New Urbanism
Clustered, Mixed-Use, Multi-Modal Neighborhood Design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
22 July 2008
This chapter describes ways to design and build more attractive, accessible, walkable, multi-modal, and livable neighborhoods. People who live and work in such areas tend to drive less and rely more on alternative modes than in more automobile-dependent locations.
New Urbanism (also called Smart Growth, New Community Design, Neotraditional Design, Traditional Neighborhood Development, Location Efficient Development and Transit Oriented Development) is a set of development practices to create more attractive, efficient and livable communities. These can significantly improve Accessibility and reduce per-capita automobile travel. Specific design features are listed below. Of course, not all of these features are included in all New Urban developments.
New Urbanism Neighborhood Design Features (Peter Swift)
1. The community has a
discernible Activity Center. This is often a plaza,
square or green, and sometimes a busy or memorable intersection. A transit stop
should be located at this center.
2. Special attention is paid to
protecting the public realm and creating quality public spaces, including
sidewalks and paths, parks, Streetscapes and public
buildings. This helps create more community identity and cohesion, leading to
stronger and healthier communities.
3. Buildings at the center are
placed close to the sidewalk and to each other, creating an urban sense of spatial
definition. Buildings towards the edges are placed further away and further
apart from each other, creating a more rural environment.
4. Most dwellings are within a
five-minute walk (a quarter mile) from the center. Streets are designed for
walking and cycling, with sidewalks on both sides, bike lanes where needed,
good crossings, traffic calming features used to control motor vehicle traffic
speeds, and other features to encourage non-motorized travel.
5. There are a variety of
dwelling types. These take the form of houses, row houses, and apartments, such
that younger and older, singles and families, the poorer and the wealthier can
find places to live. Density averages 6-7 units per acre or greater (Campoli
and MacLean, 2002).
6. There are places to work
within and adjacent to the neighborhood, including shops, office buildings, and
live-work units.
7. There are shops sufficiently
varied to meet common household needs, such as convenience stores, a post
office, a bank machine, and a gym.
8. A small ancillary building
should be permitted within the backyard of houses. It may be used as a rental
apartment, or as a place to work.
9. There should be an
elementary school close enough so that most children can walk from their
dwelling. This distance should not be more than one mile.
10. There are parks, trails and
playgrounds near every dwelling. This distance should not be more than
one-eighth of a mile.
11. Networks of highly connected
roads and paths provide multiple routes between destinations, increasing
accessibility and reducing problems if one route is closed. Access points into
neighborhoods may be highlighted with a gateway or signs.
12. Thoroughfares are relatively
narrow and shaded by rows of trees that slow traffic and create an appropriate
environment for pedestrian and bicyclist.
13. Parking lots and garage
doors rarely end of front the thoroughfares. Parking is relegated to the rear
of the buildings and usually accessed by alleys or lanes.
14. Certain prominent sites are reserved for public buildings. A building must be provided at the center for neighborhood meetings.
15. The neighborhood should be
self governing, deciding on matters of maintenance, security, and physical
evolution.
The land use reforms can be implemented at various geographic scales. New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development reflect neighborhood and local level planning, while Access Management, Location-Efficient Development and Clustering reflect similar principles at the site and block level, and Smart Growth reflects these principles at the regional level. New Urbanism has gained increasing attention among development professionals and the general public, particularly in regions experiencing growth-related conflicts. Many see the New Urbanism as a way to accommodate growth while enhancing community and environmental objectives.
New Urbanism does not usually exclude automobile travel, but
it increases Transportation Options, emphasizes high
quality Transit services and Stations,
and sometimes gives Priority to walking, cycling and
transit (Gehl and Gemzoe, 2003; Nozzi, 2003). New Urbanism supports development
of a more Connected street network, often using a
modified grid pattern. This provides multiple routes and more direct travel
between destinations compared with a disconnected street network with many
dead-end roads that result in more circuitous routes, and funnel traffic onto a
few roadways. Increased street connectivity has been showed to reduce per
capita vehicle travel, and reduce traffic volumes on major roads (Handy,
Some New Urbanist designers suggest that Streetscapes provide a sense of enclosure (Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, 2000). As a general rule they recommend that urban street be no more than six times as wide across as the height of the buildings that line it, from the building front or row of trees on one side of the street to those on the other. Urban buildings should be designed with details and amenities that are oriented to pedestrians, not just motorists.
