Introduction
Urban cities across the globe have advanced infrastructure due to proper planning. Effective planning considers aspects such as value, design, and building development costs. There are scientific theories that explain how urban planning is done. Theories help in understanding scientific principles by bringing together many facts and hypotheses. Urban planning explains the strategic steps before setting up structures on the land.
Nonetheless, urban planning theories have strengths and weaknesses. Some, when interpreted, have a biblical angle to make them more relatable. Therefore, a theory should be analyzed based on its strengths, weaknesses, and biblical connotations.
Planning Theory 1: The Multi-Nuclei Theory
Description and Analysis of the Multi-Nuclei Theory
The multi-nuclei theory can be used to explain how urban cities in the U.S. have developed in the past years. The theory was established through the great works of Harris and Ullman (Li & Lan, 2020). It is also a departure from the single nuclei theory, which focuses on the Central Business District (CBD) (Yang et al., 2019).
Young et al. (2019) state that urban cities do not have a central development point. Each development point acts as a nucleus that furthers different kinds of development. Different forces, including human needs, act on a center, causing it to expand (Yang et al., 2019). The theory suggests that human needs in cities are placed at various points. Therefore, increasing the population that visits a center promotes its growth from various points.
The center was developed to have its unique functions and characteristics. A center can serve as a residential, industrial, and commercial hub (Pozoukidou & Chatziyiannaki, 2021). The theory further suggests that a center grows independently and at its own pace. With time, the growth of one center influences that of others and enhances interaction (Yang et al., 2019). The theory best explains how development in urban cities occurs. Notably, the varied cores become connected through improved transport and other forms of infrastructure. The overarching principle in this theory is that similar use of land tends to cluster together.
An example would be how office suites are concentrated at the center while industries concentrate on the outskirts (Balland et al., 2020). The theory applies to the growth of most cities in the U.S. The outskirts of Washington, D.C., are known for their industries, while Chicago’s center is known for the skyscraper commercial offices.
Weaknesses of the Multi-Nuclei Theory
The planning theory is not perfect enough to explain the concept of urban planning. Criticisms of this theory will expose its weaknesses in explaining some realities. For instance, it is argued that the theory fails to consider how technology has impacted development (Masnavi et al., 2018). Technological advancement has led to the growth of other centers and the creation of new ones.
However, the newly created towns do not fit perfectly into the traditional transport, industrial, and commercial concepts. For example, Phoenix in Arizona morphed from manufacturing to software production due to Silicon Valley projects. The Bible annotates that there is a time for everything. “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens (Ecclesiastes 3:1, NIV).” The Bible points out that change is both rational and seasonal. Technological advancements have pushed for the growth of new cities to better respond to technological needs.
The multi-nuclei theory has often been faulted for being ignorant. The theory assumes the federal government’s role in making development policies (Macke et al., 2019). The theory focuses on how human activity and needs shape urban development. It ignores key actors such as government regulations on zoning, incentives, and infrastructural expenditures. The government plays a huge role in determining the resource allocation for each state and city. To contextualize the argument, Washington D.C., the state’s capital, has various state-driven infrastructures.
On the other hand, cities such as Detroit and Cleveland are ranked as the least developed due to less federal intervention (McGahey, 2022). The theory falls short in explaining how the government affects land use regulations. In conclusion, the theory best explains historical development, not modern development.
Problems with the Multi-Nuclei Theory
Applying the multi-nuclei theory to urban planning can turn out to be problematic. There are several challenges attached to the application of the multi-nuclei theory. A notable challenge would be implementing sustainable development projects in a city (Macke et al., 2019). The theory suggests that cities develop independently and for a specific purpose (Yang et al., 2019). Such a concept makes it difficult to integrate sustainable planning mechanisms.
For instance, a purely industrial center will have numerous buildings that hurt the environment. Incorporating energy-efficient, environmentally friendly, and cost-effective buildings becomes difficult. This issue not only hampers sustainable planning but also concentrates environmental pollutants at one point (Masnavi et al., 2018).
