Definition
Many decisions on lifestyles result from the ways in which space has been allocated in the past and is being allocated in the present. A sustainable urban lifestyle requires, for example, the availability of public transport, which cannot function effectively and efficiently without relatively high dwelling density. It requires spaces for public institutions close to dwellings and corridors for efficient infrastructure alignments. Spatial allocation can enable proximity to convenient and affordable essential facilities, for home, work, shopping, schooling, and health care. It can also combat unsustainable lifestyles by refusing to allocate space for uses, such as plots for single large houses and spaces for parking private vehicles.
The allocation of space for various types of development and activities determines the location, scale, and design of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. It essentially creates the physical preconditions for choice architecture (see Choice Editing). It can enhance beneficial “provisioning factors”, such as proximity, or mitigate harmful ones, serving as a mediator in achieving more sustainable lifestyles.
Responsibility for spatial allocation is usually governed by a regulatory system, which varies between countries, regions, and even municipalities. The system is based on a separation between ownership and rights of use. The rights to change land use or to develop a site do not necessarily belong to the landowner but to the public, represented by the state. They are allocated according to approved statutory plans and policies. The regulatory system includes (i) the designation of areas for development and conservation, (ii) where development may be prohibited or restrained, and (iii) the designation of space for sites and alignments for infrastructures. The land use regulatory system enacts building codes, which can incorporate mandatory requirements and compliance with standards for energy efficiency in buildings, solar energy, resilience to seismic risks, green building, and preventing building in areas of high risk, including risk to climate disasters, such as in floodplains.
History
The evolution of spatial allocation can be traced back many centuries, for instance where central city spaces were allocated to governmental, religious, and trade activities. Examples include the Greek cities planned by Hippodamus of Miletus in the 5th century BC. However, the modern land-use regulatory planning system in cities is often attributed to reformers in the mid-19th century, responding to illness, epidemics, and pollution generated by industrial development in crowded towns. They proposed creating decent conditions for workers, such as “garden cities” with good quality living conditions and healthy green open spaces. This separation of residential neighborhoods from mass production work locations created the need for daily travel to work. While it provided affordable and decent housing, it had profound impacts on the choice architecture for lifestyles.
This was accelerated in the post-World War II era, when the upsurge in demand for single-family houses resulted in urban sprawl in places like the United States, initially along suburban train routes and later along highways, facilitated by mass car ownership. This resulted in the outward dispersal of low-cost, low-density residential development. It was encouraged by governments through low-interest mortgages and the availability of credit and loans and was seen as fulfilling the dream of homeownership for all.
By the turn of this century, many cities continued to spread outwards, with ever-increasing commuter distances and loss of land to buildings. But that was not universal. Others took a more sustainable approach, creating vibrant and lively city centers, providing for walkability and the use of bicycles, and giving preference to efficient, affordable, comfortable, and convenient public transport (see Sustainable Mobility). Cities such as Barcelona, Vancouver, Paris, and Copenhagen not only are regarded as cities that are attractive and provide a high quality of life but also enable their residents to live sustainable lifestyles. However, property prices and rentals in these attractive and vibrant cities are increasingly high, and consequently, sustainable lifestyles may not necessarily be affordable.
Different Perspectives
Spatial allocation has always been a controversial and contentious issue, both over its content and over the process of decision-making. Many controversies, for instance, end up in the courts. Who should make decisions on how to allocate space? Should it be determined by national or local government? Whose interests do they represent and how can civil society be engaged and involved in the processes of decision-making? How are the interests of future generations taken into account?
Early regulatory systems allocated the powers of decision-making to appointed or elected representatives, supported by professional architects, engineers, and town planners. Civil society could object to development proposals and hope their views would be taken into account, but were often regarded negatively as NIMBYs (“Not In My Back Yard”). Over the decades, civil society gained influence, initially through demands for transparency but later through involvement in the decision-making process by forming coalitions, obtaining support from non-governmental organizations with expertise, and financial support from philanthropic funds (see Social Movements and Consumer-Citizen).
Although the economic interests of developers and the revenue from local rates and betterment taxes provide strong incentives for approving projects and proposals, spatial allocation has become far more responsive to community, local, social, and public interests. Perspectives vary over time and across countries and often reflect political differences toward a neoliberal free market for property rights versus state responsibility for public welfare and the provision of public services.
