Local Studies and Knowledge Gaps

3.6.2.1 Local Studies about Subdivision Regulations

There are a few studies examining SR at the local level in KSA; these can be categorised into two types. The first type analyse the planning and design standards of current SR, whereas the second type show issues at the macro or micro level related to SR code and to the land subdivision development practices in Saudi cities. The next two sections examine the two study types, in order to then isolate and define present knowledge gaps.

Study Type One

Makki (1986) describes the process of land subdivision and subsequent development as based on planning standards. Makki suggests that street widths should be compatible

Context

with the city master plan, and in cases where there are no street network standards for subdivision plan at the local level, the width should be 24m for main roads, 18m for secondary roads, and not less than 12m for cul-de-sacs. Another study in Riyadh by Al-Nowaiser (2001), with aspirations of creating a holistic framework, proposed to fuse the old traditional planning standards with the modern ones, to get a better balance between the two planning approaches. The hope in mixing the two standards was to create new visions of healthy and safe residential areas in KSA cities. A key factor in working towards this goal is to identify what features to keep and what to discard in the new hybrids. Alskait (2003a) usefully defines the negative aspects of current planning and development subdivision plans in Riyadh. He illustrates three main aspects. The first is a set of criticisms of the conventional developers’ approach in the subdivision plans’

development process. Alskait indicates that all the current residential areas in Riyadh are conventional subdivision plans implemented by developers. He explains:

Residential development in Riyadh is individualistic in nature. That is, every plot owner develops his house on his own. Most of the city residential areas were planned as subdivisions. Many of these subdivisions are owned by major land developers and real-estate brokers who sell them to individual owners per plot. These individual parcel owners start the subdivision development process. Almost every prospective homeowner develops his own house acting as an owner, contractor, and consultant at the same time. This results in fragmented houses developed by different owners at different intervals of time. It takes, in many cases, up to thirty years for a whole subdivision to fully develop. Indeed, even after thirty years, most subdivisions have vacant land (2003a:44).

The fragmentation in development puts a burden on to residents in the subdivision and in neighbouring areas, who must live among vacant properties for years and in many cases must wait just as long for the implementation of adequate public services.

The second critique brought forward by Alskait is that conventional developers have produced incomplete residential areas because they are without public services and facilities. In western countries, the municipal requirements place their emphasis on services and amenities requiring developers to dedicate more land for public usage, whereas the Saudi Land Subdivision Ordinance requires all land subdivisions plans to dedicate 33% of their total area to public usage (e.g. road networks, gardens and mosques). Alskait has seen that this land dedication is often left open so planners can design the community with the utmost flexibility. However, in many cases the

Chapter Three: Subdivision Control and Land Subdivision Development Process in the Saudi Arabian Context

allocation of this 33% is subject to the discretion of municipal officers who are in charge of subdivision planning. Alskait selected eight items (planning standards) from the SR code about which to obtain the consultants’ views. He discovered that the consultants see the current SR code as inadequate.

The third of Alskait’s points examines suitable community development criteria. He suggests a framework of criteria for residential communities based on the author’s experiment. He describes two unconventional master-planned communities – Telal Arriyadh (TA) and Riyadh Al-Khuzama (RK) – which were both planned by the author.

Both projects introduced new concepts in subdivision planning and development, based on the liveability theme, or an element missing in most existing conventional residential areas. Both projects are not only places to reside but they are also places to fully live (e.g. learn, work, exercise, and enjoy life). Alskait believes that the quality of both projects is linked to the process of planning and the contents of each project; that projects depend on the configuration of an integrated neighbourhood. The result is a pair of private communities that include several components such as residential neighbourhoods, schools, pathways, central park, commercial corner plazas, etc. The author-proposed framework is not a set of technical criteria. He prepares a guide on which subdivision planning criteria can be based in an attempt to provide practical alternatives to conventional development and, potentially, a model to rectify the existing common code.

