Urban Design Explained: Shaping Cities for People

Transit-Oriented Development combines good land use planning with good transit planning by building rapid transit first and rezoning surrounding areas for high-density mixed-use neighborhoods. North York Center in Toronto exemplifies this: once a typical suburban area, it was redeveloped around an existing subway line with a new station added between existing ones. From 1986 to 2001, subway ridership increased by 84% while car ownership decreased by 16%, transforming it into Toronto's busiest business district outside downtown.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) refers to higher-density, higher-intensity development within the half-mile walkable radius around transit stations. TOD creates walkable conditions that make transit use more enjoyable and capitalizes on transit investment. TOD helps mitigate traffic concerns by reducing commuter traffic when people live where they work. TOD differs from Transit-Adjacent Development (TAD), which includes surface parking lots and suburban office campuses that break down the district and prevent walking between uses.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a high-density urban development model where properties near subway stations can achieve much higher development density than standard areas. In Seoul, TOD allows 3,000 units instead of the standard 1,000 units, with half going to residents and half to public benefit. Seoul has designated 320 TOD zones, but only 4 have implemented benefits due to strict eligibility requirements: 60% old building ratio, 50% single-family house ratio, and houses under 45 pyeong. These requirements make TOD difficult to qualify for in premium areas like Gangnam.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a planning strategy centered around public transit stations, extending one-quarter to one-half mile with mixed-use development within a five to ten minute walk. Key features include compact blocks, walkable streets, bike-friendly infrastructure, and reduced parking needs. TOD accommodates diverse housing types—from high-rises in urban areas to single-family homes in suburbs—and varies business formats accordingly. The approach benefits seniors by improving mobility and community connection, attracts millennials seeking affordable housing and transit access, and supports employers competing for talent. Economically, TOD reduces household expenses by lowering transportation costs and decreasing reliance on automobiles. Environmentally, TOD promotes healthier lifestyles through increased walking, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigates flooding through green infrastructure.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a planning model where developers purchase inexpensive land outside city centers, build railway stations, and then develop residential and commercial properties around the stations to capture increased land values. The model assumes that improved accessibility will drive property value appreciation, generating profits to offset construction costs. However, this model requires rapid urban development to succeed. In Indonesia, the TOD model failed because urban development did not keep pace with the railway construction, leaving stations isolated in agricultural areas without the expected population density to support commercial viability.

Biophilic urbanism is built on biofilia—the innate human connection to nature. Edward O. Wilson popularized this concept, suggesting humans have an inherent emotional bond with natural systems. Tim Beatley developed the biophilic cities concept, creating a global network of cities implementing nature-based solutions. This approach transforms cities from concrete-dominated environments into spaces where nature is an intrinsic structural element. Cities seeking biophilic recognition must implement public policies oriented toward bringing nature into urban areas and conserving existing ecosystems. Ecosystem services—benefits nature provides to urban populations—include improved air quality, temperature regulation, and mental health benefits. The pandemic highlighted urban resilience, demonstrating that cities with more green spaces provided better conditions for social distancing and mental health during lockdowns.

Biophilic urban design faces implementation challenges including limited urban space and high land costs in dense areas, maintenance and management requirements for living infrastructure, funding models for long-term infrastructure sustainability, public acceptance and awareness of urban nature benefits, and integration with existing gray infrastructure. Successful implementation requires creative solutions including multi-scale implementation, community engagement, and policy innovation. The approach recognizes that urban sustainability requires both physical infrastructure and human capacity for environmental management, requiring action at all scales from individual to institutional to policy levels. Long-term success depends on building environmental awareness and stewardship capacity across urban populations.

Biophilic cities are urban environments designed to reconnect humans with nature by incorporating natural ecosystems into city planning, addressing climate change challenges through green infrastructure that manages water, supports biodiversity, and improves quality of life, as demonstrated by successful urban transformations like Seoul's Cheonggyecheon stream restoration.

