An increasingly popular trend in urban planing has been the designation of land based on their specific purpose. While this can lead to initial inconveniences, I believe that the personal and social positive impact of such a scheme outweigh the disadvantages.
Evidently, city use-based zoning can undermine residents’ accessibility to services and public places. People must make long trips to reach areas of different functions as they are no longer scattered throughout cities. Moreover, frequent traffic jams are another limitation of this planning style due to individuals gathering on the same route, to their workplace or homes for instance, in rush hours instead of dispersing. Operators of buildings may also face obligatory space compromises to maintain clear division between areas, upending their intended planning and investment.
It is worth noting, however, that the separation of land on functionality can potentially increase housing affordability by contributing to reversing the current upwards trend in rental and estate cost. Pricing disparity of accommodation that has traditionally been predicated on proximity to services and infrastructures, which are rendered equidistant to residential areas, can be eliminated accordingly. Another benefit is improved community cohesion owing to tighter neighborhood connections and reduced weath-gap commonly associated with living location. For businesses and service providers, purpose-based planning represents an opportunity to compete with larger and more well-established counterparts as venue advantage is practically removed.
In conclusion, the downsize of lowered accessibility and space freedom pale in comparison with a more stable real estate markt, tighter communities , and fairer competition the scheme offers. Planners nonetheless need careful assessment of cost and gains specific to their areas and consulting the local council before implementing functional zoning