Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Taxonomy of urban mixed land use planning T

⁎
Rewati Raman , Uttam Kumar Roy
Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In classical urban planning, land use segregation and zoning regulations have been practiced by the city planners
Mixed use as the mainstream guiding principles in shaping cities. In spite of many advantages, such land use segregation &
Land use zoning regulations, over the last few decades, have been critiqued by scholars for many adverse conditions. Such
Urban planning as 1) isolation and lack of vitality, 2) longer home-work distance and travel cost, 3) unsuitable environment for
Land use zoning
small investments, 4) higher travel cost for facilities, amenities and thereby increased expenditure, 5) safety
Compactness
issues, etc. As a solution, mixed land use (MLU) has been advocated as a strategy to avoid such limitations and
adverse conditions. In addition, MLU offers other advantages like 1) housing variety and density, 2) creation of
an economic blend of compatible land uses, 3) compact development, 4) stronger neighborhood character, 5)
walkability, 6) job generation, etc. However, MLU always may not produce such advantages. For example,
mixing multiple land uses beyond a suitable proportion can also bring unwanted conditions like traffic con-
gestion, encroachments, unintended very high-density housing, parking spill out, non-residential uses operating
on residential premises paying less tax, chaos and noise, stressed infrastructure, etc. Nevertheless, MLU has been
advocated largely in all international urban forums and scholarly discourses. Still, operationalizing the concept
of MLU in an appropriate balance has not been streamlined due to various confusions and research gaps. The
current paper addresses those confusions through a thorough discussion from literature and clarifies the concept
of MLU with clear classifications and differentiation as a significant basis for further research and practice.

1. Introduction
Classifying human activity by land use types like residential, com-
mercial and industrial, etc. is an established strategy in city planning.
Classified land uses were segregated to different locations within the
city by virtue of strict zoning regulations considering the compatibility
to avoid unintended environmental conditions emerging from the in-
dustrial revolution through the 19th and 20th century. Such segregated
land use as an effective planning strategy could develop modern and
peaceful living zones away from industrial and commercial areas in
cities. However, in the recent few decades, substantial scholarly dis-
courses and practices are found on the critique regarding the limitations
of land use segregation. For example, segregated land use was cited as
the cause of a few conditions like, 1) lack of vitality (Jacobs, 1961), 2)
inadequacy in vitality and diversity (Procos, 1976), 3) socio-economic
statures (Chused, 2000; Davidoff and Gold, 1970; Liberty, 2002;
Ritzdorf, 1997), 4) formation of sprawls (Fischel, 1999; Kunstler, 1997)
and 5) divisions of city against natural trend (Boyer, 1983; Calthorpe,
1993; Krier, 1988) etc. Gradually, the focus of classical land use
planning has included mixed land use (MLU) as one of the very useful
and effective tools to compliment segregated land use. Compatible and
predicted MLU was considered as an constructive tool in bringing
community development, vitality and diversity, natural surveillance at
street level, transit-oriented development, non-motorized transporta-
tion, job generation, etc. As a result, MLU as a tool for city planning is
now identified as essential in contemporary planning theory and
practices; such as sustainable development, New Urbanism, Smart
Growth (American Planning Association, 1998; Congress for the New
Urbanism, 2000), etc.
MLU, reinvented as an intended mixture of complementary land use
types, is not a new phenomenon devised by the planners. Historic city
core areas which have developed organically based on the spontaneous
need of people shows MLU as a natural pattern of human settlements.
Currently, MLU is found as a result of lawful (when it is deliberately
planned) or unlawful actions (when there are less enforced zoning
norms). Irrespective of lawful and unlawful situations, MLU poses a
serious matter of concern, consideration, and study for modern plan-
ning practices. It is found that most of the zoning codes and regulations