Harefsha’s study (2008) shows different plots for public services within private subdivision plans. The plans include schools, health centres, gardens and playgrounds, and other amenities, but most of them are left for the time being without being implemented, either by the governmental or the private sector. Harefsha discovered three main reasons behind the unsustainability of service sites: no involvement on the part of relevant services providers during the subdivision plan approval process; lack of information (e.g. maps) at the macro and micro levels about the sites of government services after the plats’ implementation process; and lack of SR code to customise sites within the subdivision plans for the private sector. Customisation would benefit site preparation for schools, clinics and many other private services.

Al-Freadi’s study (2008) examines the evolution of planning standards in Riyadh, namely that of LSPs. The study looked specifically at the views of a sample of residents in a number of residential neighbourhoods in Riyadh. Al-Freadi defines residents’ views

Context

towards a selection of planning standards from the current SR code, and accounts for residents’ wishes for physical, economic and social parameters of future developments.

Al-Freadi concludes that a large percentage of respondents desire the provision of services and facilities on sites near their housing units, with good pedestrian access.

Residents also want reduced reliance on automobiles for access to and navigation within their neighbourhoods. Finally, they desire multiple work opportunities within residential neighbourhoods or close to their residences.

Moustapha et al. (1985) shows the rapid growth in population and urban land use in KSA has been greater than the capacity of the Saudi government to plan for, cope with, or absorb the population in a systematic manner. They believe that such cultural transformations or changes can create social as well as physical stress – for instance, primary and kinship relations characterise traditional society, while secondary and instrumental relationships are a feature of a developed society. Adjustments to these changes are difficult and often unsuccessful, resulting in alienation and other significant social problems. They suggest that the government create policies to guide urban development by creating a modern building and subdivision regulation. The new code should be a combination of a selection of modern and traditional conditions, based on the site- and city-specific environmental and cultural conditions in KSA.

Hence, the above critiques have helped to shape the research appraisal more informatively and to structure the case study locality services survey as well as the household survey.

Study Type Two

Alghamdi (1984) studies the LSPs’ activity. He calculates the number of implemented plats and describes the directions of city growth. More than 60% of subdivision plans’

activity was found in northern Jeddah, and he concludes that the growth will continue in the north into the future. Al-Nowaiser (1993) has analysed the effects of the modern grid pattern of subdivisions on the behaviours and activities of its inhabitants. He discovered that new LSPs imported from western countries influenced the lifestyle of the Saudi population. Another study by Tashkandi (2004) has shown a historical evolution of land subdivision patterns and their development both worldwide and specifically in KSA. Al-Oleat (2004) illustrates the land subdivision approval process development in Riyadh since the approval and implementation of the first master plan in

Chapter Three: Subdivision Control and Land Subdivision Development Process in the Saudi Arabian Context

1973. He gauges the influence of the process on the quality of LSPs’ design and implementation practices, finding that there are two stages in the process. The second stage is better in terms of the plats’ output quality, giving several reasons for this evaluation. These are that the formation of a planning committee and the decision of approving the plat is now based on collective decision-making rather than an individual’s decision, and the process has become a participant-based process including a planning committee, plat designer, and representatives of the land subdivision developers.

