Urban Sprawl Model
Today, the prominent rise in urbanization, and increase in globalization has influenced countries around the world to interconnect with each other. Thus, it is vital to view Melbourne’s urban development and consider it’s future direction in order to administer in the forefront development. A recent study by the ABS (2014) for 2030, revealed Melbourne's city population growth to increase significant amount of one third. It is apparent that Melbourne will face numerous concerns due to the increase in population growth (local and international scale) and urban spread. This issue has caused an ongoing debate whether to implement an urban consolidation model or urban sprawl model for the Melbourne city, where both models would impose restrictions
…show more content…
The study of urban spread has raised a controversial dispute as certain issues have been avoided (McLoughlin, 1993). In Searle’s (2004) paper, demonstrates the restrictions placed on high-density areas due to the inability to fund urban growth. The fundamental issue impacted by urban population is the abundance of transport and social facilities that are present in many metropolitan areas. On a similar note, increases in traffic use and infrequent services of public transport systems may impact the development of urbanization. The higher demand in quality services may consume more land area, ultimately reducing vegetation harming the environment (Betanzo, 2007). It is clear that there is a link between population growth and environmental damage, in which minor steps must be taken into account to reduce negative impacts. Furthermore, the increase in high-rise buildings and the loss of green space in high-density areas are strong factors that influence urban heat island effect. The increase in climate is proportional to energy use for cooling indoors which ultimately impacts global warming (Grimm et al, 2008). Urban heat island effect is also strongly impacted by stormwater runoff due to the extension of impervious surfaces. In contrast, houses in outer regions are assumed to reduce environmental damage due to having individual gardens. These gardens can significantly decrease the effect of urban heating while absorbing more rainwater to decrease stormwater flow. According to one study by Burchell and Listokin (1996) contended that high-density due to residential and commercial development used 45 percent less land; and cost 25 percent less for roads, 15 percent less for utilities, 5 percent less for housing and 2 percent less for other public expenses than low-density development.
The study of urban spread has raised a controversial dispute as certain issues have been avoided (McLoughlin, 1993). In Searle’s (2004) paper, demonstrates the restrictions placed on high-density areas due to the inability to fund urban growth. The fundamental issue impacted by urban population is the abundance of transport and social facilities that are present in many metropolitan areas. On a similar note, increases in traffic use and infrequent services of public transport systems may impact the development of urbanization. The higher demand in quality services may consume more land area, ultimately reducing vegetation harming the environment (Betanzo, 2007). It is clear that there is a link between population growth and environmental damage, in which minor steps must be taken into account to reduce negative impacts. Furthermore, the increase in high-rise buildings and the loss of green space in high-density areas are strong factors that influence urban heat island effect. The increase in climate is proportional to energy use for cooling indoors which ultimately impacts global warming (Grimm et al, 2008). Urban heat island effect is also strongly impacted by stormwater runoff due to the extension of impervious surfaces. In contrast, houses in outer regions are assumed to reduce environmental damage due to having individual gardens. These gardens can significantly decrease the effect of urban heating while absorbing more rainwater to decrease stormwater flow. According to one study by Burchell and Listokin (1996) contended that high-density due to residential and commercial development used 45 percent less land; and cost 25 percent less for roads, 15 percent less for utilities, 5 percent less for housing and 2 percent less for other public expenses than low-density development.