Abbreviations: MLU, mixed land use; uMLU, unplanned mixed land use; pMLU, planned mixed land use; tMLU, tonal mixed land use; cMLU, composite mixed land
use; zMLU, zonal mixed land use; FSI, floor space index; FAR, floor area ratio
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, 247667, India.
E-mail address: rraman@ar.iitr.ac.in (R. Raman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104102
Received 9 January 2019; Received in revised form 11 June 2019; Accepted 15 July 2019
0264-8377/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Raman and U.K. Roy
have not been successful in adequately specifying MLU beyond a pre-
scribed ceiling and list of mixing. Although, generalisation, uniformity,
and approximation of MLU for all contemporary practices seem too
theoretical and simplistic. As an obvious result, the MLU planning has
still been ‘the exception, not the rule’ (Grant, 2002), despite its popu-
larity in planning theory and practices. The main reason behind the gap
between the theoretical intention and effective practice of MLU is the
absence of a clear understanding of a few elements. Such as 1) defini-
tion and classification of MLU types, 2) variance of applicability of MLU
types at city, sub-city, and neighborhood/area level, 3) critical range of
safe mixing and 4) effective spatial pattern of intended mixing.
The intent of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework of
MLU categories, their appropriate nomenclature & indicators and in-
dicate the interrelations with the various levels of city planning. For
doing this we first present a review of literature on the theory and
practices of MLU with brief historical revisits. The next section provides
the significance of establishing an MLU taxonomy, its methodological
framework and an approach for doing that. Following this, the next
section presents a taxonomy of MLU types followed by their indicators
and parameters of practice in the subsequent section. Further two
sections present a discussion and conclusion with future research areas.
2. Literature review in MLU planning
2.1. Emergence and contemporary practice
Historic settlements organic and spontaneous in nature showed a
natural tendency of mixing of land uses with broad physical segregation
of social classes. The emergence of the industrial revolution and its
consequent adverse effect, due to the polluting industry in the re-
sidential area, caused the conceptualisation of segregated land use in
the nineteenth century. The Concentric Zone Theory by Burgess in 1925
(Ernest, 1925), Homer Hoyt’s Sector Theory of 1939 (Hoyt, 1939), and
Multiple Nuclei Model by C. D. Harris and E. L. Ullman in 1945 (Harris
and Ullman, 1945), are the first few models which systematically
brought the spatial representation of segregated land uses. The devel-
oped countries became the first adopters of segregated land use zoning
post-industrial revolution in an effort to keep residential and industrial
areas separate from each other (Logan, 1976). For instance, America
had been in the practice of segregated land use for decades (Grant,
2002) and Europe as the Athens Charter, led by European architects,
declared single using zoning as a prime tool of modernist planning
(Corbusier and Eardley, 1973). Even so, European planners still allowed
percolation of some other uses in neighborhood planning (Liebermann,
1996; Logan, 1976). Contrary to this, American planners were more
inclined towards segregated planning that forbids the mixing of dif-
ferent residential types within the same area (Grant, 2002). Other parts
of the world also adopted and practiced segregated land use in the new
town and city extensions.
Post World War II USA became the pioneer of the absolutely seg-
regated land use movement in urban areas. The peak of land use seg-
regation movement that commenced in the 1920s, was between the
1950s and 1960s (Procos, 1976). The crux of segregated land use is to
detach and group together various different utilities and functions
common in our day-to-day life. The urban inhabitants have to travel to
reach their place of residence, work, entertainment, etc. and are
therefore dependent mainly on privately owned vehicles to move
around. This detachment between the land uses has disintegrated the
presence and vivacity of traditional city centers or Main Streets (Jacobs,
1961). The inherent flaws in segregated land use zoning philosophy
came in light gradually. It started with observations of visually no-
ticeable loss in urban vitality and diversity (Procos, 1976).
In the 1960s the concept of segregated zoning came under staunch
criticism for the first time. Jane Jacobs was one of the main proponents
against single-use blocks (Jacobs, 1961; Wickersham, 2000). It was
promulgated by the notion that mixing of various uses cultivates
2
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102
advantageous urban vitality (Wickersham, 2000). Thus re-emergence of
mixed land use can be seen from 1960 to early 1970 (Tucker, 1980). In
this decade, it was argued that any type of urban zoning or planning
either segregated or mixed-use is neither good nor bad; and it should be
seen in terms of their social, economic, psychological, physiological and
aesthetic effects upon its users (Davidoff, 1965). However mixed land
uses were viewed as a beneficial contribution to the contemporary
urban development of this decade (Jacobs, 1961; Procos, 1976).
Reoccurrence of mixed land use was conceptualized as a recupera-
tion measure for waning urban areas from the late 1970s and 1980s.
For example, the Melbourne City Council in 1975 considered mixed-use
areas to compete for sites, where many compatible land-use types are
permitted within designated areas (Tucker, 1980). While developers
and other stakeholders of urban planning and development feared that
introducing mixing of various land use activities in an area may de-
crease the land value of that area; it was found that in rapidly growing
areas of a city, an optimal mix of land use activities are economically
more beneficial than segregated land use activities (Van Cao and Cory,
1982). In the 1980s the benefits of living-working-shopping mixes were
more evident and mixed land uses were advocated more often by urban
planners (Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987).
Starting in the 1980s numerous researchers and scholars put forth
the argument that segregated zoning was, in fact, a method of curtail-
ment of the innate natural order of any complex urban realm
(Calthorpe, 1993; Krier, 1988), which recommended “the division of
the city into ‘cells’ (Boyer, 1983)”. The idea of segregated land use was
also termed as a blighted notion to separate the inhabitants on the basis
of socio-economic statures (Chused, 2000; Davidoff and Gold, 1970;
Liberty, 2002; Ritzdorf, 1997), and therefore a major causal instigator
of formation of sprawls (Fischel, 1999; Kunstler, 1997). With the advent
of the 21 st century, mixed-use zoning was identified as a more bene-
ficial planning concept compared to segregated land use, leading to a
paradigm shift towards the replacement of single-use zoning with
mixed land use. We find an obvious adoption of MLU in the con-
temporary city planning in the last twenty years and some of those are
mentioned in the next paragraph.
The welfares of mixed land use have been identified by many cur-
rent planning theories, such as - The principles of smart development
(American Planning Association, 1998); Charter of the new urbanism
(Congress for the New Urbanism, 2000), etc. UN-Habitat in its ‘New
strategy of sustainable neighborhood planning’, mandates five princi-
ples, namely, “1) adequate space for streets and an efficient street
network, 2) high density, 3) mixed land use, 4) social mix and 5) lim-
ited land-use specialization” (UN Habitat, 2014). It indicates the ad-
vantages of MLU as bridging socio-economic rifts in the community,
promoting non-motorized transport and pedestrian-friendly urban
realms, employment generation, etc. and also mandates that 40% of the
floor area should cater to economic activities within a residential
neighbourhood. Similarly, ‘Urban intensification’ and ‘Compact City’