Edrees’ (2004) conceptual model can be applied to improve the current LSP practices in Makkah. The model is based on urban design elements, specifically open spaces. The goal is to enhance the residential built environment, and raise the quality of residential housing in the neighbourhood boundary. Edrees integrates one traditional Islamic built environment element called a barha into his model. A barha is an open space inside a neighbourhood, with housing units grouped around it. Edrees’ model is capable of creating a number of housing clusters connected by pedestrian networks, incorporating the traditional practice with modern practices. The new model is motivated by the critique of the exiting one. In a further study, Edrees (2006) criticises modern subdivision plans’ failing to accommodate and sustain the values and needs of community. In order to begin to address these shortcomings of the modern model, he embraces the traditional barha, which permits the residents space to carry out different outdoor activities, thereby enhancing social interaction between the residents, improving microclimate conditions by providing shade for and air circulation among the tightly placed building clusters, and providing a natural security system as the space is frequently occupied and always visible to residents. He understood the importance of the barha to creating socially successful neighbourhoods, by examining and listening to residents’ perceptions of their built environments. He found that residents in modern developments lacked opportunities for social interaction and recreational activities, because their units are widely distributed, and at times unevenly so, as many plots remain vacant for extended periods of time. He argues for creating design guidance for residential barha, and making it an SR requirement. Beyond this uniquely innovative fusion of traditional practices with contemporary ones, the lasting message of Edrees’

research is to examine and listen to residents’ preferences.

Context

Alskait (2004) examines issues of neighbourhood security and safety, of which most are related to traffic and the social behaviour of teenagers and young adults. Alskait defines sources of security and safety breaches within subdivision plans. He sampled inhabitants in two Riyadh neighbourhoods. The planning pattern of the first sampling’s neighbourhood is based on a new grid street network, while the second is based on the cu-de-sac system. The study found that new grid subdivision plans, with multiple access points that are also not fully developed, are more conducive to the occurrence of traffic problems and delinquent behaviour in comparison to the cul-de-sac patterned communities. The study’s findings suggest creating new planning policies aimed at solving these issues that is based on the American experience; those policies can be utilised when planning new neighbourhoods. Alskait specifically suggests creating design competitions in Arab countries to achieve better neighbourhood concepts for safety and security.

Mubarak (2004) discovered that in Riyadh, 50% of the city urban plan, covering approximately 1,300km², is a pattern of inappropriate, undeveloped or premature subdivisions. Much of this was a result of speculative land deals. The current area of undeveloped subdivided land is approximately 650km², which is roughly equivalent to the city’s currently developed land. Mubarak sees the main cause behind the spread of this pattern as the centrality of government ordinances, in combination with the generally inefficient urban planning practices. Both of these factors helped to create

‘dysfunctional’ sprawl by mandating big plots and overly wide street network, and have encouraged the transformation of the outlying desert landscape into unchecked land subdivision plans, championed by speculators and land developers. Mubarak predicts the city’s population will exceed ten million inhabitants by 2020, and hopes future city growth will not continue the same practices of suburbanisation. Mubarak argues for urban management with decentralised authority and independent suburban districts with adequate public facilities and services financing.

Abdulaal (1990) examined the implications of subdivision activity for urban growth in Madina, one of the larger Saudi cities. The land subdivision pattern, according to Abdulaal, is fragmented and inefficient, because it is speculatively based on the estimated ability to sell. The consistency of development of individual plots is based on the buyers’ desires for acquisition, as buyers (e.g. in Madina) purchase for reasons other than developing the land. Those that have done so have left the majority of subdivided

Chapter Three: Subdivision Control and Land Subdivision Development Process in the Saudi Arabian Context

plots empty, unused and undeveloped. Abdulaal holds the local authority and the state of the current SR code responsible for the fragmented development. The municipality’s land subdivisions approvals are dictated by planning by-laws that govern the subdivision’s layout, and these include an agreement to dedicate 33% of developed land to public facilities. Yet, subdivision approvals were not phased to coincide with an anticipated rate of development and occupancy, so there is a greater supply then there is demand. Abdulaal also discusses issues created by urban sprawl, which significantly impairs the efficiency and effectiveness of public investment. Many subdivision inhabitants in the Madina suburbs live without public water services, for instance. The residents initially transport water to their housing units by truck, but because doing so is inconvenient and costly, this is not a practical long-term solution. Similarly, the lack of a sewage network leads to the use of septic tanks in scattered subdivisions, which affects the ground water quality and safety. A small number of subdivisions are connected to the city’s service networks, and servicing the sprawling urban pattern has cost the government more than necessary. The cost has increased because the main pipelines and electricity cables must reach fragmented areas. Services such as schools, clinics, parks, shops are also found less frequently in sparsely populated sprawling areas. Less access to services requires the inhabitants travelling long distances, which results in more street traffic because the automobile is the only reliable means of transportation. Most subdivisions, especially the largest, have allocated land for schools and mosques. Yet, in most subdivisions, the land allocated for public facilities is not developed until threshold populations are crossed. Without schools accessible by foot or by public transportation, residents often have to take their children to school themselves, at times conflicting with work schedules and at significant distances from their homes and work. Abdulaal found that Madina trades its land for speculative purposes rather than for complete development, producing inadequate and inefficient results. The question remains as to how pervasive these practices are across KSA.

