Assessing innovation: Dynamics of high-rise development in an Israeli city

Abstract

Urban models serve as laboratories, providing researchers with the opportunity to assess the impact of a wide range of social and economic processes on the development of a built environment. Novelty and unexpected changes play an essential role in this development, but these are difficult to formalize and imitate. Typically, urban models simulate innovation by introducing stochastic fluctuations of the pre-established development rules.

This research offers a methodology for assessing innovation in a developing city and examining its impact on urban development. The methodology is implemented in the Israeli city of Netanya, where urban development is analyzed at a resolution of single buildings over a period of three decades.

We recognize two types of innovation: spatial innovation, manifested by leapfrogging residential clusters that establish new development areas; and contextual innovation, manifested by residential clusters that include buildings that are substantially higher than their surroundings. We demonstrate the impact of few innovative residential clusters on urban development in the following decades and highlight the diffusion of innovation in the city.

Keywords

Built environment urban dynamics urban simulation development process self-organization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alfasi

Almagor

Benenson

(2012) The actual impact of comprehensive land-use plans: Insights from high resolution observations. Land Use Policy 29: 862–877.

Allen

(1997) Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems: Models of Complexity, Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

Alonso

(1964) Location and Land Use. Toward a General Theory of Land Rent, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Auerbach

(1913) Das Gesetz der Bevolkerungskoncentration. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 59: 74–76.

Barr

Cohen

(2014) The floor area ratio gradient: New York City, 1890–2009. Regional Science and Urban Economics 48: 110–119.

Batty

(2001) Models in planning: Technological imperatives and changing roles. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 3: 252–266.

Batty

(2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319: 769–771.

Batty

Xie

(1997) Possible urban automata. Environment and Planning B 24: 175–192.

Broitman

Czamanski

(2012) Polycentric urban dynamics—Heterogeneous developers under certain planning restrictions. URISA Journal 24: 25–34.

10.

Buitelaar

Galle

Sorel

(2011) Plan-led planning systems in development-led practices: An empirical analysis into the (lack of) institutionalisation of planning law. Environment and Planning-Part A 43: 928.

11.

Chen

Wang

(2014) Recursive subdivision of urban space and Zipf’s law. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 395: 392–404.

12.

Christensen

(2014) Understanding value changes in the urban development process and the impact of municipal planning. Land Use Policy 36: 113–121.

13.

Clarke

Hoppen

Gaydos

(1997) A self-modifying cellular automaton model of historical urbanization in the San Francisco Bay area. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24: 247–261.

14.

Clarke

Wilson

(1983) The dynamics of urban spatial structure: progress and problems. Journal of Regional Science 23: 1–18.

15.

de Almeida

Batty

Monteiro

AMV

et al. (2003) Stochastic cellular automata modeling of urban land use dynamics: Empirical development and estimation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 27: 481–509.

16.

Dendrinos

(1992) The Dynamics of Cities: Ecological Determinism, Dualism and Chaos, London: Routledge.

17.

Engelen G, White R and Uljee I (2002) The MURBANDY and MOLAND models for Dublin. Final report, RIKS.

18.

Fragkias

Seto

(2009) Evolving rank-size distributions of intra-metropolitan urban clusters in South China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 33: 189–199.

19.

Frenkel

(2007) Spatial distribution of high-rise buildings within urban areas: The case of the Tel-Aviv metropolitan region. Urban Studies 44: 1973–1996.

20.

Gabaix

(1999) Zipf’s law for cities: an explanation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(3): 739–767.

21.

Gielen

Tasan-Kok

(2010) Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public-value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies 18: 1097–1131.

22.

Hägerstrand T (1967) Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process (Innovationsförloppet ur korologisk synpunkt, original published 1953). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

23.

ICBS (2015) DataBank & Tolls. Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. Available at: http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/bnia/bnial.html.

24.

Itami

(1994) Simulating spatial dynamics: Cellular automata theory. Landscape and Urban Planning 30: 27–47.

25.

Knudsen

Florida

Stolarick

et al. (2008) Density and creativity in US regions. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98: 461–478.

26.

Lin

Huang

Chen

et al. (2014) Modeling urban vertical growth using cellular automata—Guangzhou as a case study. Applied Geography 53: 172–186.

27.

Mandelbaum R (2015) The influence of urban design on the way of life. In: ‘Towers in a Park' neighborhoods: The use of public spaces. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts and Social Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev [in Hebrew].

28.

Marković

Gros

(2014) Power laws and self-organized criticality in theory and nature. Physics Reports 536: 41–74.

29.

Martellozzo

Clarke

(2011) Measuring urban sprawl, coalescence, and dispersal: A case study of Pordenone, Italy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 38: 1085–1104.

30.

Miller

Hunt

Abraham

et al. (2004) Microsimulating urban systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28: 9–44.

31.

Mills

(1967) An aggregative model of resource allocation in a metropolitan area. The American Economic Review 57(2): 197–210.

32.

Pascual M, Roy M, Guichard F and Flierl G (2002) Cluster size distributions: signatures of self-organization in spatial ecologies. Philos.Trans.R.Soc.Lond.B.Biol.Sci 357: 657–666.

33.

Porat

Shoshany

Frenkel

(2012) Two phase temporal–spatial autocorrelation of urban patterns: Revealing focal areas of re-urbanization in Tel Aviv-Yafo. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 5: 137–155.

34.

Portugali

(1997) Self-organizing cities. Futures 29: 353–380.

35.

Portugali

Benenson

(1995) Artificial planning experience by means of a heuristic cell-space model: Simulating international migration in the urban process. Environment and Planning A 27: 1647–1665.

36.

Pumain D (2004) Scaling laws and urban system. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper. Available at: http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/04-02-002.pdf.

37.

Rosen

Resnick

(1980) The size distribution of cities: An examination of the Pareto law and primacy. Journal of Urban Economics 8: 165–186.

38.

Silva EA and Clarke KC (2002) Calibration of the SLEUTH urban growth model for Lisbon and Porto, Portugal. Comput., Environ.Urban Syst 26: 525–552.

39.

Stephen

Dixon

(2009) The self-organization of insight: Entropy and power laws in problem solving. The Journal of Problem Solving 2: 6.

40.

Tasan-Kok

(2008) Changing interpretations of ‘flexibility’ in the planning literature: From opportunism to creativity? International Planning Studies 13: 183–195.

41.

White

Engelen

Ulije

(2015) Modeling Cities and Regions as Complex Systems: From Theory to Planning Applications, London, England: MIT Press, pp. 344.

42.

York

Tuccillo

Boone

et al. (2014) Zoning and land use: A tale of incompatibility and environmental injustice in early Phoenix. Journal of Urban Affairs 36: 833–853.

43.

Zhong

Mitchell

Huang

(2014) Success or failure: Evaluating the implementation of China's National General Land Use Plan (1997–2010). Habitat International 44: 93–101.

44.

Zipf

(1949) Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort, Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.