Report a Comment

The point all of you are missing is that as an organic entity, all cities have a gradient at the edge (not including geographic limitations such as water). Different urban land uses require differing amount of density. In an office, communication is paramount and so it is best suited in a dense environment. A food wholesaler needs more space, and therefore these places are closer to the edge. The gradient reflects the diversity of urban uses. The size of the city is determined by the economic profitability of its core industries (e.g., DC = federal government; Detroit = making cars) balanced against the cost of its internal transportation. If the core industries gets less profitable, the city shrinks and vice-versa. But to support the core industries, there will be a diversity of uses that value land differently, that leads to the gradient at the edge.

To try to do away with this slope at the edge is to try to confound the differences that are essential to provide for ALL the needs of the residents. So no, you can't have farm land butt up against office towers without distorting the underlying reason for having a city in the first place.

by goldfish on Jun 26, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report