29.01.2013 Views

Physical Density and Urban Sprawl: A Case of Dhaka City - KTH

Physical Density and Urban Sprawl: A Case of Dhaka City - KTH

Physical Density and Urban Sprawl: A Case of Dhaka City - KTH

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

unrealistic because tall buildings need to be placed at longer distance which means the<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> coverage should be less.<br />

Rådberg has analysed the density in urban blocks in Sweden; four out <strong>of</strong> 25 has been<br />

illustrated in figure 2.4. The values presented in the figure 2.4 are estimated ranges, which<br />

aim to visualize the way in which different building types occupy l<strong>and</strong> in relation to the FAR<br />

values. He estimated that the FAR value for 1 storey villas range from 0.10 to 0.15 with 5-<br />

10% l<strong>and</strong> coverage whereas 8 storey tower blocks have FAR value <strong>of</strong> 0.95 with 10-15% l<strong>and</strong><br />

coverage. These analyses can be used to analyze the physical densities <strong>of</strong> any urban block.<br />

1 storey villas<br />

FAR = 0.1– 0.15<br />

Coverage 5-10%<br />

3 storey lamella blocks<br />

FAR = 0.55<br />

Coverage 15 – 20%<br />

8 storey tower block<br />

FAR = 0.95<br />

Coverage = 10 -15%<br />

The analysis <strong>of</strong> densities can explore the comparison <strong>of</strong> FAR, space use <strong>and</strong> spatial qualities,<br />

as well as dimensions <strong>of</strong> urban sprawl. Rådberg developed a systematic method to analyze<br />

the densities <strong>of</strong> housing block for Swedish urban block (Figure 2.5). The analyses <strong>of</strong> FAR,<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> coverage by building <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> storeys can be seen in figure 2.5.<br />

Figure 2.5 shows the classification <strong>of</strong> urban blocks in the Swedish context. Rådberg (1996) is<br />

<strong>of</strong> the view that for the classification <strong>of</strong> typologies, a typo-morphological urban analysis (as<br />

opposed to the functional typology) <strong>of</strong> urban types should be made which means buildings<br />

are studied in context, together with the surrounding public <strong>and</strong> private spaces. He argues that<br />

the analysis <strong>of</strong> such object may be a group <strong>of</strong> buildings <strong>and</strong> open spaces which mean urban<br />

block, the building lots or the street pattern.<br />

Rådberg uses the parameters <strong>of</strong> residential density, building height <strong>and</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong><br />

covered by buildings. He suggests that the basic methodology for typological classification<br />

should be essentially the same regardless <strong>of</strong> the country (Rådberg, 1996:386).<br />

Figure 2.5 is showing the parameters to classify the urban types. Here the residential density<br />

‘e’, building height or average number <strong>of</strong> storeys is ‘n’ <strong>and</strong> the percentage <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> covered by<br />

building is ‘v ’. The formula is e = v x n.<br />

Rådberg shows that if the number <strong>of</strong> different urban blocks are registered <strong>and</strong> place each<br />

block as a dot on the graph (according to their urban density <strong>and</strong> number <strong>of</strong> storeys), the<br />

individual observations <strong>of</strong> blocks (dot in the diagram) tend to cluster into a larger bubble<br />

15<br />

19th century inner city<br />

FAR = 1.5 – 2.2<br />

Coverage = 40%<br />

Figure 2.4: <strong>Density</strong> <strong>of</strong> several urban blocks in Sweden. Source: Rådberg, 1988 in<br />

Gren, 2006: 18.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!