An interdisciplinary debate on project perspectives
Table 3 Comparative assessment of social sustainability indicators in the redeveloped scenario of Al Barsha North 2 neighborhood vs. its status quo
Principles | Indicators | Status Quo | Redeveloped Scheme | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Density | Population Density (40 to 50 pph) and Urban compactness (Floor Area Ratio) | 2.5 | 10.0 | |
2 | Accessibility | Walkability | (Services and facilities located within walkable and bikeable `s through well-defined pathways/cycling lanes) | 2.5 | 10 |
Bikeability | 2.5 | 10 | |||
Services accessible for everyone (Equity) | 5.0 | 10.0 | |||
3 | Mobility | Walkability | (A safe, connected and well-designed pedestrian and cycling infrastructure) | 2.5 | 10.0 |
Bikeability | 0 | 10.0 | |||
Availability of accessible and cost-effective “Public Transport” | 2.5 | 5.0 | |||
Restrained car traffic (prioritization of non-privatized modes of movement) | 0 | 10.0 | |||
Decentralized provision of services | 5.0 | 10.0 | |||
Transit Oriented Development | 2.5 | 7.5 | |||
4 | Integration | Spatial connectivity with adjacent neighborhoods. | 5.0 | 10 | |
Spatial connectivity of the neighborhood’s street network | 2.5 | 2.5 | |||
Mutual supporting role among the neighborhood and its surrounding neighborhoods in terms of provided amenities and services) | 2.5 | 2.5 | |||
5 | Choice & diversity | Diverse range of high-quality services, housing types, non-car-based jobs, open spaces, and modes of mobility | 2.5 | 10.0 | |
6 | Mixed-use | Mixed land-use of the neighborhood plan | 2.5 | 10.0 | |
Availability of quality open spaces that can accommodate various social and commercial activities | 7.5 | 10.0 | |||
Ability to undertake multi-purpose trips | 2.5 | 10.0 | |||
7 | Environmental quality | Physical, psychological, thermal, and visual comfort | 5.0 | 10.0 | |
8 | Safety | Avoiding urban sprawl | 2.5 | 7.5 | |
Calmed road traffic | 2.5 | 10.0 | |||
Streets safe for everyone, not just cars | 2.5 | 10.0 | |||
Dedicated pathways for pedestrians | 2.5 | 10.0 | |||
Safe and integrated network for cyclists | 0 | 10.0 | |||
Safe access to high-quality public transport nodes | 2.5 | 5.0 | |||
9 | Security | Cul-de-sacs avoided | 5.0 | 10.0 | |
Community surveillance | 2.5 | 7.5 | |||
Dwelling units occupied mostly by owners | 7.5 | 7.5 | |||
Rent/property price (social stratum) | 7.5 | 7.5 | |||
10 | Social capital | Available social gathering nodes (regular occurrence of social interactions leading to social networks) | 2.5 | 7.5 | |
Encouraged people encountering (through walking) | 2.5 | 10.0 | |||
Distinctive urban design and high-quality services and facilities (increase sense of belonging) | 2.5 | 10.0 | |||
Community participation (increases trust) | 0 | 7.5 | |||
Total average | 3.05 | 8.67 | |||