Post on 04-Feb-2016
description
Center for Environmental Planning & Technology (CEPT)
DELINEATION OF AHMEDABAD METROPOLITAN REGION
By: Prof Utpal Sharma
Perceived Objectives are: (Jenks et al., 1996; Williams et al., 2000)
2
The Concept and The Objectives
Today it prevails in most planning and city management policies in Europe, USA and Australia. In USA it’s called TODs or Neotraditional Towns promoted through Smart Growth movement.
Top 20 Urban Area ranked by Density
(p/sq.km.)Hong Kong 29,432Coimbatore 29,161Meerut 26,527Mumbai 26,355Chittagong 26,012Chongqing 25,949Rajkot 23,316Indore 22,740Jabalpur 22,526Khulna 22,143Nagpur 21,773Dhaka 21,624Kanpur 21,577Ahmedabad 21,057Allahabad 21,022Lucknow 20,545Patna 20,074Nashik 20,048Varanasi 19,879Vijayawada 19,795
Top 20 Urban Area ranked by
CAGR (%)Beihai 10.58Ghaziabad 5.20Sana'a 5.00Surat 4.99Kabul 4.74Lagos 4.44Faridabad 4.44Dar es Salaam 4.39Chittagong 4.29Toluca 4.25Dubai 4.03Luanda 3.96Nasik 3.90Kinshasa 3.89Nairobi 3.87Dhaka 3.79Patna 3.72Rajkot 3.63Jaipur 3.60Gujranwala 3.493
Cities on the MoveFollowing database from a set of 278 million plus population cities, explains the dynamics of cities.Top 20 Urban Areas
ranked by 2005 Population
Tokyo/Yokohama
35,530,000
New York19,712,0
00
Seoul/Incheon19,500,0
00
Jakarta18,200,0
00
Mexico City18,100,0
00
São Paulo 17,800,0
00Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto
17,250,000
Mumbai17,078,0
39
Metro Manila 16,750,0
00
Cairo15,750,0
00
Delhi15,250,0
00
Moscow14,000,0
00
Los Angeles13,829,0
00
Shanghai13,600,0
00
Kolkata13,217,0
00
Buenos Aires12,740,0
00
Beijing11,250,0
00
Shenzhen11,000,0
00
Rio de Janeiro10,900,0
00
Istanbul10,500,0
00
Top 20 Urban Areas ranked by 2005
Land Area (sq.km.)
New York11,2
64Tokyo/Yokohama
7,835
Chicago5,95
2
Zibo 5,93
8
Los Angeles5,81
2
Boston5,50
1
Atlanta5,08
3
Cali 4,97
8
Nagoya4,66
2
Philadelphia4,66
1
Zaozhuang 4,55
0
Moscow3,88
5Dallas/Fort Worth
3,644
Xian 3,55
0Osaka/Kobe/Kyoto
3,497
Houston3,35
5
Detroit3,26
7
Jakarta3,10
8
Beijing3,04
3
New York3,04
3
(Source: www.world-gazetteer.com, www.demographia.com, UITP 2001 Report, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea, www.alain-bertaud.com, FTANT Database & FHWA Highway Statistics 2005, Asian Cities Database by ITPD, WRI/EMBARQ & CAI-Asia 2005, JnNURM CDPs, ITPS Public Transport for Sustainable Mobility in Asian Cities, DTRS: Australian Trends to 2020
4•CAGR is high for recent developing cities particularly smaller cities of Developing Economies of the World particularly Asian cities with Density Directly Correlated to CAGR by 0.36.
India
China
EU
L. America
Predominant Developing Economies
5•Per Capita Petroleum Consumption high for sprawled or rich cities of Developed Economies of the World particularly American, European and Middle East Asian cities, Inversely Correlated to Density
Asia
Australia
Europe
N. America
S. America
Predominant Developed Economies
7
•Public Transport seems efficient in cities with high intensity or land management/market compulsion with Inverse Correlation to Per Capita Petroleum Share by -0.35
Predominant Dense or Land Constrained Economies
8
Kolkata Bangalore London MexicoJohannes
burgBerlin
9
GUJARAT AHMEDABAD URBANISATION TREND
GUJARAT 3RD MOST URBANISED STATE
38 % URBAN POPULATION INCREASING TO 50 % BY 2021.
