III  2022/2023
   2021-2022
   -
 -   ",    -2022"
  COVID-19
      10


English version Russian version



ARCHITECTURE AND MODERN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC SCIENTIFIC - EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL


Article

POLYCENTRICITY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF BALANCED URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN SOFIA’S MASTER PLAN

Authors A. Kovachev, A.D. Slaev, Y. Lyubenov,Varna Free University “Chernorizets Hrabar”, Varna, Bulgaria
Abstract

In this paper we investigate the ability of the current master plan of Sofia to implement a polycentric structure of urban development. Like most large cities over the world, Sofia is growing and like most cities in Europe (e.g., Paris Moscow, Stuttgart, Milan, and many others) Sofia is suburbanizing. The form of growth/expansion is an essential issue for a master plan. Generally, three forms of growth are discussed most often by planners: monocentric, polycentric and dispersed (the latter is usually termed sprawl). Whereas the positions of planners regarding monocentric development are often contradicting, i.e., many planners are critical of this urban form, but others emphasize its advantages, the positions regarding sprawl and polycentricity are relatively more established. The critical attitude towards sprawl (i.e., dispersed development) is popular among most professionals, while the vast majority of planners consider polycentricity a beneficial form of growth. The General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) of Sofia, prepared between 1998 and 2003, adopted in 2007, aims to develop a polycentric urban system. Its purpose is to establish a proper balance between the development of central city areas and suburban territories. The main research question of this research is: is the GUDP of Sofia able to neutralize the threats of sprawled (dispersed) development by promoting polycentric urban form?

Keywords: urban growth, urban development forms, polycentrism, efficiency of planning, sustainable urban growth
article Article
References

  1. World Health Organization. World Population Prospects - The 2015 Revision. New York, 2015.
  2. Bertaud, A. The Spatial Organization of Cities: Deliberate Outcome or Unforeseen Consequence? Working paper 2004-01. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, 2004.
  3. Shubenkov M.V. Blagodeteleva O. Dikson – arkticheskij forpost Rossii [Dixon arctic outpost of Russia]. AMIT 2012. Available at: http://www.marhi.ru/AMIT/2012/special_12/shubenkov/shubenkov.pdf
  4. Moisseev Yu. Predposylki razvitiya sistemy gradostroitelnogo planirovaniya [Preconditions for the urban planning system development] AMIT 3 (36) 2016. Available at: http://www.marhi.ru/eng/AMIT/2016/3kvart16/moisseev/abstract.php
  5. Kovachev A. Gradoustroystvo (in Bulgarian) [Urban planning] (in two volumes) Pensoft, Sofia, 2003.
  6. Kovachev A and Slaev A.D. The balance between planning and the market in the current practice of spatial development in Bulgaria. VII International Scientific Conference Architecture, Construction Modernity, 28-30.05.2015
  7. Slaev A.D. Types of planning and property rights. Planning Theory 15(1) pp. 23-41. 2016.
  8. Slaev A.D. The relationship between planning and the market from the perspective of property rights theory A transaction cost analysis. Planning Theory published online ahead of print 092016. DOI: 10.1177/1473095216668670.
  9. Shubenkov, M., Shubenkova M. Otdelnye voprosy otechestvennoy teorii gradostroitelstvo [Some questions of domestic theory of urban]. AMIT 2015, Special issue. Available at: http://www.marhi.ru/eng/AMIT/2015/special/shub/abstract.php
  10. Johansson M. Polycentric Urban Structures in Sweden Conditions and Prospects. In: C. Bengs, ed. Facing ESPON.NordregioReport20021.99.
  11. Vasanen A. Evolving polycentricities. The development of urban-spatial structure in Finish urban regions. University of Turku, pp. 13-17, 2013.
  12. Pavlov N. Prostranstvo kommunikacii i morfologia kommunikativnoy funkcii [Space of the communications and morphology of communicative function]. AMIT 2012, Special issue. Available at: http://www.marhi.ru/eng/AMIT/2012/special_12/pavlov/abstract.php
  13. Davoudi S. Can polycentric development enhance competitiveness and cohesion? ESPON/SPAN Seminar 22-23 February 2005. Queens Univ. Belfast, 5. 2005.
  14. Giffinger R. Polyce - Metropolisation and Polycentric Development in Central Europe. Urban Policy - Challenges, Experiences, Ideas 25-26.06.2013. Report on commission to ESPON. Warsaw, 2013.
  15. Esaulov. G.V. Informacionno-kommunikacionye tehnologii v arhitekturno-gradostroitelnom formirovanii sredy zhiznedejatelnosti. [Information technologies in architectural and urban planning formation of living environment] AMIT 2015. Available at: http://www.marhi.ru/AMIT/2015/special/esaulov/esaulov.pdf
  16. Shemyakina V. Gradostroitelnye struktury novyh gorodov Velikobritanii, postroennyh dlya razuplotneniya krupnyh gorodov i regionov i podderzhki neblagopoluchnyh rayonov [Town-planning structures of new cities of Great Britain constructed for enlightening of big cities and regions and support of unsuccessful areas]. AMIT 2 (19), 2012. Available at: https://www.marhi.ru/AMIT/2012/2kvart12/shemyakina/shemyakina.pdf
  17. Kovachev, A. Zelenata sistema na Sofia, Urbanistichni aspekti (in Bulgarian) [The Green System of Sofia, Urban planning aspects] Pensoft, Sofia, 2005.
  18. Aguilera A. and D. Mignot. Urban Sprawl, polycentrism and commuting. A comparison of Seven French Urban Areas. Urban Public Economics Review, 93-95. 2004.


Content of the journal