Additionally, it limits the concept of renewable energy since only one form of energy is consumed and released into the air. The sustainability of a city is a great determinant of its development. The strict application of this theory limits the sustainability of a city.
Application of the theory can limit social interaction in workspaces as well. The theory concentrates on similar land use being clustered together (Yang et al., 2019). Consequently, it packs people of a particular profession at one point and separates them from others.
For example, those in the industries cannot easily socialize with those in the corporate world and vice versa. Such a situation creates a social interaction bar and limits networking with other professions. It further makes it impossible to formulate diverse socioeconomic groups (Hawkins et al., 2022).
People should be free to join social groups incorporating other professions without making unnecessary trips to other cities. From a biblical perspective, “Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor (Ecclesiastes 4:9, NIV).” The Bible emphasizes the strengths of inclusivity and togetherness among Christians. As a notable problem, the theory potentially limits the coming together of other disciplines.
Solutions to the Multi-Nuclei Theory
Several solutions have been suggested to remedy the inadequacies of the multi-nuclei theory. Architects and urban developers have been urged to look at the city’s development more wholesomely (Heymans et al., 2019). Departing from the notion that a structure should be developed to meet city specifications is highly advisable. Shifting the focus from one nucleus and concentrating on regional, comprehensive, and inclusive planning works better (Heymans et al., 2019).
Development in a city can be made to reflect sustainability programs. For instance, the construction of an industrial city should have infrastructure that favors renewing energy, recycling waste, and building energy-efficient buildings. Sustainability promotes caring for the environment and the growth of the city simultaneously (Masnavi et al., 2018). Urban planning should, therefore, give room for inclusive and integrative methods. Sustainable development projects can only be pushed where the theory applied is inclusive.
Devising methods that foster social interactions is important in the growth of a city. Some spaces are required to be fully industrial or commercial office suite centers. Having a shared public ground open to anyone in such places increases social exchanges (Masnavi et al., 2018). A good example would be the National Mall and Memorial Parks along the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. Despite Washington being a busy corporate city, others can interact with the iconic monuments and network during their free time. Sharing public spaces attracts the building of social relations, which is important for growth.
In summary, when applying this theory, urban planners ought to consider the uniqueness of each city. Moreover, they should view the city as a whole instead of one nucleus when planning. A more inclusive and integrative approach is sustainable since it creates economic and social opportunities.
Planning Theory 2: The Neighborhood City Concept
Description and Analysis of the Neighborhood City Concept
The comfort of a neighborhood depends on the available amenities and infrastructure. Cities can be developed in a manner that reflects a typical neighborhood. The Neighborhood City Concept explains how such a phenomenon occurs. The concept provides that designing and developing cities should be tailor-made to reflect individual neighborhoods (Macke et al., 2019). The theory focuses on creating cities that resemble normal neighborhoods instead of the city as a whole.
The sectional focus on development is thought to create a sense of belonging and improve community relationships (Macke et al., 2019). In other words, the theory posits that a city should develop to serve community and neighborhood needs. The theory departs from creating one Central Business District with all resources and opportunities (Balland et al., 2020). Resources should be equally distributed and easy to access without much transit.
The concept shifts its focus from the CBD model to a neighborhood approach in various ways. Developments should be done at a community level, such as providing walkable neighborhoods. The infrastructure should include biking and walking lanes, as well as schools and workplaces within the vicinity. The concept presents an idealistic approach that a school child should get to school without the struggles of crossing roads full of traffic (Macke et al., 2019). This means that school infrastructure has to be easily accessible to children, given their vulnerable nature.
In addition, people should walk to their workplaces and worry less about transiting from one point to another. Macke et al. (2019) further provide that recreational parks should be in the neighborhood. Providing green parks in the vicinity encourages residents to gather for picnics and socialize. Most importantly, businesses have to be in the neighborhood, which people can easily access. It helps reduce the burden of travel outside to obtain commodities.