The following are some approaches taken by professional experts involved in urban development:
Demand Versus Need
Land use planning has traditionally been based on forecasts of demand – for housing, industrial and commercial space, public services, and for meeting transport requirements – based on market predictions and real estate values. Environmental and social considerations were integrated into decision-making, initially as externalities but later as valid public considerations. However, when an urban planning committee reviews a development proposal, it typically assumes that market demand is valid and does not consider whether that demand should be restricted, even if public infrastructure is available and potential environmental impacts are insignificant. Even when objectors turn to the courts, they are typically required to justify why a proposal should not be approved (e.g., due to harm to the habitat of a rare species). A focus on sustainable lifestyles would shift this burden of proof: a development proposal (whether private or public) would be considered unnecessary unless the proponent could demonstrate its necessity for serving the public benefit (such as providing decent housing for all) and prove that it is the best alternative to fulfill that need.
Separation of Land Uses (Zoning) Versus Mixed Use
Spatial allocation through land-use planning, commonly referred to as zoning, designates permitted uses intending to ensure high-quality living conditions and maintain stable real estate values. It provides long-term security for land values and helps the market provide clarity to buyers and sellers about what would be permitted on adjacent plots and in their neighborhoods.
It has, however, in some cases, resulted in social and racial segregation and prevented the mixture of communities, even creating barriers to the interaction between peoples and activities. Urban policies today favor mixed uses, enabling homes, work, and commercial activities to take place in close proximity, strengthening urban street life from morning through evening, and enabling non-motorized circulation.
Urban Renewal Versus New Towns and Outer Suburbs
After favoring outward expansion, many cities found themselves burdened with land and buildings that had deteriorated over time and were even abandoned. Inner urban areas suffered from industrial contamination and dilapidation as inhabitants and activities moved to outer suburban, peri-urban areas or new towns. Governments and cities recognized that they had to bring people back into the inner city by providing high-density and high-quality development, well served by public transport. However, this is often no longer affordable. A shift has occurred whereby those with high incomes who can afford to live in city centers have access to public amenities funded by public money (e.g., public transit, parks, inexpensive commutes, libraries, etc.), while those with lower incomes, who live further and further away, have little access to these public amenities.
Underground Versus Overground
Many cities grew upwards, with ever-increasing building heights as real estate values rose. Foundations and parking spaces were required by building codes to be below ground, but few cities developed their underground space beyond the provision of public transport systems. Singapore is an exception, with such a shortage of space that underground space was seen as essential to its development. Montreal developed its underground areas as a solution to its climate. However, in general, land use planning has ignored the benefits of harnessing underground space. Technological advances today could enable more facilities to be moved underground and release the surface and aboveground space for activities that require natural ventilation and light.
Private Space Versus Public Space
The role of the spatial planning system is to allocate private property rights while maintaining public values and enabling public services. There is thus a strict division between private space and public space. The system does not easily accommodate shared or joint uses, such as smaller but decent living conditions combined with larger spaces for higher-quality public services. Spatial planning may require reappraisal in relation to the sustainable discourse on what constitutes decent living conditions.
Applications
Paris and Barcelona provide two examples of cities that have applied concepts for sustainable lifestyles in urban development and management strategies. Paris adopted the concept of a 15-minute lifestyle, with an emphasis on proximity, where residents could access their daily needs within a 15-minute radius without the need for a private car.
Barcelona’s municipality (Ajuntament de Barcelona) divided sections of the existing urban structure into “superblocks” within which accessibility by vehicles was highly restricted to local residents and priority given to non-vehicular circulation. Each superblock could then re-allocate road space and provide residents with street space for local community urban activities. Barcelona thereby offers an exemplary application of sustainable urban planning and spatial allocation concepts, which is already inspiring further cities to follow it.
Further Reading
Ajuntament de Barcelona. (2016). Let’s fill streets with life – Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Barcelona: Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility. Available at: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.pdf (accessed: 8 January 2025).
Knaap, G.-J., Nedović-Budić, Z., & Carbonell, A. (Eds.). (2015). Planning for states and nation-states in the U.S. and Europe. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Moreno, C. (2024). The 15-minute city: A solution to saving our time and our planet. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Nadin, V., Cotella, G., & Schmitt, P. (Eds.). (2024). Spatial planning systems in Europe: Comparison and trajectories. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839106255.
Vogel, J., Steinberger, J.K., O’Neill, D.W., Lamb, W.F., & Krishnakumar, J. (2021). Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use: An international analysis of social provisioning. Global Environmental Change, 69, 102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102287.