are some of the pronounced planning concepts in Europe with similar
beneficial implications. The ‘Urban Land Institute’s Mixed-Use Devel-
opment Handbook’ (Levitt and Schwanke, 2003) on the other hand
propagates four main aspects which define a mixed land use develop-
ment at the plot or neighborhood level. They are the provision of three
or more economy generating establishments, compatibility, the density
of land uses, and walkability.
Preceding subsection showed the advantages of mixed land use have
been widely accepted among urban planners, policymakers, scholars
and other stakeholders. Regardless of all the acceptance and practices,
MLU is also associated with some inherent challenges and problems if it
is not handled as a specific typology. For instance in the early 90s and
thereafter MLU was criticized for restricting personal freedom of living
in single-family dwelling unit and owning cars (Cervero, 1991;
Thomson, 1978). Therefore, given the choice of living in single and
multiple family dwelling, can there be specific rules of both? It is
possible if the typologies of mixing (or not mixing) and range of
R. Raman and U.K. Roy
compactness is determined based on the choice of mixed-use and seg-
regated use typologies.
In the global south, countries like India have considered MLU as a
carrier of urban development objectives in recent times. In the ‘Smart
City Mission 2015' (applicable to a hundred selected cities), the concept
of MLU has been given central importance. Smart City Mission docu-
ment (MoHUA, 2015) states that, for comprehensive development of
Smart Cities in India, cities will have to use mixed land use features as a
tool of planning and design in Area Based Development (ABD), Retro-
fitting, Redevelopment or Greenfield Development. However, no spe-
cific guideline in terms of the extent of mixing and types of mixing is
indicated in the mission document of Smart City Mission (MoHUA,
2015). According to the Noida (a sub-city of Delhi) Mix land use Policy
2013, a nominal cost has to be paid by the owner to convert their ex-
isting single-use properties into mixed-use establishments (Keelor,
2015). The said conversion cost is 25% of the variance between the
current sector rate of the property (industrial or residential) and the
reserve price adjudged against commercial institutions in the specific
area the property exists. The policy also states that residential plots can
only be mixed with financial institutions and guest houses, while in-
dustrial plots can accommodate other commercial and recreational
uses.
In case of uncontrolled scale, density and degree of mixing; a mixed-
use development can cause many unwanted effects e.g. congestion,
encroachments, chaos and noise, etc. It is observed that high and
medium density mixed use households see noise as a serious problem
(Bahadure and Kotharkar, 2012; Saville-Smith, 2010). This noise is a
result of congested and chaotic environment created due to improper
handling of mixed land use developments (Nixon et al., 2003; Sabikhi,
2007; Van Cao and Cory, 1982). Mixed land use developments might
attract illegal encroachments, if not implemented correctly. For ex-
ample, residents’ welfare associations in Delhi, India claim that after
introduction of MLU in Master Plan of Delhi 2021 (DDA, 2007) the
parks, footpaths, and roads have been illegally encroached and the
crime rate has increased, the stress on infrastructure has been ex-
ponentially high due to high population density induced by the in-
troduction of MLU, making residential areas unfit for living (Mail
Today, 2015). The increased stress on infrastructure and services due to
the introduction of MLU in a residential area might also tend to parking
spill out, as seen in the case of Delhi. In absence of proper research
before the implementation of MLU and legal enforcement after the in-
troduction of MLU might lead to illegal non-residential activities in
residential areas (Chitlangia, 2015; Mail Today, 2015; Sabikhi, 2007).
In all of the above principles, the prescription of MLU is too sim-
plistic and uniform in nature irrespective of mixing land uses, which is
questionable. In most of the cases, the quantitative range for mixing
various categories is missing; except UN-Habitat where 40% of retail is
permitted in a residential area. Few development authorities might
have also indicated the different benchmarks for mixing in terms of
percentage to principal land use. However, there is no documented
literature in the typology and differential prescription of land use
mixing. The uniform prescription of 40% (or any other) is too simplistic
and may not work at all locations. Specifically, the mixing is non-spe-
cific to the land use category. Mixing in the second and third order is
never elaborated. None of the principles have elaborated mixed-use
categorisation and defined the typologies. Therefore, MLU has been
Table 1
Issues of MLU Planning and its effect & consequences.
Gap & Issues of MLU planning
Lack of clarity and uniform perception of MLU & it’s distinct features
Simplification of mixing extent or pattern
Absence of MLU typologies
MLU as a qualifier of a segregated land use
Absence of generalised indicators for MLU Planning
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102
practiced as a qualifier of segregated land use, not a typology. Thus a
theoretical inadequacy leads to a few missing links and obvious plan-
ning challenges. The next section thus describes the significance of
taxonomy of MLU and its probable approach and effect.
3. Significance, approach & evolving a workable Taxonomy for
MLU
3.1. Reason and benefit of MLU taxonomy
Typological classification is the fundamental stage of any systematic
& scientific study of the natural and manmade phenomenon. Human
settlement planning received the classical land use classifications and
the same was practiced in the last two centuries. With the emerging era
of MLU planning, land use and urban planning are on the verge of re-
engineering the way we have been classifying our cities based on the
practice of segregated land use. The main game changer of this tran-
sition is MLU. However, the planners and researchers have been pro-
pagating MLU with very different ideas and perceptions with no uni-
versally accepted typologies and benchmarks. MLU, as reinvented as an
intended mixture of complimentary land use types, is not a new phe-
nomenon devised by the planners. Historic city core areas which have
developed organically based on the spontaneous need of the people
shows MLU as a natural pattern of human settlements. Currently, MLU
is found as a result of lawful (when it is deliberately planned) or un-
lawful actions (when there are less enforced zoning norms). Irrespective
of lawful and unlawful situations, MLU pose a serious matter of con-
cern, consideration, and study for modern planning practices. It is
found that most of the zoning code and regulations have not been
successful adequately specifying MLU beyond a prescribed ceiling and
list of mixing. Although, generalisation, uniformity & approximation of
MLU for all contemporary practices seems too theoretical and sim-
plistic. As an obvious result, MLU has been a historically relevant
concept practised organically to satiate natural human settlement ten-
dencies. Marked ambiguity regarding the formalization norms that can
holistically facilitate the amalgamation of MLU in zoning codes and
regulations is a substance of enduring research efforts. The complicated
nature of MLU eludes its over-simplification and hence further en-
quiries are required to establish it as a rule.
The main reason behind the gap between the theoretical intention
and effective practice of MLU is the absence of a clear understanding of
a few elements. Such as 1) definition and classification of MLU types, 2)
variance of applicability of MLU types at city, sub-city, and neigh-
bourhood/area level, 3) critical range of safe mixing and 4) effective
spatial pattern of intended mixing. Clearly, it is evident the discourses
under the Sl. No. 2,3 & 4 above is possible only when a clear under-
standing of the definition, distinctive features, and classification of MLU
