Category Archives: Planning

Deanwell’s stand alone corner dairy

Posted on by 0 comment

Here is a picture of a corner dairy in Vathorst, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. This apartment building is less than a decade old and it is an example of small-scale economic activity, supporting the local population and making the corner an active, social place where you’ll find people most times during the day and a good part of the evening.

Here in Deanwell, we can see a development with a similar goal, where the corner dairy is part of an apartment building, not on the same scale as the Vathorst example, but giving residents the same convenience of having an extension of their pantry on their doorstep and providing a place where locals informally share, contribute and build a sustainable neighbourhood.

What supports this dairy is the high density of homes (and schools) within walking distance of this corner. Much of the area has a population density of around 4,000 persons per square km (source: https://koordinates.com/layer/7322-new-zealand-population-density-by-meshblock/)

This high density also shows a good number of people living within a 400m nominal distance of other dairies in Melville.

The Deanwell corner dairy combined with apartments is sensible; it may not meet everyone’s definition of attractive, but because the Deanwell neighbourhood offers housing types of every kind, the suburb is attractive to a wide range of people.

 

Hamilton city centre – A 2013 Louis Wirth measure

Posted on by 0 comment

Louis Wirth (1897-1952) was a noted urban scholar who created a typology of urbanism that defines cities according to three factors

  1. Large population size
  2. Density of settlement
  3. Heterogeneity [diversity] of inhabitants and group life

Hamilton, with a population of over 100,000, is city-sized and it does have a good number of areas with population densities of over 3,000 people per square km, but no unit areas meeting the urban density benchmark of 10,000 persons per square mile [3,886 per square km] suggested by Mark Jefferson (see p6 in the reference below)

However, as Wirth stated, “The characterization of a community as urban on the basis of size alone is obviously arbitrary” (p5).

This brings us to heterogeneity, which can be interpreted as showing that something that is made up of many different elements, one example being a local dialect that has components from several different languages. Census data uses two measures for language, as illustrated in the examples below.

Louis Wirth also gives a further measure: ‘The foreign born and their children constitute nearly two-thirds of all the inhabitants of cities of one million and over. Their proportion in the urban population declines as the size of the city decreases, until in the rural areas they comprise only about one-sixth of the total population.’

Using factors 2 (Density), 3 (Heterogeneity using Language) and being foreign born, we can identify Hamilton’s most compact and diverse neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood Density per/ha Multilingual % Foreign Born % Score
University 30.2 32 36 98.2
Hillcrest West 31.5 30 36 97.5
Silverdale 25.4 29 33 87.4
Hamilton Central 11.5 32 40 83.5
Insoll 33.3 30 19 82.3
Brymer 26.5 25 29 80.5
Melville 25.7 27 27 79.7
Hamilton East 24.9 25 29 78.9
Peachgrove 22.9 26 28 76.9
Huntington 20.9 24 31 75.9
Bader 20 28 27 75
Dinsdale South 25.8 16 13 74.8
Fairview Downs 29.5 24 19 72.5
Enderley 28.5 24 20 72.5
Porrit 17 29 26 72
Rototuna 21 21 29 71
Hamilton Lake 11.5 27 32 70.5
Horsham Downs 12 25 33 70
Chedworth 22.5 22 25 69.5
Grandview 34 20 15 69
Claudelands 20.4 23 25 68.4
Crawshaw 34.1 23 11 68.1
Swarbrick 28.6 22 17 67.6
Riverlea 15.7 22 28 65.7
Clarkin 23.8 23 18 64.8
Naylor 19.6 21 24 64.6
Nawton 26.2 20 17 63.2
Maeroa 25.7 20 16 61.7
Flagstaff 18.9 17 25 60.9
Sylvester 6.5 20 29 55.5
Frankton Junction 5.8 20 24 49.5
Temple View 4.2 22 16 42.2

While the University area does well in terms of compactness and diversity, the data also show that the Hamilton Central area is attracting the right type of people; it just needs more of them.

Reference: Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-24. Retrieved from

http://choros.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/choros/files/shared/Enseignement/Sciences%20de%20la%20ville/11-12/Wirth%20-%20Urbanism.pdf

Category: CBD, Demographics, News, Planning