How much difference do these factors make? If you live in a highly Automobile Dependent neighborhood, virtually every trip you make requires driving. If you live in a New Urban neighborhood you can conveniently go shopping and perform other personal by walking or cycling, and your children can walk to school and parks. Common destinations such as stores, schools, recreation centers and Commercial Center are closer together, so your car trips are shorter. The result is an increase in Transportation Options, and a reduction in total mileage and vehicle costs.
New Urbanism can give people better options for where they live and work. For example, many people want to “age in place,” that is, they want to continuing living in their community as they become older, rather than moving to a specialized retirement community. For this to be possible their community must have Accessible land use patterns, with shops and other public services nearby, and diverse transportation services for people with various needs and abilities, including good Walking facilities that accommodate mobility aids and wheelchairs, and various types of Transit services.
New Urbanist features tend to increase the value and marketability of buildings. National market surveys indicate that about a third of home buyers would prefer to live in New Urbanist community if available (Hirschhorn and Souza, 2001; Bohl, 2003). A study by Eppli and Tu (2000) found that homes in New Urbanist communities sold for an average of $20,189 more than otherwise comparable homes in more conventional communities, an 11% increase in value. Song and Knaap (2003) also found that New Urban features increase property values. Studies summarized by Smith and Gihring (2003) indicate that proximity to public transit services can significantly increase property values.
Although many well-known New Urbanist projects are “master planned communities,” meaning large urban-fringe developments design as a unit, these concepts can also be incorporated into existing urban communities (Otak, 1999), and even in communities that have highways with heavy traffic through their Commercial Center (DEA, 1999). Existing residential and commercial areas are incorporating New Urbanist design features as part of redevelopment efforts. For example, older neighborhoods can implement Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Improvements, Reallocate Road Space, use Parking Management, encourage Location Efficient Development, and work to create a design identity.
New Urbanist development may face various barriers. Many
current planning regulations and development practices in
Another barrier to New Urbanism is that the real estate industry is highly segmented by land use category (such as single-family housing, multi-family housing, retail, office and warehouse). Each category has its own practices, markets, trade associations, and financing sources. New Urbanists requires a more integrated approach to development that requires changing these practices and coordinating stakeholders (Leinberger, 2001).
|
Livable
Neighborhoods (ERM Mitchell McCotter Pty, 2002) Livable Neighborhoods are compact, well-designed,
sustainable communities designed to enhance local identity, provide diverse
housing options, increase land use efficiency, increase local employment and
support alternative travel modes. Livable
Neighborhoods are defined by a convenient 5-minute (400 meter) walking area, totalling
about 50 hectares, with a highly interconnected network of streets and
compatible land use mix (such as shops within neighborhoods). Cul-de-sacs are
less frequent, with paths that provide connections for walking and cycling.
Where a site is of sufficient size, neighborhoods are clustered together
around a town center. Major roads, called neighborhood connectors form the spine of the
neighborhoods and towns, rather than the edges. Neighborhood and town centers
are located at the junctions of these streets. All streets, including
arterials and neighborhood connectors, have an important role in the urban
structure by accommodating all modes of travel, including walking, cycling,
public transit and driving, and by supporting active land uses. The emphasis
is on connectivity, amenity and integration to achieve a safe, efficient and
attractive road network. Streets
are designed to comfortably accommodate non-vehicular users and support
adjacent land uses, with generous footpaths and street trees. Buildings are
located directly onto street fronts (rather than set back, behind parking. On
busier streets, service roads and lanes are used to enable development to
front onto arterials. This provides passive surveillance of public spaces
that increases personal safety. Streets are provided with on-street parking
to increase the amount of shared parking. |
New Urbanist features can be designed into new development or implemented incrementally in existing neighborhoods. It usually requires changes to street design standards, and to zoning laws to allow higher densities and mixed land use. Urban renovation projects can incorporate New Urbanism features, including commercial infill and pedestrianization.
A new approach to building codes, called “form-based codes” is an important tool for implementing New Urbanist development. Form-based codes provide guidelines and building requirements that define a particular type of development desired in a particular area, such as low- or medium-density residential, or mixed-use urban village. It provides greater design flexibility and coordination than conventional, land use based codes.
|
Applying
New Urbanism To Large Retail (Beaumont and Tucker, 2002) Conflicts often develop over development of “big box,” franchise, and other large-scale retailers, because they tend to be automobile-oriented, have large parking lots, locate on arterial strips at the urban fringe, use generic building designs, and reduce economic activity from traditional Commercial Center. Some communities choose to prohibit or discourage such retailers altogether. Others work to apply New Urbanist design principles to make them more acceptable. These include: · Location. Locate large volume
retailers within existing urban areas, preferably within or close to existing
commercial areas, or in industrial areas, often as brownfield redevelopment
projects. ·
Size. Downsize such retailers so they fit better into urban areas. · Design. Require retailers to use
more Context Sensitive Design, including building
styles that reflect local traditions, and appropriate landscaping. · Transport and Parking
Management.