is done as stated in Sl. No. 1. Secondly, the issues related to MLU
planning like the absence of typologies and clarity lead to many diffi-
culties and undesired effects as mentioned below in Table 1.
Therefore, the classification of MLU is essential and need of the day.
A legitimate classification of mixed land use will provide many benefits
to planning practices. Such as 1) bring clarity and distinctive planning
prescriptions, 2) more option for the planner to prescribe, 3) focussed
research & 4) selective investment and private funding for intended
mixed land use. In the light of the above discussion, we identify two
Effect and consequences
Ad-hoc planning practices
Failed to address diverse urban situations
Restricts planners to prescribe options in absence of typologies
One size fits all approach in various levels (area, city or sub-city)
The intent of MLU planning is partially or not achieved; the full benefit of MLU is unexplored
3
R. Raman and U.K. Roy
very important & significant gaps related to the theoretical framework
of MLU planning; Firstly, the classification or a workable taxonomy of
MLU indicating its level and scale; secondly the planning indicators
required to benchmark each classified category. These will enable fu-
ture researcher and planners to take planning decisions more wisely,
precisely and consciously.
3.2. Approach and method
The question dealt with here is fundamental in nature and difficult
to get through any empirical exercise. Rather an insightful analysis of
the inferential study is more beneficial. In doing that, various zoning
regulations and land use structures of the cities are observed from the
literature, discerned and grouped together as per the specific distinctive
features. Based on that the classification is identified and a suitable
nomenclature proposed. Therefore, the classification proposed in the
next section is inferential and observational. However, each of the
typologies is discussed in details about their applicability and dis-
tinctive features using case examples. Another key outcome of this
approach is to generalise the fundamental indicators in influencing
planning for MLU. This is presented in Section 5. The same is again
carried out through an inferential approach based on the earlier dis-
courses.
Mixed land use can be classified into several categories and sub-
categories depending on different parameters. Here in this paper, MLU
is classified based on 1) origin of development and 2) mixing char-
acters. The first one depicts the ‘how’ elements and the second one
depicts the ‘what’ elements. Both are explained in the next section.
Thus, we approach the classification from a temporal perspective and a
spatial or physical perspective (what component, based on mixing
character). Therefore, the typologies are evolved based on past evi-
dence of practices and scholarly discourses.
3.3. An evolving taxonomy
We find that historically developed MLU can be differentiated on
the basis of 1) origin and 2) character. The origin differentiates the
development into planned vs unplanned and lawful vs unlawful. So
largely, MLU can be divided into two broad kinds based on the origin of
development. Firstly, it is a result of somewhat unplanned conditions
and organically grown phenomenon (hereinafter mentioned as
Unplanned MLU or in short, uMLU) and secondly, as a result of planned
and controlled urban development as intended by organized planning
authorities (hereinafter mentioned as Planned MLU or in short pMLU)
(Fig. 1). The cases of uMLU are found mostly in the core city area,
smaller town sprawls, outgrowths and fast-growing villages in a tran-
sitional phase. Whereas, the pMLU is found in most of the planned cities
where MLU has been considered, knowingly or unknowingly, as a major
Fig. 1. Mixed land use typologies.
4
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102
feature of development. It is very difficult to comment and compare on
the advantage or disadvantage of both phenomena. However irrespec-
tive of the origin and these broad typologies it can be stated that both
situations enjoy the benefits of MLU.
Before we go further in the discussion of subcategories and planning
considerations, it will be pertinent to look into a few other attributes of
uMLU and pMLU. Unlike pMLU, unplanned category constitutes both
spatial and temporal aspects (uMLU). Spatial aspects constitute the
physical attributes of planning (built-up areas in different land/building
uses, locations, etc.) and their impact on the subsequent social and
economic factors. On the other hand, uMLU, which embodies both
spatial and temporal factors, is organic and dynamic in nature.
Sometimes uMLU arises from the vices of segregated land use either
lawfully or unlawfully. pMLU is developed through redensification,
urban renewal, and regularization measures through planning and in-
stitutional mediations. Illicitly on the other hand uMLU develops
naturally through the efforts and consequent needs of the inhabitants of
any particular area. Such naturally developed unplanned areas are
functionally sound but, might be subject to legality issues, which can be
mitigated through enforcement and urban control mechanisms.
MLU can be differentiated based on the character of mixing in terms
of the proportion of different uses at various levels. Plot-level differs
from the neighborhood or area in terms of the scale of development,
i.e., plot level mixing will pertain to only one plot or building, while
neighborhood level mixing comprises of a number of plots along with
the ancillary infrastructure required. From all cases and pieces of evi-
dence available within literature, along with different types of devel-
opment, three major types of MLU are identified, based on the character
of mixing largely within pMLU domain. For convenience, those are
named here as Tonal MLU, Complimentary MLU & Zonal MLU and are
explained here. A) Mixed land use as a concept of ‘mixing’ allowed and
added (in a comparatively small proportion) to a principal land use
within a plot to enhance its density and variety. (hereinafter mentioned
as Tonal MLU, or in short tMLU). B) Mixed land use as a concept of a
different category of compatible and complementary land use as
‘mixed’ within a plot with no principle or predominant land use.
(Composite MLU or in short, cMLU). C) Making deliberate zones or
areas of MLU consisting of tMLU and cMLU both in city level as a
concept of zonal mixed land use’ (hereinafter mentioned as zMLU).
zMLU can be created as segregated mixed ‘zones’ at the city level. The
tMLU, cMLU & zMLU represent the typology based on the character of
development and subject to planning intervention (Fig. 1).
These types of mixed land use planning have been practiced orga-
nically worldwide even though without classification. The typologies
are decided based on the character of the city, current and future needs
of the city and vision of the people, planners and lawmakers for the city.
So the typologies and nomenclature need detailed description and cases
to illustrate the distinctive nature of each typology. Thus, the detailed
descriptions for each identified typology and taxonomy is given in the
next section along with case examples.
4. Distinct Character and Case examples of tMLU, cMLU & zMLU
4.1. Tonal MLU (tMLU)
In this case, another complimenting land use is added in a relatively
small quantity to an existing predominant land use. For example, retail
is mixed in a predominantly residential area or some amount of special
housing is added in the predominant business zone, like a tonal en-
hancement of colour without hampering the predominance of the
dominant colour. The principal or predominant land use can be defined
as the land use which takes more than fifty percent space of the de-
signated area whereas mixing or tonal land use must be less than fifty
percent. tMLU increases vitality in an area and diminishes the distance
to be traveled by people by motorized transport in their day to day
lives. Mostly tMLU is found at the building, site and neighborhood
R. Raman and U.K. Roy Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102

