Transcript DELINEATION OF AHMEDABAD METROPOLITAN REGION Center for Environmental Planning & Technology (CEPT) By: Prof Utpal Sharma.

DELINEATION OF
AHMEDABAD METROPOLITAN REGION
Center for Environmental Planning & Technology (CEPT)
By: Prof Utpal Sharma
The Concept and The Objectives
“…Compact City Model espouses high density mixed use development within
a restrictive geographic area enhanced by public transport…”
(Jenks et al 1996; Williams et al 2000)
Today it prevails in most planning and city management policies in Europe, USA and Australia.
In USA it’s called TODs or Neotraditional Towns promoted through Smart Growth
movement.
Perceived Objectives are:
(Jenks et al., 1996; Williams et
al., 2000)
Saving Agricultural
Land:
• By reducing sprawl,
land in the countryside
is preserved
• Land in urban areas can
be recycled for
development.
Efficient Sustainable
Transportation:
• High Densities support
efficient public
transport
• Mixed Use helps Access;
inducing shorter trips
• People walk/cycle with
lesser fuel consumption
and lower emission.
Better Quality Of Life:
• Social Compactness
and Mixed Uses tends
greater Social Cohesion
and Cultural
Development
• Equitable forms offer
Better Access.
Benefits by Economies of
Agglomeration:
• Access to infrastructure
served cost-effectively
per capita
• Further higher densities
extend sufficient
support to local services
2
and businesses.
Cities on the Move
Following database from a set of 278 million plus population cities, explains the dynamics of
cities.
Top 20 Urban Areas
Top 20 Urban Area
Top 20 Urban Area
Top
20 Urban Areas ranked by
2005 Population
Tokyo/Yokohama
35,530,000
New York
19,712,000
Seoul/Incheon
19,500,000
Jakarta
18,200,000
Mexico City
18,100,000
São Paulo
17,800,000
Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto 17,250,000
Mumbai
17,078,039
Metro Manila
16,750,000
Cairo
15,750,000
Delhi
15,250,000
Moscow
14,000,000
Los Angeles
13,829,000
Shanghai
13,600,000
Kolkata
13,217,000
Buenos Aires
12,740,000
Beijing
11,250,000
Shenzhen
11,000,000
Rio de Janeiro
10,900,000
Istanbul
10,500,000
ranked by 2005 Land Area
ranked by Density
(sq.km.)
(p/sq.km.)
New York
Tokyo/Yokohama
Chicago
Zibo
Los Angeles
Boston
Atlanta
Cali
Nagoya
Philadelphia
Zaozhuang
Moscow
Dallas/Fort Worth
Xian
Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto
Houston
Detroit
Jakarta
Beijing
New York
11,264
7,835
5,952
5,938
5,812
5,501
5,083
4,978
4,662
4,661
4,550
3,885
3,644
3,550
3,497
3,355
3,267
3,108
3,043
3,043
Hong Kong
Coimbatore
Meerut
Mumbai
Chittagong
Chongqing
Rajkot
Indore
Jabalpur
Khulna
Nagpur
Dhaka
Kanpur
Ahmedabad
Allahabad
Lucknow
Patna
Nashik
Varanasi
Vijayawada
29,432
29,161
26,527
26,355
26,012
25,949
23,316
22,740
22,526
22,143
21,773
21,624
21,577
21,057
21,022
20,545
20,074
20,048
19,879
19,795
ranked by CAGR (%)
Beihai
10.58
Ghaziabad
5.20
Sana'a
5.00
Surat
4.99
Kabul
4.74
Lagos
4.44
Faridabad
4.44
Dar es Salaam
4.39
Chittagong
4.29
Toluca
4.25
Dubai
4.03
Luanda
3.96
Nasik
3.90
Kinshasa
3.89
Nairobi
3.87
Dhaka
3.79
Patna
3.72
Rajkot
3.63
Jaipur
3.60
Gujranwala
3.49
(Source:
www.world-gazetteer.com, www.demographia.com,
UITP 2001 Report, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea, www.alainbertaud.com, FTANT Database & FHWA Highway Statistics 2005, Asian Cities Database by ITPD, WRI/EMBARQ & CAI-Asia 32005,
