|
Permeability or connectivity describes the extent to which urban forms permit (or restrict) movement of people or vehicles in different directions. The terms are often used interchangeably, although differentiated definitions also exist (see below). Permeability is generally considered a positive attribute of an urban design, as it permits ease of movement and avoids severing neighbourhoods. Urban forms which lack permeability, e.g. those severed by arterial roads, or with many long culs-de-sac, are considered to discourage movement on foot and encourage longer journeys by car. There is some empirical research evidence to support this view.〔HANDY, S., CAO, X. and MOKHTARIAN, P.L., 2005. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 10(6), pp. 427-444.〕 Permeability is a central principle of New Urbanism, which favours urban designs based upon the ‘traditional’ (particularly in a North American context) street grid. New Urbanist thinking has also influenced Government policy in the United Kingdom, where Department for Transport guidance (Manual for Streets ) says:〔(DFT, 2007. Manual for Streets. London: Thomas Telford Publishing ). Paragraph 4.2.3〕 == Reservations == There are two principal reservations concerning permeability. The first relates to property crime. Although the issue is contested, there is some research evidence to suggest that permeability may be positively correlated with crimes such as burglary.〔WHITE, GARLAND F. (1990). "Neighborhood Permeability and Burglary Rates". Justice Quarterly 7(1).〕 New research has expanded the discussion on this disputed issue. A recent study〔An evidence based approach to crime and urban design Or, can we have vitality, sustainability and security all at once? Bill Hillier, Ozlem Sahbaz March 2008 Bartlett School of Graduate Studies University College London〕 did extensive spatial analysis and correlated several building, site plan and social factors with crime frequencies and identified nuances to the contrasting positions. The study looked at, among others, a) dwelling types, b) unit density (site density) c) movement on the street, d) culs–de-sac or grids and e) the permeability of a residential area. Among its conclusions are, respectively, that a) flats are always safer than houses and the wealth of inhabitants matters; b) density is generally beneficial but more so at ground level; c) local movement is beneficial, larger scale movement not so; d) relative affluence and the number of neighbours has a greater effect than either being on a cul-de-sac or being on a through street. It also re-established that simple, linear culs-de-sac with good numbers of dwellings that are joined to through streets tend to be safe. As for permeability, it suggests that residential areas should be permeable enough to allow movement in all directions but no more. ''The over-provision of poorly used permeability is a crime hazard.'' The second reservation concerns the effects of permeability for private motor vehicles. Melia (2012)〔(Melia, S. (2012) Filtered and unfiltered permeability: The European and Anglo-Saxon approaches. Project, 4. pp. 6-9. )〕 proposed the terms "unfiltered permeability" and "filtered permeability" to distinguish between the two approaches. Unfiltered permeability is the view supported by the New Urbanists that urban designs should follow "traditional" or mixed use streets, where pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles follow the same routes. The principal advantage claimed for this approach is that it "leads to a more even spread of motor traffic throughout the area and so avoids the need for distributor roads".〔 There are also a range of arguments advanced by the proponents of Shared space that where speeds are low, road users should be mixed rather than segregated. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Permeability (spatial and transport planning)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|