigration – future problem?

  9. Perceptions on Cyprus:from France: (Genevieve Dubois-Taine) • Dynamic city in dynamic economy • Divided city - cf. Berlin, Belfast • Ambiguity towards past: no strong conservation ethic? • Low-density city - high plot ratios • Poly-nuclear city emerging - planned or accidental? • Governance - lacks integration and enforcement ?

  10. Perceptions on Cyprus:from UK/Ireland (McEldowney/Houston) • Contrast with Northern European cities - low density, privatised • Political rather than technical influences on planning ? • British planning structures but local interpretations – like Ireland • Divided city - cf. Belfast; urban sprawl cf. Dublin • Dominance of ’60s architecture – what is Cypriot architectural character ?

  11. LESSONS FROM OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES • COST C10 Cities Classification • Governance and Legislation • Case Study Cities – Copenhagen, Madrid, Zurich/Limmertal

  12. Classification of Cities PARIS, MADRID • Core city - dense, homogeneous, small family apartments • Transport stars and rings • Family houses in large/medium-size satellite towns • Sprawl outside the agglomeration

  13. Classification of Cities BIARRITZ, ANGLET, BAYONNE, SAN SEBASTIAN • Towns and urban villages forming a network of centres and poles • Family housing in Anglet suburb, in villages and in Basque countryside

  14. Classification of Cities COPENHAGEN, HELSINKI, INNSBRUCK • Finger patterns along transport routes • Topographical constraints (Innsbruck) • Green wedges – well controlled • Little housing dissemination beyond urban boundaries • Single-family housing in planned ‘pearls’ (C’hagen,H’sinki) or traditional villages (Innsbruck)

  15. Classification of Cities BELFAST • Low-density family housing in suburbs • Medium-density family social housing in inner city • Sprawl contained by Green Belt • Scattered family housing in rural areas beyond green belt

  16. Classification of Cities BERLIN, FLORENCE, NICOSIA • Patchwork of housing, industrial estates, green areas, satellite towns • Dissemination of family housing in countryside – villas in Florence region, housing settlements in Brandenburg, individual houses in the Nicosia countryside

  17. Governance and Legislation From Newman and Thornley (1998): 4 legal and administrative ‘families’ in Western Europe Cyprus in Napoleonic and Mediterranean area but in British system British system characterised by centralised policy guidance and local planning discretion Other European systems characterised by decentralised planning and codified regulations

  18. Governance and Legislation From: Sellars (2004) EARLY 20TH CENTURY INITIATIVES • Leaders – Germany, Netherlands, UK (Extensive public housing, metropolitan planning, annexation) • Mixed Cases – Switzerland, Sweden (Sizeable public housing, limited planning, some annexation) • Laggards –France, USA, Canada (Limited planning and zoning, rent control, limited public housing)

  19. Governance and Legislation From Sellars (2004): EARLY 20TH CENTURY: KEY INSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS • Local building regulations • Local land use planning or zoning regulation • Public enterprises for transport, housing, utilities • Land expropriation for public purposes • Compensation for expropriation • Financing for public construction • Public subsidies for housing • Development of municipal enterprise

  20. CopenhagenGovernance and Legislation • Finger Plan 1947 – no judicial status, but basis of subsequent statutory plans • Greater Copenhagen Council 1974 – strategic planning and transportation functions • Abolished 1989 – regional planning by central government • 1995 - Greater Copenhagen Authority established – co-ordination of regional planning, economic development, tourism and traffic planning/public transport implementation • ‘Return to the past’ for metropolitan government

  21. CopenhagenGovernance and Legislation • Strict zoning law since 1928 – protects green wedges. • Zoning successful because of strong interdependent hierarchy of plans – national, regional, municipal, local (statutory) • Municipal income tax (20%)residential-based so no commercial incentive • Regional (or national) strategic control since 1970s – e.g. out of town shopping centre (3000m2) banned since 1995 • Municipality owns most land around ‘fingers’ – uses to provide recreation etc. or sells with strict covenants (social housing etc.).

  22. MadridGovernance and Legislation • 1940s-70s: Uncontrolled development: slums , sub-standard housing south of city; family social housing in high-rise flats • No coherent planning system, reliance on central government favour, mono-centric model, strong public transport necessary • 1980s-2000: Development of democracy, challenge to mono-centric model, production of metropolitan and municipal plans • Massive family housing demand to be met by 8 medium-density new settlements linked by short distance railway and new roads • Dispersion and sprawl regarded as waste of land, but strong building industry and young family preferences fuelling decentralisation trends.

  23. MadridGovernance and Legislation • Strong regional autonomy – Madrid Region (178 municipalities) sets urban planning agenda • Strong tradition of land ownership rights since Franco – even in ‘favelas’ • Booming private house market - 16% annual house price rise, 30 % sales for investment, 7/1 price/salery ratio • Land Deregulation (1996) – all land outside restricted areas/farmland available for development • Strong development lobby - banks, landowners, politicians; public spending focused on ‘visible’ projects – like transport or malls.

  24. ZurichGovernance and Legislation • Decentralised settlement concentrations and networked system of towns • Rural/urban integration: small towns as heart of Swiss system, highly-efficient agriculture as part of urban agglomeration • Inter-cantonal rivalry: differential tax regimes to attract commercial investment or wealthy residents • Strong on local governance, public participation, environmental regulation, weak on strategic planning

  25. ZurichGovernance and Legislation • Planning system: federalism and subsidiarity • Federal level-transport and environmental policy only; Canton-level Master Plans; Municipal-level – Zoning Plans (legal) • Single-family housing areas – innovative, imaginative, organic – a ‘kaleidoscope of private living-dreams’

  26. NORTHERN IRELAND Urban Containment and Housing in the Countryside

  27. Green Belt and Countryside Policy • Countryside as amenity and tourist resource • Countryside policy areas –where development pressure is strong • Green belts to contain urban sprawl and to define key settlements

  28. Belfast Metropolitan Green Belt • British green belt tradition • Established 1963 - Matthew • Stopline to Green Belt 1989 • Green belt breaches well - justified • Whiteland for suburban development

  29. Green Belt Conditions Single houses permitted if: • replacement(150% area) • in inset settlement • agricultural need • social justification • special case

  30. Housing outside Green Belt

  31. Housing Design • Celtic settlement pattern - dispersed single houses • British settlement pattern – nucleated villages • Compromise – protected areas and ‘rural remainder’ • Suburban styles – poor design tradition • Ineffective planning – design guides as ‘rule books’

  32. The End