In Ali’s (2005) study of the impact of SR on the efficiency of highway performance in Riyadh, he evaluates current SR in terms of the disadvantages created on the main roads. These include multiple access points between the blocks, the spread of business activities – services and small businesses of an administrative nature – on to roads, and the increase of small plots on roads. Ali argues that the issues have spread onto the main roads, disrupting traffic flow during most of the day. He calls for the government to

Context

improve the current SR code, and to include new requirements that will lead to increased highway efficiency.

3.6.2.2 Local Study Knowledge Gaps

Examination of the studies mentioned above help to create a better collective understanding of the current SR and the LSP practices in KSA. Yet, the understanding and research may still be improved, as it exhibits a number of knowledge gaps. First, there is a lack of knowledge about the importance of SR as a tool. For instance, there has been no attempt to illustrate the context of SR, define its contents in detail, its historical context, explain the approval process or its purposes, or define its drawbacks.

There is no in-depth analysis of the current SR in KSA with comparable western models. There is no documented information on officials’ views towards SR, or on the types of studies officials conduct for a plat approval, the technology used to enhance the decision-making process, or the main participating actors of the approval process.

Secondly, although there are a few studies which study and analyse SR and LSP practices in Jeddah, the contexts are limited to the macro level. Harefsha (2008) covers a narrow perspective of public service sites in private subdivision plans, and Alghamdi (1984) studies LSP activity. Another knowledge gap exists with regards to the developers’ role in the subdivision development process, as no research has tried to demonstrate developers’ views, characteristics, methods and practices, means of obtaining approval, and approach to implementation and post-implementation. There is no documented information on unconventional subdivision plan practices and their developers’ views towards the SR and regulators in any Saudi cities.

Finally, some studies have shown the impact of SR on the pattern of land subdivision practices. Abdluaal (1990) has attempted to analyse the pattern of subdivision plans in Madina at the macro level. He defines subdivision plan activity and its growth direction.

He illustrates utility networks connection with regard to the growth of plats in the city and provides the percentages of developed and undeveloped subdivision plans.

Alghamdi (1984) studies the same issues but has shown the availability of public services and facilities in subdivision plans, and the direction of growth in Jeddah.

Alskait (2003a) illustrates two types of subdivision developments in Riyadh, but does not provide detailed information about the two types, such as their prevalence in numbers, development process, and quality. Ali (2005) shows the impact of SR on the

Chapter Three: Subdivision Control and Land Subdivision Development Process in the Saudi Arabian Context

efficiency of highway performance in Riyadh. At the subdivision plan level, or micro level, there are two studies defining the impact of SR. Alskait (2004) discusses issues of security and safety in neighbourhoods, and Edrees (2006) discusses residents’

perceptions of use of the barha, or open space. However, all these studies have not dealt with both macro and micro level analysis of subdivision plans, nor have they discussed the impacts of SR on both levels. They have also not analysed the output of the current

perceptions of use of the barha, or open space. However, all these studies have not dealt with both macro and micro level analysis of subdivision plans, nor have they discussed the impacts of SR on both levels. They have also not analysed the output of the current