JnNURM CDPs, ITPS Public Transport for Sustainable Mobility in Asian Cities, DTRS: Australian Trends to 2020
CAGR (%) Vs Density (p/Ha)
5,20
Surat
Predominant
Developing
Economies
Faridabad
4,20
Dhaka
Patna
Delhi
Pune
CAGR (%)
3,20 Riyadh Dakar
Wuhan
Jakarta
Asansol
Medan
2,20
Bandung
Palembang
Bangalore
Ludhiana
Agra
Rajkot
India
Hyderabad
Curitiba
Surabaya
Wulumqi
Ho Chi Minh
Amritsar
Ahmedabad
Lucknow
Bhopal
Kanpur
Nagpur
Jabalpur
Allahabad
Meerut
Mumbai
Kolkata
Bogota
Tel Aviv
Chennai
Kochi
Manila
Cairo
Tunis
Nanchang
Cape Town Nanjing
Chengdu
ViennaBangkok
Tehran
1,20
Singapore
Buenos Aires
Santiago
Rio de Janeiro
Guadalajara
Seoul
Paris
Mexico
L. America
China
Hong Kong
EU
Sapporo
Riyadh
MunichTokyo
Athens
0,20
Madrid
30
Shenyang
Tianjin
Taipei
80
130
180
230
280
Density (p/Ha)
• CAGR is high for recent developing cities particularly smaller cities of Developing Economies of the
4
World particularly Asian cities with Density Directly Correlated to CAGR by 0.36.
330
Per Cap. Petrol Consumption (bpd) Vs Density (p/Ha)
San FranciscoDenver
Philadelphia San Diego
0,072 Detroit
Houston
San Jose Calgary
Baltimore
Washington DC
Dallas
Chicago Toronto
Portland Miami
Sacramento
Phoenix Vancouver New York
Los Angeles
Predominant
Developed
Economies
N. America
Per Cap. Petroleum Consumption (bpd)
Brussels
0,054
Melbourne
Australia
Sydney Tokyo Busan
Sapporo
Osaka
Tel Aviv
Madrid
Stockholm
Athens
0,036 Copenhagen Vienna Barcelona
Frankfurt
Munich Hamburg
Paris
Berlin
Marseille Essen
London
Manchester
Rome
Milan
Seoul
Hong Kong
Taegu
Taipei
Europe
Tehran
Kuala Lumpur
Riyadh Guadalajara
Mexico
0,018
Bangkok
Santiago
Warsaw
Budapest
Buenos Aires
Rio de Janeiro
Curitiba
Johannesberg
Cape Town Tunis
Cairo
Bogota
Shanghai NanjingChengdu
Lucknow Nagpur
Wulumqi Dakar
Bandung
Medan Palembang Nanchang
Beijing
Kanpur Allahabad
Shenyang
Tianjin
Manila
11,1
Amritsar Patna
Guangzhou Surabaya Surat
Jabalpur
Mumbai
Hyderabad Kolkata
Chennai
Jakarta
Hanoi
Delhi
Asansol
Wuhan Agra
Faridabad Ludhiana Pune
Kochi Bhopal Ahmedabad Dhaka Rajkot Meerut
0,000
Ho Chi Minh
Harare
Bangalore
S. America
Asia
11,0
61,0
111,0
161,0
Density (p/Ha)
211,0
261,0
311,0
• Per Capita Petroleum Consumption high for sprawled or rich cities of Developed Economies of
the
5
World particularly American, European and Middle East Asian cities, Inversely Correlated to Density
Public Transport Share (%) Vs Density (p/Ha)
1,00
0,90
Curitiba
Rio de Janeiro
Mumbai
0,80
Kolkata
Moscow
Dakar
Public Transport Share (%)
Hong Kong
Predominant Dense or
Land Constrained
Economies
Manila
Kochi
0,70
Mexico
Guadalajara
Paris Osaka
0,60
Tokyo
Seoul
Singapore
Busan
0,40
Barcelona
Cape Town
Buenos Aires
Berlin
0,30
Shanghai
Munich
Beijing
Vienna
Sapporo
Tel Aviv
Wuhan
0,20
30
Taegu
Faridabad
Bangalore
Warsaw
Tunis
Bangkok
Madrid
0,50
Jakarta
Guangzhou
London
Chennai
Bogota
Santiago
Delhi
Cairo
Hyderabad
Tehran
Surabaya
Pune
Taipei
Bandung
Bhopal
Ahmedabad
Dhaka
Jabalpur
80
130
180
Density (%)
230
280
330
• Public Transport seems efficient in cities with high intensity or land management/market compulsion
7
with Inverse Correlation to Per Capita Petroleum Share by -0.35
Mexico
Transport
Infrastructure
Johannesbur
g
Density
Gradient
London
Urban
Morphology
Bangalore
Modal Share
Kolkata
Berlin
8
Significance of Urban Density, Sprawl and Landuse
• Modern city growth patterns are increasingly landintensive.
