Browse by title
The Value of BRT in Urban Spaces
Edited by Fiona Ferbrache
C. Erik Vergel-Tovar and William Camargo
More than 200 cities in the world are implementing bus rapid transit (BRT) systems nowadays but empirical evidence on urban development impacts of this type of mass transit system is still limited. The study of land-use and development impacts of BRT requires a time frame that allows changes on the built environment as a result of accessibility benefits introduced by BRT systems. Since the implementation of the BRT system in Bogotá in 2000, the national government of Colombia has been promoting this type of mass transit system in large and medium-size cities, but few studies have examined urban development impacts of BRT systems in the country through a systematic approach. This chapter examines land-use and development impacts of BRT in five cities by looking at planning, implementation and operation stages and the role played by public and private actors in the urban development outcomes related to BRT investments. The analysis examines changes on land use and built-up areas along BRT corridors in Bogotá, Pereira, Cali, Barranquilla and Bucaramanga in order to determine the capacity of BRT systems to promote transit-oriented development and the factors that explain these urban development outcomes in terms of challenges and opportunities.
This chapter applied Rosen’s two-stage hedonic price estimation to derive a demand function for proximity to the bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Seoul, South Korea. Welfare changes from improved BRT accessibility were estimated for illustrative purposes. The major findings of this study can be summarized as follows. First, estimation of spatial hedonic price models presents a statistically significant price premium for BRT proximity, with average marginal implicit prices of $4550–$8208 for a decrease in the distance to a BRT stop. Second, estimation of the inverse demand function shows a downward sloping demand curve for accessibility of the BRT system, implying that people prefer living closer to the BRT system, but that they have a diminishing marginal willingness to pay for this increased proximity. Lastly, residents living in the southern part of the Seoul metropolitan area (cluster 3), including several new-town residents, are likely to receive more benefits from improved BRT accessibility than those living in other areas.
Edited by John R. Bryson, Lauren Andres and Rachel Mulhall
Edited by John R. Bryson, Lauren Andres and Rachel Mulhall
Jason Richardson and Bruce Coffyn Mitchell
Cities are places where agglomeration effects and the intensification of economic exchange create a highly specialized and stratified social structure. Many urban areas in the United States seek to address the decline of their industrial sector via redevelopment and transformation. The extent to which legacy residents of communities in or near those former industrial zones are allowed and able to remain becomes an area of concern. In many cases these households are among the most vulnerable: people of color, the elderly, recent immigrants, or low-to-moderate-income (LMI) non-Hispanic whites. Residential segregation separates communities along racial, ethnic, and economic lines, presenting structural barriers to full participation in the opportunities and amenities that urbanization provides. In this new post-industrial dynamic, the question becomes what methods – data and techniques – can be used to identify zones of gentrification or disinvestment in order to guide policy and encourage reinvestment. This chapter examines techniques used to identify urban investment patterns under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) and the Affordable Housing Goals (AHG), a dynamic set of goals enshrined by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992. Using datasets of mortgage and small business lending, and bank branch location, investment levels and financial access for different communities are exposed. This activity bears similarities with critical cartography strategies and uses GIS to examine spatial patterns of inequitable capital access for disadvantaged communities. Two case studies are presented: Baltimore and Oakland. Baltimore provides an example of the isolation of communities from spillover effects, despite considerable reinvestment. Spillover effects from San Francisco have initiated gentrification in Oakland, a community at the edge of a developing world-city.
Kris Bezdecny and Kevin Archer
The past half-century has seen a fragmentation of urban theory, one that is also evidenced in city-spaces. Cities have been labeled post-modern, post-industrial, post-colonial, mega, global, sustainable, creative, neoliberal, gentrified, themed, among a multitude of theoretical framings. All of these framings are descriptive of key dynamics witnessed in some (but not all) cities, but none describe well all those dynamics in any city. This is a problem showcased by current debates in urban theory today, particularly the recent debate between Scott and Storper (2015) in their discussion of the nature of cities, contested by such researchers as Mould (2016) and Roy (2016b), which calls into question whether a shared theoretical understanding of the ‘city’ is even possible. Indeed, this kind of debate has only intensified as urbanization continues its hyper-acceleration on a planetary scale (Brenner, 2014). As of 2009, over half the world’s population lives in a city (UNDESA, 2014). This means that roughly twice as many people are (re)producing their lived spaces in cities than the entire global population in 1900. An estimated one in eight people live in a megacity, or in cities with a population greater than 10 million; nearly half live in cities with a population below 0.5 million (UNDESA, 2016). By 2050, it is anticipated that as many as two-thirds of all people will be living in cities – with modest gains in already urbanized North America, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Europe and exploding growth in Asia and Africa – ultimately resulting in as many city-people at mid-century as live on the Earth today (UNDESA, 2009). Not all cities are created equal. Cities are often ranked competitively, based on a variety of criteria: population size, areal size (land consumed), and economic value. There are currently 214 cities ranked as global cities, those deemed most important to facilitating the global economy (Friedmann, 1986; Beaverstock, Smith and Taylor, 1999; GaWC, 2016). These are further ranked as alpha (49), beta (81), and gamma (84) cities – further demarcating the disparities between the command-andcontrol centers of global capital (while erasing those cities that are not considered competitive enough to be ranked) (GaWC, 2016). The megacity, by contrast, ranks cities by absolute population size, with 47 cities meeting the megacity definition of a population of 10 million or greater, and roughly 600 more cities having a population of 1 million or greater (UNDESA, 2016). Interestingly, there is overlap between urban definitions, in that cities defined by one definition become more likely (or less likely) to also meet an alternative definition (shown by the 40 out of 47 megacities that are also ranked as global cities).
Monica M. Brannon
‘Smart Cities’ initiatives have been lauded as offering new approaches and mechanisms to manage, plan, and enhance urban spaces and citizen experiences within them. Relying on new technologies, the ‘smart’ descriptor refers to utilizing new tools of efficiency as counter to traditional means of understanding and gathering information about cities and their residents. New technological development is often marketed as civic solutions, yet there is little discourse analyzing how digital and material projects relate to existing racial inequality and what data collection practices mean at the community level. This chapter seeks to fill a gap in literature in how technologies operate as social structures, in particular, how new technological infrastructures in urban spaces exacerbate, alter, or alleviate racial divides. The case under consideration here is Kansas City, Missouri, which represents an intersection between new technology and data-driven initiatives, and is also starkly racially segregated. This chapter examines the effects as parts of the city that are differently measured, and the variances between those that are within and those outside of new data collection practices, modes and definitions of surveillance, and smart initiatives. In short, it addresses technological inequality as it relates to geographical spaces. Specifically, it addresses the ideological intentions that shape the technological outcomes of space that result in a divided landscape. Therefore, taking as the foundation the inequality in the existing space, this research explains how technological ambitions affect it.
In many parts of the world, technologically sophisticated smart cities have been at the forefront of the deployment of digital information and communications technologies, including smart energy grids, transport systems, renewable energy, and smart homes. The rapid economic growth and social transformation of many East Asian societies has given rise to a series of smart cities that are globalized, internet-connected, and that have changed urban governance and daily life in numerous ways. This chapter examines three East Asian smart cities, Seoul, Singapore, and Shanghai, noting how each aspired to smart city status in different ways. In each, information technologies have facilitated the implementation of electronic government (e-government), improved commercial ties, improved energy use and environmental quality, and enhanced the quality of life.