Table 2
Prescribed MLU allowed as tMLU in residential areas in city master plans/ zoning plans.
City Plans Prescriptions

Penfield, New York, USA
Alameda County, California, USA
Manila, Philippines
Delhi, India
New Town Kolkata, India
Mixed Use Development Manual Penfield, NY (Penfield Town Board,
2017)
Development standards for residential mixed-use projects (County of
Alameda, CA, 2010)
The Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations of
2006
Master Plan for Delhi-2021 (DDA, 2007)
The New Town Kolkata Planning Area (Building) Rules (Urban
Development Department 'Nagarayan', 2014)
30% of the total area as non-residential use permitted in residential
mixed use.
Minimum 50% area for commercial use only on the ground floor
30% of FAR as non-residential use permitted in residential mixed
land use.
25% of FAR for non-residential activity in a residential area (Fig. 2)
25% of the total covered area of all floors as non-residential
activity permitted in mixed land use area.

level. The classic example of tMLU is mixing compatible retail use in a
residential zone. This phenomenon is common in organically developed
cities in Asia and carefully planned cities of Europe. For example, the
zoning code prescription of MLU, which is basically a tMLU, is shown
below in Table 2, when applied in a residential land-use, after served
population for their essential household needs and may also append the
additional value of other different land uses deliberately to bring more
diversity.
Delhi City (Sl. No. 4 in Table 2) introduced MLU in the year 2007 for
its various planning zones (DDA, 2007). Many neighbourhoods have
introduced (Tonal) MLU to get benefits of MLU regulations of Delhi
Development Authority. As a case example, Bhogal neighbourhood of
New Delhi city is shown below in Fig. 2 where the existing condition of
the spatial arrangement of tonal MLU is shown. An amount of 25% of
the total floor area in the predominantly residential areas was allowed
as non-residential use. The predominance of the principal land use at
the plot and area level is the fundamental nature of tMLU and evident
from Fig. 2.
The major part of commercial activities as complimentary land use
in this neighbourhood is retail activities, which is a classic example of
Tonal MLU. However, it is quite understandable that some amount of
retail might be essential to facilitate convenience for the citizens and
beyond a certain limit, it becomes a deliberate mixing to an extent
below 50% of the floor area.
4.2. Composite MLU (cMLU)
Unlike the tMLU, where one land use must be predominant, there
could be MLU forms where multiple land use with no absolute pre-
dominance can be created. In this case, the land use intermixing is non-
distinctive and ‘mixed’ with no principle or predominant land use.
Hence it is termed as ‘composite’ mixed land use or cMLU. In this case
share of the relative quantity of any single land use must be below fifty
percent. However, the number of land uses must be more than two. For
example, “Land Use Land Cover Classification System (New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, 2010)” states that residential,
industrial and commercial uses can at times be mixed in ways, such that
the predominant use of a specific area is indeterminable. Usually, cMLU
is practiced and prescribed in special plots along transit corridors,
business zones, etc.
This type of mixed land use is mostly categorized when a clear
quantification of dominant land use cannot be established, but in rea-
lity, every zone/area of a city has a character of the predominant use,
even when the quantification of land use in percentage doesn’t reflect
the same. Mostly the cMLU is found at the area, sector, sub-city, and
city level or along the commercial corridor. cMLU usually is a planned
phenomenon and needs specific zoning codes and benchmarks.
However, the following example from Delhi shows the cMLU along the
corridor in the old city areas. ‘Chandni Chowk’ area of the city of New
Delhi in India is such an example of cMLU, where a clear dominance of
any land use in terms of quantity cannot be established.
The major land use types of Chandani Chowk area are Commercial,
Residential, Educational, Mixed, Religious and Institutional which can
be seen in Fig. 3. The wide main street of Chandani Chowk (Fig. 3) is
served by narrow lanes (locally known as Gali) which provide access to
historically significant residential as well as commercial, religious and
other areas. The different land use types attract different types of traffic;
hence the character of traffic in this area is congested mixed traffic.
Fig. 4 shows a general character of the area having cMLU along the
street.
4.3. Zonal MLU (zMLU)

After re-emergence of mixed land use in the city planning process,

Fig. 2. ‘Bhogal’ neighbourhood of Delhi showing tMLU in a predominantly
residential area.
many planners and lawmakers are aiming to implement mixed land use
in future master plans of cities all around the world in various ways. As
mentioned above, the tonal or composite MLU is prescribed at various
levels. Introduction of a dedicated mixed land use zone as a distinct
zone is one of the ways, which planners use to safely experiment with
mixed land use. In this case, deliberate zones of MLU consisting tMLU
and cMLU in area, sector or city level is planned, developed and called
as zonal mixed land use and termed here as zMLU. In these types of
distinct mixed land use zones, a variety of mixing of compatible land
use types can be planned according to the vision and goal of the city.
The prime goal of Zonal MLU is to create a walkable and pedestrian-
friendly community and neighborhood. Walkable communities not only
excel in healthy lifestyles and safe neighborhood, but they also con-
tribute towards community development and an increase in the choice
of mode of transport. The planning and design of the neighborhood
should be such that it not only caters to pedestrians and non-motorized
transport users but also safe and seamless vehicular movement.
For example, Cleveland City Master Plan 2020 (Cleveland City
Planning Commission, 2007) presents an interesting case for Zonal

5
R. Raman and U.K. Roy Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102

Fig. 3. Composite MLU pattern along the major street in Chandni Chowk area (UTTIPEC, 2010).

Fig. 4. MLU Character along Chandni Chowk street (UTTIPEC, 2010).

Fig. 5. Example of zonal MLU from Cleveland, USA (Cleveland City Planning Commission, 2007).