60 % OF URBAN POPULATION CONCENTRATED IN THE PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR OF MEHSANA –AHMEDABAD- VALSAD INCREASING TO 72 % BY 2021.
AHMEDABAD ACCOUNTS FOR 52 % OF STATE’S GDP AND 35 % OF SECONDARY AND TERTIARY PRODUCTION.
CRITICAL ISSUES :STRUCTURED AND GUIDED CONSOLIDATION OF THE URBAN CORRIDORS IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY AND ECONOMICAALY SUSTAINBALE MANNER
Greater Ahmedabad
19
19
2011 2035
1 Crore People, 800 - 900 Sq. Km60 Lakh People, 500 Sq. Km
A R C H I T E C T S A N D P L A N N E R S
VASTU SHILPA CONSULTANTS
CYBERABAD : REGIONAL CONTEXT
A R C H I T E C T S A N D P L A N N E R S
VASTU SHILPA CONSULTANTS
CYBERABAD : REGIONAL CONTEXT
1 0 1 3 5 10KM
SCALE 1:250000
GROWTH BY 2001
GROWTH BY 2011
GROWTH BY 2021
UPTO 75 LACUPTO 25 LACUPTO 10 LACUPTO 5 LAC
NODES
1 0 1 3 5 10KM
SCALE 1:250000
QUTBULLAPURRAMCHANDRAPURAM
UPPARPALLY
PATANCHERU
KHARMANGHAT
FALAKNUMA PALACE
SURARAMGUNLA POCHAMPALLY
KUKATPALLY, APHBSECUNDRABAD
CYBERABAD
GUNLA
MEDCHAL
KUSHAIGUDA
GHATKESAR
L.B.NAGAR
HABSHIGUDA
SHAMSABAD
HYDERABAD
To Mumbai N.h.no -9
To Mumbai (Broad Guage)
OSMAN SAGAR
HIMAYAT SAGAR
To Bangalore N.h.no-7
HUSSAIN SAGAR
To Nagpur N.h.-7
To Manmad
To Narsapur
To Kazipet
To Vijaywada N.h.no -9
To Nagarjuna Sagar
To Vikharabad
VASTU SHILPA CONSULTANTS"SANGATH" THALTEJ ROAD AHMEDABAD-380054 PHONE 7454537-39 FAX 079-7452006
CYBERABAD ENCLAVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HUDA : ENVISAGED SPATIAL GROWTH BY 2021- ALTERNATIVE 1 ( CONCENTRIC MODEL)
LEGEND
DEVELOPMENT AREA
ROADS PROPOSED IN 1980 MASTER PLANROADS PROPOSED IN 1980 MASTER PLANNATIONAL HIGHWAYS
BROAD GAUGE RAILWAY LINE
METER GAUGE RAILWAY LINE
WATER BODIES
RAILWAY STATIONS
WATER TANK
AIRPORT
URBANISATION MODEL HYDERABAD : MULTIPLE NUCLEI ( TRI CITY CONCEPT )
BELAPUR
KALYAN
THANE
SOUTH MUMBAI
IFBC, BKC
Mumbai
: : Bandra-Kurla Complex,
International Finance and Trade Centre
AUDA GUDA AGGOLOMERATE : 2001COMPOSITE POPULATION : 48 LACSWORKERS : 17 LACS
Industries : 4 LacsCommerce: 12 Lacs
AUDA GUDA AGGOLOMERATE : 2021COMPOSITE POPULATION : 94 LACSWORKERS : 32 LACS
Industries : 7 LacsCommerce: 25 Lacs
ADDITIONAL POPULATION BY 2021 : 46 LACSADDITIONAL JOBS BY 2021 : 15 LACS ASSUMING 35 % POPLTN & JOBS CONTAINED IN ECOPOLIS +NATURE CITYPOPULATION IN ECOPOLIS + NATURE CITY : 16 LACS
ECOPOLIS : 10 + LACSNATURE CITY : 5 + LACS