Encourage or require such retailers to implement Commute
Trip Reduction programs, Parking Management, and
other appropriate TDM strategies. · Impact Fees. Charge developers for
costs they impose on communities, including stormwater management and
increased vehicle traffic. Use variable fees that reward developers for
reducing these costs (Smart Growth Reforms). |
New Urbanism improves Accessibility, improves Transportation Choice, and reduces traffic speeds, which tend to reduce per capita automobile ownership and use, as discussed in the Land Use Impacts chapter. Although most individual design features have modest impacts on total travel, their effects are cumulative and synergistic, resulting in significant total reductions in vehicle use (NEW, 2001). Residents in well-designed New Urbanist neighborhoods with good walkability, mixed land use, Connected streets, and local services tend to drive 20-35% less than residents in automobile dependent areas, and even greater vehicle travel reductions may be possible if New Urbanism is coordinated with other TDM strategies, such as Transit Improvements, Carsharing, Road Pricing, Parking Management and Commute Trip Reduction programs.
Khattak
and Rodriguez (2005) found that, controlling for demographic factors, residents
of a neo-traditional community (Southern Village in Chapel Hill, NC) generate
22.1% fewer automobile trips and take 305.5% more walking trips than residents
of conventional design communities. These include reductions in both commute
and non-commute automobile travel. In the neo-traditional community, 17.2% of
trips are by walking compared with 7.3% in the conventional community. Average
per capita time spent in travel is similar between the two groups.
See Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport and PBQD (2000) for information on modeling travel impacts of New Urban design features.
Table 1 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objectives |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
3 |
Reduces per capita vehicle
travel. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
" |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
Improves travel alternatives. |
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
3 |
Increases land use access. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
1 |
Can increase ridesharing to
worksites. |
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
Accommodates public
transit. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
Improves cycling conditions
and access. |
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
Improves pedestrian
conditions and access. |
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
Mixed impacts. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
New Urbanism can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits.
· More housing and commercial options for consumers.
· Increased property values.
· Improved transport and
access for non-drivers, and support Universal Design.
· More affordable housing (Location Efficient Development).
· It can reduce automobile
dependency and use, providing consumer cost savings and reductions in
automobile travel that provide social benefits (such as reduced traffic
congestion, parking costs, accident risk, pollution and urban sprawl).
· It can significantly improve
Community Livability, interaction and cohesion.
· Increased traffic safety due
to narrower streets and slower traffic (Traffic Calming).
· Improved public Health due to increased walking and cycling.
Table 2 summarizes these impacts as identified in one major study. The actual benefits depend on conditions and design factors. Direct consumer benefits can be significant. McCann (2000) found that households living in communities with more diverse transportation systems save hundreds or thousands of dollars annually on transportation costs.
Table 2 Potential
Smart Growth Benefits (Burchell, et al, 1998;
PFBE, 2007)
|
Economic |
Social |
Environmental |
|
Consumer transportation cost savings. Economies of agglomeration (density). More efficient transportation. Traffic safety. Increased property values. |
More attractive communities. Improved transportation choice, particularly for nondrivers. Improved housing choices. Community cohesion and interaction. |
Greenspace and wildlife habitat preservation. Reduced air pollution. Reduce resource consumption. Reduced water pollution. Reduced “heat island” effect. |
Costs include the additional expenses associated with more detailed planning, design and amenities (sidewalks, transit, public spaces), and extra development costs associated with construction within existing urban areas. Some critics argue that New Urbanism and Smart Growth reduce housing affordability, but while some features do increase housing costs (such as urban growth boundaries), others reduce these costs (such as reduced parking and setback requirements, and secondary suites), allowing housing to be more affordable overall (Litman, 2000; Arigoni, 2001).
Higher-density, infill development may increase local traffic congestion and exposure to noise and air pollution, although regional traffic and pollution tends to decline if residents drive less (see discussion in Land Use Impacts chapter, and in Litman, 2000). Increased density often reduces the amount of greenspace within an urbanized area, although it can increase total regional greenspace by reducing per capita area of land development.