MLU. There are three types of Zonal MLU proposed for Cleveland City,
namely, Mixed Use (Residential and Retail), Mixed Use (Live-Work) and
Mixed Use (Downtown). These MLU are respectively 1.5 percent, 0.1
percent and 0.4 percent of the total land use of Cleveland City.
In Fig. 5, taken from Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
(Cleveland City Planning Commission, 2007), two types of distinct
mixed land use are shown, namely, Mixed use (Residential and Retail)
and Mixed-use (Live-work). Mixed use (Residential and Retail) gives
maximum thrust towards flexibility in the provision of housing, walk-
ability and fitness, and diverse choices of transportation while Mixed-
use (Live-work) is focussed towards increasing the economic vitality of
the location to a level of regional and national importance to attract
competent individuals and incipient businesses.
4.4. Distinctive features of tMLU, CMLU, and zMLU
Further to the above case example and notes, it is pertinent to see
and analyse the differences in the concept of tMLU, cMLU, and zMLU
more intensely. Table 3 below shows the differences among each con-
cept based on their distinctive features.

6
R. Raman and U.K. Roy Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102

5. Application of MLU taxonomy in urban planning

Job generation, variety, creating distinct urban characters, reducing

Creation of city level thematic zones, city image, job generation,

Enhancement of density, diversity, walkability, safety & sense of
5.1. Indicators of MLU planning

Earlier in this paper, a need for well-articulated MLU classification

has been established and the same now has been distinctly named using
community at neighborhoods and local areas only

a new taxonomy, in the preceding section, as tMLU, cMLU, and zMLU.

It is expected that the new taxonomy would enhance the zoning pre-
scription of MLU in a more specific and predictive manner. However, it
Thematic economic or cultural hubs

is important to understand the interrelations and their indicators

work-home trip, etc. at all levels

(spatial and temporal) to identify their application interface in urban

planning. Mixed-Use development is shaped from numerous elements;
Intended & Primary impact

among these are the key components of scale, density and the degree of
mix within the development. These three factors are essentially what
makes the task of defining mixed-use development so difficult (Gentin,
2013; Marsh, 1996). In addition, there are other indicators which
emerged from the gross comparative analysis of literature-based evi-
dence.The summary of these indicators along with their reference and
significance is shown in Table 4.
We find five very important and distinguished indicators to define
and benchmark the different variety of MLU which are 1) compatible
composition, 2) extent or range, 3) pattern 4) density and 5) level. The
Predominance allowed in the

‘composition’ of MLU refers to the compatibility of land uses and

Predominance is essential

No predominant land use

combining various uses according to functional parity. Coexistence of

two or more compatible land uses where all of them enjoy mutual
desired quantity.

benefits of being mixed and faces negligible negative consequences in

Predominance

the environment. The ‘extent’ of MLU refers to the quantifiable range of

mixing of any land use with another land use. Usually, it is calculated
on the basis of shared floor area. Present research on mixed land use
planning mainly focuses on the typologies of different compatible land
uses rather than the exact computed and quantified extent of those uses
Sub city and city level only

in a given area (Manaugh and Kreider, 2013). The ‘spatial pattern’ of

MLU, on the other hand, is the physical arrangement of a mix of various
Level of development

land uses in a building or a set of buildings in terms of horizontal,

vertical or combined. ‘Density’ represents the intensity of the devel-
Building, site &

Building, site &

Neighbourhood

Neighbourhood

opment and ‘level’ indicates the premises, neighbourhood, sub-city or

city level mixing.

5.2. Relation between the MLU typology and their indicators

It will be of worth to discuss each indicator in details for further

Mostly planned

Mostly planned

discourses. Mixed land use planning should account for the dynamic
Planned or
unplanned

nature of the development of a neighborhood, town or city. For in-

stance, in a plot, initially only one or two land uses may be introduced,
Both

which can then transform into more number of uses with growing
needs, or mixing can initially be only horizontal in nature and may
Small ‘mixing’ allowed and added to the principal land

Compatible and complementary land use ‘mixed’ within

Deliberate zones or areas of MLU consisting tMLU and

require the addition of vertical components in the future. Hence, mixed

land use planning in the rudimentary stages should be able to account
for such transformations in the near future. If all these five factors are
carefully planned, then an ideal mixed land use locality can be
achieved. Table 5 below represents the MLU typology, level, and in-
Distinctive features of tMLU, CMLU, and zMLU.

dicators with a relevant example of coding for practical application.

a plot with no predominance

cMLU both at the city level

6. Discussion

We discuss mainly two aspects of the new taxonomy of MLU in the

use within a plot

subsection. The applicability of the new taxonomy and its limitations

are discussed below separately after a briefing of the whole work in the
Description

paper. The classification of MLU presented in this paper structured the

previously uncategorized typologies of MLU in different categories
based on features, similarities, and dissimilarities of characteristics. It
reviews the literature thoroughly and establishes a need for new tax-
MLU Category

onomy for future planning of MLU. The paper distinguished MLU on its
origin (planned or unplanned/lawful or unlawful) and presented clas-
Table 3

cMLU

zMLU
tMLU

sifications clearly at various levels. This classification not only conveys

the alikeness and interactions of different types of MLU but it also

7
R. Raman and U.K. Roy Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102

Table 4
Identified indicators of MLU Planning.
Indicators Identified by Description Research action following the taxonomy

Scale or level (Gentin, 2013; Marsh, 1996) Mixing at the sector, zone, neighbourhood or Specific typology with a suitable taxonomy
premises level.
Compatibility and (Levitt and Schwanke, 2003) Co-existence of two or more mixing land Benchmarking the extent and degree for
Composition uses. specific contexts
Degree/extent of mixing (Gentin, 2013; Marsh, 1996) Share of mixing two or more land uses. An integrated index (quantitative &
qualitative) to measure MLU
Density (Bahadure and Kotharkar, 2012; Gentin, 2013; Population in same given land use or its Benchmarking high, mid and low-density
Levitt and Schwanke, 2003; Marsh, 1996; UN mixing MLU for city-specific context.
Habitat, 2014)
Pattern (Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Levitt and Schwanke, Externalities of MLU arrangements like Benchmarking Spatial suitability of MLU
2003; UN Habitat, 2014) adjacency, locational preference, etc.