JOBS IN ECOPOLIS + NATURE CITY : 5.4 LACS
ECOPOLIS : 3.7 LACS NATURE CITY : 1.7 LACS
ECOPOLIS- NATURE CITY LARGELY FALL WITHIN GUDA
PRESENT ZONES WITHIN ECOPOLIS :
•Agriculture
•Commercial
•Residential
SITE CONTEXT : AUDA GUDA DP
ECOPOLIS LANDUSE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
Ahmedabad Urban Land Use Simulation
2011-2021
19
No
. Land Use
Area
(Ha.) % FSI util.**
BUA
(Ha)
1 Residential
General/
Gamtal/Village
11119.0
3
39.42
% 0.61
6802.8
4
2 Commercial748.64 2.65% 0.70
524.0
5
3 Public/Semi Public 1014.55 3.60% 0.40 402.71
4Industrial 3579.50
12.69
% 0.55
1953.
60
5 AMC Plots 467.18 1.66% 0.50 233.59
6
Open / Vacant
Land 4514.36
16.00
%
7
Yard Burial
Ground / Grave 86.54 0.31%
8
Roads/Railway
land 2204.65 7.82%
9 Water bodies 4475.55
15.87
%
TOTAL28210.0
0
100.0
0%
9916.
79
*Revised Draft Dev. Plan, AUDA –
2011 AD Part I, Vol. 2
Gross FSI
util. =0.35
** Delphi Technique
N
o. Land Use
Area
(Ha.) % FSI util.**
BUA
(Ha)
1Residential
23548.
70
57.76
% 0.43
10192
.17
2 Commercial 1334.98 3.27% 0.44 584.64
3Industrial
3780.8
3
9.27
% 0.62
2345.
50
4 Public & Semi public 2585.67 6.34% 0.21 549.42
5
Open
Space/Gardens/Recre
ation
5388.7
6
13.22
%
6 Roads and railways 2669.67 6.55%
7Water bodies
(including rivers)
1461.9
7
3.59
%
TOTAL40770.5
8
100.0
0%
13671.
72
*Revised Draft Dev. Plan, AUDA – 2011
AD Part I, Vol. 2
Gross FSI
util. =0.34
** Delphi Technique
No
. Land Use
Area
(Ha.) % FSI util.**
BUA
(Ha)
1 Residential11176.
10
39.62
%
0.80 8968.
69
2 Commercial 2364.70 8.38% 0.83 1953.1
7
3 Industrial 1402.1
8
4.97% 1.41 1974.
70
4 Public & Semi public 3393.52 12.03
%
0.63 2150.6
2
5
Open
Space/Gardens/Recre
ation
4231.5
0
15.00
%
6 Roads and railways 4687.80 16.62
%
7Water bodies
(including rivers)
954.20 3.38%
TOTAL28210.
00
100.0
0%
15047
.18
*Revised Draft Dev. Plan, AUDA – 2011
AD Part I, Vol. 2
Gross FSI
util. =0.53
** Delphi Technique
No
. Land Use
Area
(Ha.) % FSI util.**
BUA
(Ha)
1 Residential9491.8
2
33.65
% 1.18
11486
.05
2 Commercial 2655.12 9.41% 1.12
2986.2
0
3 Industrial 1310.9
2
4.65
% 1.75
2294.
11
4 Public & Semi public 3277.30
11.62
% 1.00
3186.0
4
5
Open
Space/Gardens/Recrea
tional
5260.3
2
18.65
%
6 Roads and railways 5260.32
18.65
%
7Water bodies
(including rivers) 954.20
3.38
%
TOTAL28210.0
0
100.0
0%
19952.
40
Gross FSI
util. =0.71
** Delphi Technique