• Average urban densities have declined for past two
centuries.
• As transportation continues to improve, the
tendency is for cities to use up more and more land
per person.
• This process of Urban Sprawl, largely in noncontiguous transitional zones between countryside
and city, is increasingly being referred to as “periurbanization”.
9
GUJARAT AHMEDABAD URBANISATION TREND
GUJARAT 3RD MOST
URBANISED STATE
38 % URBAN
POPULATION
INCREASING TO 50 %
BY 2021.
60 % OF URBAN
POPULATION
CONCENTRATED IN
THE PRINCIPAL
CORRIDOR OF
MEHSANA –
AHMEDABADVALSAD INCREASING
TO 72 % BY 2021.
AHMEDABAD
ACCOUNTS FOR 52
% OF STATE’S GDP
AND 35 % OF
SECONDARY AND
TERTIARY
PRODUCTION.
CRITICAL ISSUES :
STRUCTURED AND
GUIDED CONSOLIDATION
OF THE URBAN
CORRIDORS IN AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY AND
ECONOMICAALY
SUSTAINBALE MANNER
Greater Ahmedabad
60 Lakh People, 500 Sq. Km
1 Crore People, 800 - 900 Sq. Km
2035
2011
19
19
CYBERABAD : REGIONAL CONTEXT
A R C H I T E C T S
A N D
P L A N N E R S
CYBERABAD : REGIONAL CONTEXT
A R C H I T E C T S
A N D
P L A N N E R S
To Nagpur
N.h.-7
LEGEND
URBANISATION
MODEL
HYDERABAD
:
MULTIPLE
NUCLEI
( TRI CITY
To
DEVELOPMENT AREA
Narsapur
CONCEPT )
ROADS PROPOSED IN 1980
MASTER PLAN
ROADS PROPOSED IN 1980
MASTER PLAN
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
MEDCHAL
BROAD GAUGE RAILWAY LIN
METER GAUGE RAILWAY LIN
WATER BODIES
WATER TANK
GUNLA POCHAMPALLY
i
RAILWAY STATIONS
SURARAM
AIRPORT
PATANCHERU
GROWTH BY 2001
QUTBULLAPUR
RAMCHANDRAPURAM
GROWTH BY 2011
To Kazipet
KUKATPALLY, APHB
SECUNDRABAD
GROWTH BY 2021
KUSHAIGUDA
GHATKESAR
GUNLA
ge)
CYBERABAD
UPTO 75 LA
UPTO 25 LA
UPTO 10 LA
UPTO 5 LAC
HUSSAIN
SAGAR
HABSHIGUDA
HYDERABAD
KHARMANGHAT
OSMAN
SAGAR
L.B.NAGAR
UPPARPALLY
HIMAYAT
SAGAR
FALAKNUMA PALACE
To
Vikharabad
SHAMSABAD
NODES
To Vijaywada
N.h.no -9
HUDA : ENVISAGED SPATIAL
GROWTH B Y 2021ALTERNATIVE 1 ( CONCENTRI
MODEL)
CYBERABAD ENCLA
Mumbai
: Bandra-Kurla Complex,
KALYAN
International Finance and Trade Centre
THANE
IFBC, BKC
BELAPUR
SOUTH MUMBAI
AUDA GUDA AGGOLOMERATE : 2001
COMPOSITE POPULATION : 48 LACS
WORKERS : 17 LACS
Industries : 4 Lacs
Commerce: 12 Lacs
AUDA GUDA AGGOLOMERATE : 2021
COMPOSITE POPULATION : 94 LACS
WORKERS : 32 LACS
Industries : 7 Lacs
Commerce: 25 Lacs
ADDITIONAL POPULATION BY 2021 : 46
LACS
ADDITIONAL JOBS BY 2021 : 15 LACS
ASSUMING 35 % POPLTN & JOBS
CONTAINED IN ECOPOLIS +NATURE CITY
POPULATION IN ECOPOLIS + NATURE CITY
: 16 LACS
ECOPOLIS : 10 + LACS
NATURE CITY : 5 + LACS
JOBS IN ECOPOLIS + NATURE CITY : 5.4
LACS
ECOPOLIS : 3.7 LACS
NATURE CITY : 1.7 LACS
SITE CONTEXT :
AUDA GUDA DP
ECOPOLIS- NATURE
CITY LARGELY FALL
WITHIN GUDA
PRESENT ZONES
WITHIN ECOPOLIS :
•Agriculture
•Commercial
•Residential
ECOPOLIS LANDUSE
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT
Ahmedabad Urban Land Use Simulation 2011-2021
Ahmedabad Existing 2001
No.