Table 5
Example of codifying land use mixing based on MLU typologies, levels and indicators.
Level Principal use Symbolic representation (P: Premise) How to Codify Indicator(s)

SEGREGATED
City/ sub-city/ area Residential or
Any other
R (Residential), C (Commercial)
Or B(Business) etc
• Density (Net) or FSI
TONAL MIXING
At premises level Residential R1, R2, R3 • Density (Net)
(with variety of toning mixed in R) or • Compatibility
C1, C2, C3… (with variety of toning mixed with C) • Range
• Pattern
At area level Residential R1 • Density (Net)
• Compatibility
• Range
• Pattern
COMPOSITE MIXING
At premises level None RCB • Density (Net)
BRC • Compatibility
RBC • Range (Share)
etc • Pattern
At area/sub-city level None cMLU • Density (Net)
• Compatibility
• Range
• Pattern
ZONAL MIXING
City/sub-city level only None zMLU1, zMLU2 etc. for different sub-zones • Density (Gross and Net), FSI
• Compatibility
• Range
• Pattern

shows how these MLU types are dependent on various indicators. Those
indicators are identified precisely, such as composition, extent, spatial
pattern and levels, etc. The classification of MLU in this paper also
distinctly identified MLU types at different levels of urban develop-
ment, i.e. plot level, neighbourhood level, and city/sub-city level. It
also describes the applicability of MLU indicators for each typology at
different levels of urban development, making it useful for future re-
search, planning, and policymaking in the field of urban MLU.
The proposed MLU typology in this paper can be applied throughout
the spectrum of urban planning, including the development plans, zonal
plans, and local area plans. In addition, this typology can be used as a
way to assess various indicators of MLU in a comprehensive manner.
Existing city core areas are traditionally mixed use areas; the taxonomy
presented in this paper will help in identifying the typologies of existing
MLU of the city core area and it will also aid in its urban renewal
planning. The progression of the urban renewal of the city core area is a
comprehensive approach, which requires an exhaustive understanding
of physical, social and economic interactions in the area (Nair and Basu,
2016). The extent and pattern of mixed use in a city core area is a result
of interactions among physical, social and economic factors. The tax-
onomy of MLU proposed in this paper will be useful to understand this
interaction in the city core area as well as to develop a comprehensive
city core renewal plan. On the other hand, contemporary urban plan-
ning theories and practices advocate for MLU planning (MoHUA, 2015;
Tracy et al., 2011; UN Habitat, 2014), therefore the development of
new towns and new urban extensions will have to introduce MLU with
precise nomenclature and typology in urban planning. The im-
plementation of MLU in these new town planning initiatives will call for
a suitable taxonomy of MLU; the outcomes of this paper can aid urban
planning of these towns in this regard with greater clarity.
The major limitation of the taxonomy for urban MLU planning
proposed in this paper is that the taxonomy in consideration is of
general and fundamental nature. For the successful application of this
taxonomy in a particular geo-climatic region may need minor adapta-
tion and benchmarking according to the character of the region.
Secondly, the present classification of MLU is based on the zoning based
planning approach. However, the alternative of zoning as form-based
codes may also be analyzed on the basis of MLU typologies. This is
subject to further study and research. The outcomes of this paper in-
dicate that MLU parameters such as extent, spatial pattern and degree
of mixing are imperative to take into consideration for policymaking,
planning, implementing and researching MLU in the given context.

