Effects of pedestrianisation on the commercial and ... - Eco-Logica

and traffic behaviour. Social hardship was
compensated by a transport allowance
similar to the former residence allowance
for people living on public welfare.
3. Inner city development
For a long time Green land development
was very common, rarely questioned and
promoted thorugh tax benefits for
commuters. Auto-mobility and
telecommunication (together with the
demand for bigger residences, cheap
building plots and a family home in green
Figure 1: Spatial structure <strong>of</strong> travel patterns (own figure)
Parallel to green land development at the
beginning <strong>of</strong> the century, new, dense and
mixed-use city quarters were established on
empty land abandoned by military, industry
or railways. These inner city developments
were very successful and they initiated a
new trend 'back into the city' (Brühl et al,
2005) and the renaissance <strong>of</strong> the inner city.
Attractive cities, which kept an eye on the
quality <strong>of</strong> their public spaces, advertised
urban culture and urbanity with success.
They especially attracted the group <strong>of</strong> the
'new' old people wanting to live in an urban
cultural ambience. Suburbia is not
attractive for the older generation because
shops, services, leisure time facilities and
medical care are not easily accessible, and
the car is needed for almost every journey.
The traditional European inner city with its
areas) had dissolved spatial structures
towards what we call 'Zwischenstadt';
suburbia and urban sprawl with low density,
car-orientation and, finally, cardependency.
Concentrated, radial traffic
flows, directed towards the city centre were
becoming increasingly superimposed by
peripheral flows and criss-cross flows over
longer distances throughout the region
(figure 1). The density <strong>of</strong> the city decreased
- a process, which was additionally
accelerated by demographic changes.
density and mixed-use areas survived
parallel to suburbia and the 'Zwischenstadt'.
Inner city development (instead <strong>of</strong> green
land development) with 'more mobility and
less traffic' (Topp, 2003) became the most
important strategy <strong>of</strong> spatial development.
In inner city areas, a household can easily
live with one car and (if so desired) even
without a car. Here, public transport plus
car-sharing is a realistic alternative. Cardependency
in suburbia on the other side
absorbs more from a household's budget
than is usually noticed. That can
compensate for higher building costs in the
inner city over a long period. In suburbia
people loose not only flexibility and mobility
but also economic liberties. This gained
more and more importance during the
years because <strong>of</strong> more expensive transport
World Transport Policy & Practice________________________________________________________
Volume 13.1 September 2006
20