A Compact City for a Beautiful Countryside - Entry-points to a discourse between academic research and institutional strategies: “Urban-Rural Integration” and “Areas In-Between”

The pros and cons of the Compact City are intensively and inconclusively discussed in academia. Public institutions, however, often use the term “compact” in a more superficial way to promote sustainable urbanization. Considering the complexity of urban spaces and the increasing presence of in-between conditions, there is a threat of compact urbanism being used as a one-sided and dichotomic paradigm: “if we build dense cities, we protect the countryside”. This paper compares institutional agendas with scientific findings in order to initiate a more holistic discourse between practitioners and scholars. Guidelines for sustainable urbanization on different institutional scales (supra-national, national, megaregional, municipal) are analyzed in terms of their definitions, assumed benefits, and considered trade-offs of urban compactness, as well as their conceptualizations of urban, rural, and peri-urban spaces. It is shown that incomplete and contradictory definitions of compactness support partly exaggerated claims for the benefits of urban compaction within a city-centric framework. Practitioners need to consider complex urban realities and pick up the caution expressed in research. Academics need to acknowledge the desire for urban compaction and translate their findings into constructive and concrete recommendations.