8
R. Raman and U.K. Roy
7. Conclusion
This paper attempts to minimise the ambiguity associated with
various dimensions of MLU planning, indicated in published literature.
The identification of MLU typologies in this paper offers a perspective
to improved dexterity of MLU with insight for researchers, policy-
makers, urban planners as well as common people. These typologies
and taxonomy can now be identified across various zones in the city. It
can be used, more significantly in terms of code development, under-
lining similarities and variance in the spatial context and necessary
controls. Therefore, the outcome of this paper must contribute in future
urban planning to a great extent. The paradigm of earlier discourse on
MLU planning was focused on its noble intent. The absence of its
classifications and their applicability made the MLU as an exception,
less commonplace. It was, therefore, essential to elaborate MLU concept
in a more theoretical construct.
Having said about the expected contribution by this paper in urban
planning discourse, it will be wise to indicate few future research areas
as the way forward. Generally, future research areas are many. Firstly,
the research should include the indicators as mentioned in this paper,
i.e. extent or range, the pattern of mixing, etc. A comprehensive MLU
Index can be developed based on further research which takes all the
aspects of MLU into the account which are not reflected in MLU tax-
onomy proposed in this paper. The typologies, major indicators and
other considerations recognised in this paper can act as a genesis for
further research to develop a comprehensive MLU Index. Establishing
the pattern of mixing through extensive research is also important as it
constitutes the three-dimensional urban fabric of any city. In the ab-
sence of a feasible pattern of mixing, the benefits of mixed land use will
not be adequately applied to or utilised in an urban setting.
Inappropriately mixed land use can give rise to hampered mobility,
chaos, noise, pollution, unhealthy living conditions, lack of privacy, etc.
Therefore, in-depth research pertaining to a pattern of MLU is of utmost
importance to curb vices and promote an overall positive development
and planning in an urban area.
The second set of research should revolve around the contextual
variations of each typology mentioned in this paper. For example,
tMLU, cMLU, and zMLU can be benchmarked for city sizes and types.
These need a more case-specific study for generalization and replication
of ideas. In addition, a concept of essential mixing in comparison to a
deliberate attempt to bring MLU can also be studied. In a concluding
note, it is hoped that the new taxonomy will liberate the hidden in-
tricacy of MLU and provide more options for future planners to deal
seamlessly with the existing organic settlements as well as future new
urban extensions.
References
American Planning Association, 1998. The Principles of Smart Development. Am. Plan.
Assoc., Chicago.
Bahadure, S., Kotharkar, R., 2012. Social Sustainability and Mixed Landuse, Case Study of
Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2, 76–83.
https://doi.org/10.9756/BIJIEMS.1744.
Boyer, M.C., 1983. Dreaming the Rational City: the Myth of American City Planning. Mit
Press.
Calthorpe, P., 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the
American Dream. Princeton architectural press.
Cervero, R., 1991. Congestion relief: the land use alternative. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 10,
119–130.
Chitlangia, R., 2015. Mixed Use Messes Up Quality Of Life. Times of India.
Chused, R.H., 2000. Euclid’s historical imagery. Case W. Res. L. Rev. 51, 597.
Cleveland City Planning Commission, 2007. Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan.
Congress for the New Urbanism, 2000. Charter of the new urbanism. Bull. Sci. Technol.
Soc. 20, 339–341.
Corbusier, L., Eardley, A., 1973. The Athens Charter. Grossman Publishers New York.
Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104102
County of Alameda CA, 2010. Development Standards for Residential Mixed-use Projects.
[WWW Document]. .
Davidoff, L., Gold, N.N., 1970. Suburban action: advocate planning for an open society. J.
Am. Inst. Plann. 36, 12–21.
Davidoff, P., 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 31, 331–338.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366508978187.
DDA, 2007. Master Plan for Delhi–2021. Delhi Development Authority.
Ernest, B., 1925. Concentric Zone" Model of Urban Structure and Land Use. Landmark
Publ. 125.
Fischel, W.A., 1999. Does the American way of zoning cause the suburbs of metropolitan
areas to be too spread out? Gov. Oppor. Metrop. Am. 15, 1–19.
Gentin, M., 2013. All Mixed up. UNSW Built Environment, Sydney.
Grant, J., 2002. Mixed use in theory and practice: canadian experience with im-
plementing a planning principle. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 68, 71–84.
Harris, C.D., Ullman, E.L., 1945. The nature of cities. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 242,
7–17.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237.
Hoyt, H., 1939. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American
Cities.
Jacobs, A., Appleyard, D., 1987. Toward an urban design manifesto. J. Am. Plann. Assoc.
53, 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368708976642.
Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The Failure of Town
Planning, New York. https://doi.org/10.2307/794509.
Keelor, V., 2015. Noida allows mixed land use. The Times of India.
Krier, L., 1988. Traditional ideas for today’s towns. City Mag. 10, 20–23.
Kunstler, J.H., 1997. Zoning procedures and suburban sprawl: a cartoon of a human
habitat. Vital Speeches Day 64, 144.
Levitt, R.L., Schwanke, D., 2003. Mixed-use Development Handbook. Urban L. Institute,
Washington, DC.
Liberty, R.L., 2002. Abolishing exclusionary zoning: a natural policy alliance for en-
vironmentalists and affordable housing advocates. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 30, 581.
Liebermann, G.W., 1996. Modernization of zoning: a means to a reform. Regulation
19, 71.
Logan, T.H., 1976. The americanization of german zoning. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 42,
377–385.
Mail Today, 2015. Delhi’s RWAs Fight Mixed-Land-Use Policy. India today.
Manaugh, K., Kreider, T., 2013. What is mixed use? Presenting an interaction method for
measuring land use mix. J. Transp. Land Use 6, 63. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.
v6i1.291.
Marsh, C., 1996. Mixed-Use-A Mixed Blessing. London RICS Res.
MoHUA, 2015. Smart Cities: Mission Statement & Guidelines.
Nair, A.K., Basu, S., 2016. Regeneration of a mixed use area in the historic core of a
city—a case study of ‘Chala’ in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. J. Herit. Manag. 1,
35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455929616638776.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2010. Land Use Land Cover
Classification System: NJDEP Modified Anderson System [WWW Document]. Bur.
GIS, Dep. Environ. Prot., State New Jersey, USA. URL https://www.state.nj.us/dep/
gis/digidownload/metadata/lulc02/anderson2002.html (Accessed 4.18.18).
Nixon, J., Blandy, S., Hunter, C., Jones, A., Reeve, K., 2003. Tackling Anti-Social
Behaviour in Mixed Tenure Areas. Office Of The Deputy Prime Minister, London.
Penfield Town Board, 2017. Mixed Use Development Manual Penfield, NY.
Procos, D., 1976. Mixed Land Use: From Revival to Innovation, Community Development
Series. Hutchinson & Ross, Dowden.
Ritzdorf, M., 1997. Locked Out of Paradise: Contemporary Exclusionary Zoning, the
Supreme Court, and African Americans, 1970 to the Present. Urban Plan. African Am.
Community Shad.
Sabikhi, R., 2007. Mixed Use Policy Will Add to Chaos. Hindustan Times.
Saville-Smith, K., 2010. The value of neighbourhood intensification: the interface be-
tween dwelling, neighbourhood design and affordability. ENHR 22nd International
Housing Research Conference: Urban Dynamics Housing Change - Crossing into the
2nd Decade of the 3rd MillenniumAt: Istanbul.
Thomson, J.M., 1978. Great Cities and Their Traffic, Peregrine Books. Penguin Books.
Tracy, A.J., Su, P., Sadek, A.W., Wang, Q., 2011. Assessing the impact of the built en-
vironment on travel behavior: a case study of Buffalo, New York. Transportation
(Amst.) 38, 663–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9337-x.
Tucker, S.N., 1980. Mixed-use area development control. Urban Stud. 17, 287–297.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420988020080601.
UN Habitat, 2014. A New Strategy of Sustainable Neighbourhood Planning: Five
Principles. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Urban Development Department ‘Nagarayan’,, 2014. The New Town Kolkata Planning
Area (Building) Rules. Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department,
Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
UTTIPEC, 2010. Chandni Chowk Redevelopment Plan. Delhi.
Van Cao, T., Cory, D.C.D.C., 1982. Mixed land uses, land-use externalities, and residential
property values: a reevaluation. Ann. Reg. Sci. 16, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01287403.
Wickersham, J., 2000. Jane Jacob’s critique of zoning: from Euclid to Portland and be-
yond. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 28, 547.