This section examines innovative urban green infrastructure strategies spanning multiple building types. The University of Warsaw Library features one of Europe's largest roof gardens (over one hectare), demonstrating how green roofs can provide ecological benefits while serving public recreational spaces. Pasona Urban Farm in Tokyo integrates working agricultural spaces within commercial office buildings, creating farm-to-table work environments that occupy nearly 40% of building area. Both examples illustrate biophilic design principles—integrating nature into built environments to improve human well-being, reduce energy loads through natural shading and insulation, and create dynamic, engaging spaces that challenge conventional notions of workplace and public architecture.

Timelong Ocean Kingdom houses the world's largest aquarium with themed ocean areas and a massive tank containing whale sharks reaching 18 meters. The Qinghai-Tibet Railway, the world's highest at 5,000 meters, features pressurized cars with additional oxygen to protect passengers from altitude sickness. The New Center Global Center functions as a complete city within a single building, accommodating 20,000 people with hundreds of stores, an artificial beach, and simulated sunrise/sunset lighting. Shopping Guan Juan exemplifies biophilic design as a futuristic jungle under a glass dome with trees on suspended platforms and real aquatic gardens, demonstrating how commercial architecture can integrate nature while serving urban functions.

Form-based codes offer a comprehensive alternative to traditional zoning by regulating physical form rather than land use categories, producing predictable walkable communities. Key reforms include legalizing missing middle housing (duplexes, townhouses), eliminating minimum parking requirements near transit, reducing minimum lot sizes for starter homes, and enabling accessory dwelling units. These reforms work best when paired with streamlined permitting and robust community engagement. The Minneapolis case demonstrates that genuine public process can secure broad buy-in for transformative change, leading to actual housing affordability improvements. These reforms represent a coordinated attack on the Hydra of zoning problems.

Form-based codes represent an alternative to traditional zoning that focuses on building form and urban design rather than use-based restrictions. Cities like Kingston, New York have adopted form-based codes that eliminate many mid-century discriminatory regulations while maintaining basic safety requirements. These reforms remove parking minimums, floor area ratio restrictions, and unnecessary height limitations, enabling more flexible and context-appropriate development. Such reforms demonstrate that meaningful change is achievable through engaged dialogue with local officials.

A form-based code is a regulatory method achieving specific urban form through enforceable rules, distinguishing it from guidelines. It prioritizes physical form as the organizing principle over land use, creating predictable public realms. Three interrelated concerns guide place-making: form (physical appearance), use (activity types), and management (regulations). Conventional zoning uses land use as the dominant organizing principle, categorizing zones as commercial, residential, or industrial. Form-based codes reverse this hierarchy, placing form first while maintaining importance for land use and management.

Form-based codes fundamentally differ from Euclidean zoning by focusing on building form and public space shaping rather than land use separation. Unlike conventional zoning's unpredictable regulations (setbacks, density, FAR), form-based codes create predictable standards enabling proactive community visioning, reducing discretionary review costs, and supporting affordable housing. Successful adoption requires strategic approaches: identifying walkable urban centers, categorizing neighborhoods by transformation readiness, creating standardized zone palettes before mapping, enabling neighborhood-by-neighborhood implementation, and incorporating equity considerations. The missing middle housing movement advocates for duplexes and triplexes as solutions that increase density while maintaining neighborhood character. Form-based codes address broader policy objectives including racial equity, climate resilience, and healthy communities through integrated land use patterns.

The direction to change zoning from form-based code was directed by City Council based on complaints and comments from people within the district. The form-based code had problems with its structure, including a high level of prescriptive standards with no flexibility for property owners or developers to do something different than what was adopted. This was causing people to not be able to use their existing property or have redevelopment options. The form-based code was becoming a barrier because of its designs, high level of design standards, and intensity of minimum levels of development. The goal of the zoning change is to provide people a more clear path to what they can use their property for, rather than throwing roadblocks all over the place.