The purpose of this article is to assess the impact of urban infill on the socio-ecological and economic efficiency of the spatial structure potential. Efficiency is an objective property of any system and its functioning, it is associated with the concepts of benefits, costs and harmful consequences. In urban studies it is associated with the application of spatial potential and change of tangible and intangible values of the environment as a result of architectural and town-planning actions. The efficiency concepts are studied in various academic fields: sociology, economics, ecology, management, etc. The studies are based mainly on economic justifications and methods for the economic assessment of the benefits and harms of the impact of urban planning and economic activities. The software of ecological monitoring, forecasting and modeling of the state of the environment and processes dynamics is substantiated. The components of town-planning activity and decisions concerning their influence on the efficiency of the spatial structure and city potential application are allocated. The system of indicators of decision efficiency includes social (also aesthetic and comfort characteristics), economic and ecological indicators, but considers them separately. The model of five-dimensional space suggested by the authors allows to organize the system of density and efficiency indicators on a common methodological platform. The model includes measurements of "man - functions - conditions - geometry - time" and considers two-, three-, four- and five-dimensional combinations. From the standpoint of the theory of urban planning, socio-ecological-economic efficiency is associated with the space disorder considering time, structure, resource, parameters, and inconsistency of the processes. Each of them is determined by indicators and such characteristics as usefulness, resource consumption, harm to human and the environment, safety, aesthetics, and comfort use of the system. The most effective solutions are characterized by the best interrelation of these characteristics. They are difficult to achieve, so we justify the idea of compromise and the search for socio-ecological and economic optimum. Examples of the impact of infill on the spatial structure of the Lviv city are provided and the effectiveness of urban solutions is assessed, in particular: 1) intensive construction of Poltva valley - the only natural "ventilation" channel of Lviv center located within the Lviv basin, will have negative environmental consequences for the city and its central parts in the future. 2) exacerbation of transport problems due to overcrowding. Experts suggest the idea of Lviv as a city of short distances and the inexpediency of developing a street network. For compact systems, to which the city belongs, this is an objective advantage, which also has negative consequences. Compact systems are deprived of territorial resources. This imposes restrictions and special requirements for territory preservation, including those that are reserved for transport function; 3) increasing spatial chaos due to uncontrolled consolidation of residential areas in the city. There are no new ideas, principles of organization, and macro characteristics of urban development. There is no systematic housing policy. The composed practice causes not only urban but also social problems and negative consequences for the environment. Requirements and architectural and town-planning decisions, principles of social-ecological-economic efficiency increase due to increase of benefits and reduction of expenses and negative consequences from urban infill in terms of the whole city are proved.

1.
Ishchuk
,
S.
and
Gladkyj
O.
, Economic base of cities and economic efficiency of production Development [in:] 
Economic and social geography
, no
2
, p.
23
3
,
2021
.
2.
Bobrovska
,
O.
Yu
.,
Evaluation of the quality of development programs for the development of municipalities as a prerequisite for their sustainable development [in:]
Herald NAPA under the President of Ukraine. K.: NADU
, no
3
, pp.
302
311
,
2005
.
3.
Makeev
,
S.
and
Oksamitnaya
,
S.
,
Social mobility without equalizing chances [in:]
Notes of the Fatherland,
no
5
(
50
), pp.
111
122
,
2012
.
4.
Posatsky
,
B.
,
City space and urban culture (at the turn of XX-XXI centuries)
.
Lviv
:
National Publishing House. Lviv Polytechnic University
,
208
p,
2007
.
5.
Bauman
,
Z.
,
City of Fears, City of Hopes [in:]
Goldsmiths College, University of London
, pp.
2
39
,
2003
. available at: http://cms.gold.ac.uk/media/city.pdf
6.
Sampson
,
R. J.
and
Morenoff
,
J. D.
, and
Gannon-Rowley
,
T.
, Assessing ‘neighborhood effects’: Social processes and new directions in research. [in:] 
Annual Review of Sociology
, no
28
, pp.
443
478
,
2002
.
7.
Sampson
,
R. J.
, and
Raudenbush
,
S. W.
, Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. [in:] 
The American Journal of Sociology
, no
3
, pp.
603
651
,
1999
.
8.
Poulsen
,
M.
and
Neff
,
R.
and
Winch
P.
,
The multifunctionality of urban farming: perceived benefits for neighbourhood improvement [in:]
Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability.
no
22
,
11
,
2017
. available at:
10.
Burckhardt
,
L.
,
Who Plans the Planning? Architecture, Politics, and Mankind.
Birkhäuser
,
336
р,
2019
.
11.
Habrel
,
M.
,
Spatial organization of urban systems. K.: A.C.C
,
400
p,
2004
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.