Weaknesses of the Neighborhood City Concept
The neighborhood concept has a number of notable weaknesses that encumber its application. Foremost, the concept is costly since it requires many resources to be fully implemented. Upgrading each neighborhood to have all the social amenities requires huge capital. It is not economically feasible to provide a school, park, and workplace to all neighborhoods in one city, let alone the entire state.
Even for a developed city like Los Angeles, it is impossible to provide for all of its over 225 neighborhoods (Nelson et al., 2021). Cities operate on limited budgetary allocations from the federal government. The Bible provides that “Food and water will be scarce. They will be appalled at the sight of each other and will waste away because of their sin (Ezekiel 4:17, NIV).” The scripture speaks to the scarcity of resources and how it can create a state of despair. Using this model with insufficient resources can lead to hopelessness, as stated in the Bible.
Developments attract wealthy investors and neighbors that can spark the displacement of people. If poorly managed, gentrification can be a huge threat to neighborhood development (Hawkins et al., 2022). Gentrification refers to changing a poor or underdeveloped urban area to have improved standards of living (Hawkins et al., 2022). When gentrification happens, the poor in the neighborhood are left susceptible to displacement. The new developments attract new rich neighbors that would lead to the poor being isolated.
Additionally, it may also lead to an increase in poverty levels (Lin et al., 2021). There are potential risks of people being unable to pay extra for the improved facilities. Such an imbalance creates a system that favors the rich and marginalizes the poor.
An example would be how gentrification affected those living in Toronto, Canada. While the model seeks to develop a city with a comfortable neighborhood, it has its downsides. If not properly done, it can propagate grave injustices to others.
Problems Related to the Neighborhood City Concept
The Neighborhood City Concept attracts various problems to the development of a city. The neighborhood concept does not heed economic development (Carmona, 2019). It focuses more on creating social communities that are comfortable with doorstep-accessible facilities. It fails to consider vital issues such as economic development and job creation (Carmona, 2019).
The concept focuses on individual neighbor’s preferences instead of the city’s overall development (Macke et al., 2019). Coordinating cities becomes a hard task due to the varied preferences of the neighborhoods. The Bible says that “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions (Proverbs 18:2).” Considering individual opinions on neighborhood preferences can be equated to an inappropriate move. Those who understand that development is not mere preferences are economically wise.
Cities may face fiscal hardships in an attempt to implement the development program. Using this model poses a huge economic burden on the state and city involved (Jay et al., 2020). Managing routine activities such as street lighting, education, garbage collection, and maintaining parks requires tons of resources. Transcending such financial management to all neighborhoods in one city is economic suicide. Further, it leads to unequal demand and allocation of resources between states (Jay et al., 2020). As a general rule, states with more neighborhoods will have higher demands in terms of resources.
Consequently, an unequal allocation of resources will lead to unequal development (Jay et al., 2020). Such inequality explains why cities like Detroit remain underdeveloped and poor compared to elite ones such as New York (Heymans et al., 2020). To sum it up, the model is more idealistic than realistic from so many angles. Urban planners should only rely on it if they have mechanisms to circumvent the downsides.
Solutions to the Neighborhood City Concept
Given the challenges that face the implementation of this model, the following recommendations can be made. Enhancing community participation before starting up a development project helps in collecting ideas from the residents (Carmona, 2021). Public participation within the neighborhood can help identify what resources can be shared and which cannot. Moreover, public participation pushes for the idea of community organizations. Such organizations can lobby for their needs from their respective states as opposed to individual preferences (Carmona, 2021). A move to that effect is less costly and economically feasible.
A familiar example would be Chattanooga in Tennessee, which utilizes shared transport facilities for sustainability (Kawther & Hassan, 2021). In terms of sharing, there is a shared bike program that makes it easy to transit from one point to another. The area also has free public transport electric buses to increase sustainable mobility.