1
Land Use
Area (Ha.)
%
Ahmedabad 2011 BAU
BUA
FSI util.**
No.
1
11119.03
39.42%
0.61
6802.84
748.64
2.65%
0.70
524.05
2
Commercial
3
Public/Semi Public
1014.55
3.60%
0.40
402.71
4
Industrial
3579.50
12.69%
0.55
1953.60
5
AMC Plots
467.18
1.66%
0.50
233.59
6
Open / Vacant Land
4514.36
16.00%
0.31%
8
Roads/Railway land
2204.65
7.82%
9
Water bodies
4475.55
15.87%
TOTAL
28210.00
23548.70
57.76%
0.43
7
Commercial
1334.98
3.27%
0.44
584.64
3
Industrial
3780.83
9.27%
0.62
2345.50
4
Public & Semi public
2585.67
6.34%
0.21
549.42
5
Open
Space/Gardens/Recreation
5388.76
13.22%
Roads and railways
2669.67
6.55%
1461.97
3.59%
*
**1
Delphi
Technique
Residential
Gross FSI
BUA
0.35
Area (Ha.)
%
FSI
util.util.**
=
11176.10
39.62%
0.80
8968.69
(Ha)
100.00
40770.58
13671.7
%
2
Revised Draft Dev. Plan, AUDA – 2011 AD Part I,
*
Revised Draft Dev. Plan, AUDA – 2011 AD
Land
Part I,Use
Vol. 2
rivers)
Gross FSI util.
Vol. 2
9916.79
% Land Use 2011
Proposed Ahmedabad Compact City
No.
Water bodies (including
TOTAL
100.00
(Ha)
Residential
7
86.54
BUA
FSI util.**
2
6
Yard Burial Ground /
Grave
%
10192.1
General/Gamtal/V
7
Area (Ha.)
(Ha)
Residential
illage
Land Use
0.34
=
**
Delphi
TechniqueAhmedabad
Proposed
Compact City Land Use 2021
No.
Land Use
Area (Ha.)
1
Residential
%
FSI util.**
BUA
(Ha)
11486.0
2
Commercial
2364.70
8.38%
0.83
1953.17
9491.82
33.65%
1.18
5
3
Industrial
1402.18
4.97%
1.41
1974.70
2
Commercial
2655.12
9.41%
1.12
2986.20
4
Public & Semi public
3393.52
12.03%
0.63
2150.62
3
Industrial
1310.92
4.65%
1.75
2294.11
4231.50
15.00%
4
Public & Semi public
3277.30
11.62%
1.00
3186.04
5260.32
18.65%
5260.32
18.65%
954.20
3.38%
5
6
7
Open
Space/Gardens/Recreation
Roads and railways
Water bodies (including
5
4687.80
16.62%
954.20
3.38%
6
rivers)
TOTAL
7
28210.00
100.00
15047.1
%
8
Open
Space/Gardens/Recreational
Roads and railways
19
Water bodies (including
rivers)
100.00
19952.4