Using a mixed-up approach to further social and economic development simultaneously is highly recommended. It can be achieved by encouraging small businesses, creating jobs for the residents (Kawther & Hassan, 2021). Additionally, incorporating commercial structures within the residences opens doors to investment (Modin et al., 2020). The more commercial setups exist in an area, the more it becomes economically developed. Such development fosters both infrastructural and economic development.
Notably, no theory is a panacea to all development concerns (Modin et al., 2020). Architects and planning experts rely on different theories despite their limitations. What is important is their ability to circumvent the weaknesses of each concept and maximize the strengths. It is also important to note that different cities have different development needs. A careful selection of a planning theory can help determine project development success.
Conclusion
Planning the development of an urban city can be a difficult task. Effective planning must be informed by a scientific theory matching the city’s needs. In developing urban areas, factors such as resources, needs of the people, and functions play a huge role. Theories such as the multi-nuclei theory and the neighborhood concept have been used to develop various cities in the United States effectively. However, the theories cannot be applied across all cities due to their shortcomings. Therefore, the development team must identify what model best responds to the varied needs of particular cities.
References
Balland, P.-A., Jara-Figueroa, C., Petralia, S. G., Steijn, M. P. A., Rigby, D. L., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2020). Complex economic activities concentrate in large cities. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 248–254. Web.
Carmona, M. (2021). Public places urban spaces. Routledge. Web.
Ecclesiastes 3:1. (New International Version)
Ecclesiastes 4:9. (New International Version)
Ezekiel 4:17. (New International Version)
Hawkins, J., Ahmed, U., Roorda, M., & Habib, K. N. (2022). Measuring the process of urban gentrification: A composite measure of the gentrification process in Toronto. Cities, 126, 103708. Web.
Heymans, A., Breadsell, J., Morrison, G. M., Byrne, J. J., & Eon, C. (2019). Ecological urban planning and design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11(13), 3723. Web.
Jay, J., Bor, J., Nsoesie, E. O., Lipson, S. K., Jones, D. K., Galea, S., & Raifman, J. (2020). Neighbourhood income and physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12), 1294–1302. Web.
Kawther, K. K., & Hassan, R. H. (2021). The sustainable design rules of landscape. E3S Web of Conferences, 318, 04011. Web.
Li, D., & Lan, G. Z. (2020). The dynamics between urban planning and public policy: Lessons and experiences from the city of Beijing, China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(3), 002085232094538. Web.
Lin, L., Di, L., Zhang, C., Guo, L., & Di, Y. (2021). Remote sensing of urban poverty and gentrification. Remote Sensing, 13(20), 4022. Web.
Macke, J., Rubim Sarate, J. A., & de Atayde Moschen, S. (2019). Smart sustainable cities evaluation and sense of community. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, 118103. Web.
Masnavi, M. R., Gharai, F., & Hajibandeh, M. (2018). Exploring urban resilience thinking for its application in urban planning: A review of literature. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(1), 567–582. Web.
Modin, A., Lukin, M., Vlasov, A., & Hisham, E. (2020). Energy-efficient indicators of panel housing mass construction in the climatic conditions of central Russia. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 896(1), 012063. Web.
Nelson, K., Gromis, A., Kuai, Y., & Lens, M. C. (2021). Spatial concentration and spillover: Eviction dynamics in neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California, 2005–2015. Housing Policy Debate, 31(3-5), 670–695. Web.
Pozoukidou, G., & Chatziyiannaki, Z. (2021). 15-minute city: Decomposing the new urban planning eutopia. Sustainability, 13(2), 928. Web.
Yang, C., Li, Q., Hu, Z., Chen, J., Shi, T., Ding, K., & Wu, G. (2019). Spatiotemporal evolution of urban agglomerations in four major bay areas of U.S., China and Japan from 1987 to 2017: Evidence from remote sensing images. Science of the Total Environment, 671, 232–247. Web.