Table 3 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Fewer trips per capita and
better access, offset at the local level by increased population density. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
1 |
Reduces road and parking
capacity requirements, but may increase costs for traffic calming, cycling
and pedestrian facilities. |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Can reduce vehicle and
development costs, although housing costs may increase. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel choices
and access. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
Reduces vehicle traffic
volumes and speeds. |
|
Environmental Protection |
3 |
Reduces vehicle use and
pavement. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
3 |
Encourages higher-density,
infill development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces vehicle traffic
volumes and speeds. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
New Urbanism design features have a variety of equity impacts. Some impacts may affect certain groups more than others, such as the effects of infill on existing neighborhoods. It can reduce subsidies associated with lower-density, sprawl development and automobile dependency. It can increase consumer housing and transportation choices, providing benefits to lower-income households and non-drivers. As described above, some New Urban developments are relatively expensive, but many New Urban design features (such as small lots, clustered development, and reduced parking and road requirements) can reduce housing costs. Increased access and travel choice, and transportation cost savings tend to significantly benefit lower-income households and non-drivers. New Urban designs can reduce some externalities associated with lower-density, automobile-oriented development.
Table 4 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
0 |
Can benefit most groups. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
1 |
Reduces some external costs
associated with dispersed land development and automobile dependency. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
2 |
Can make transportation and
housing more affordable. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Can improve access and
travel choices for non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Can improve basic mobility
and access. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
New Urbanism design features are appropriate in any urban or suburban area, particularly those experiencing high levels of growth and problems associated with housing inaffordability and sprawl. They are implemented primarily by regional and local governments, and developers.
Table 5 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
2 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
3 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
3 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Land Use Management
New Urbanism is similar to Smart Growth, Transit-Oriented Development, Context Sensitive Design, Clustering and Location-Efficient Development. It supports and is supported by most other TDM strategies, particularly Traffic Calming, Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, Universal Design, Road Space Reallocation, Carsharing, Road Pricing, Parking Pricing, Parking Management, Transit Improvements, and Commute Trip Reduction programs. It is one of the most effective TDM strategies for improving Community Livability.
New Urbanism is generally implemented by local governments and developers. Neighborhood associations, business associations and developers are also important stakeholders with regard to many specific New Urbanist policies and projects.
Existing zoning laws and development policies often discourage or prohibit New Urbanism designs. There is sometimes local resistance to higher density, infill development.
The Congress for the New Urbanism and
· Educate planners and
developers about New Urbanist strategies.
· Implement comprehensive New
Urbanist policies, rather than just one of two strategies.
· Encourage cooperation
between public and private decision makers to facilitate New Urbanism.
· Promote distinctive,
attractive communities with a strong sense of place, including the
rehabilitation and use of historic buildings.
· Strengthen and encourage
growth in existing communities.
· Mix land uses.
· Create a range of housing
opportunities and choices.
· Provide a variety of
transportation choices.
· Foster “walkable” close-knit
neighborhoods.
The
guidelines listed below are based on the National Governor’s Association
development criteria (Hirschhorn and Souza, 2001):
· Strengthen and encourage growth in existing communities. Locate development in areas with existing infrastructure.
· Include mixed land uses. Mixed-use projects should include residential housing, significant employment opportunities from office or light industrial facilities, retail shopping, outdoor recreation and open spaces. Larger projects should also include schools and entertainment facilities.
· Create a range of housing opportunities. Residential development should be mixed-income and offer a range of single- and multi-family units, with special attention to affordable housing.
· Preserve Open Space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas. Projects should consume a minimum of greenspace and avoid fragmenting habitat. Compact design should minimize the amount of land used per capita.
· Provide a variety of transportation choice. Locate projects along transit lines. Communities should support walking and cycling transportation. A connected street patterns should provide multiple routes, maximizing accessibility. Telecommuting should be encouraged.
· Foster walkable, closeknit neighborhoods. Pedestrian-friendly design employs clustered and mixed land uses, and good walking facilities. Neighborhood design and layout should promote interactions among residents.
· Take advantage of existing community assets. New projects should take advantage of existing transit facilities, greenspace, schools, retail areas and cultural amenities. Brownfield sites should be seen as opportunities for land recycling.
· Promote distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place, including the rehabilitation and use of historic buildings. Whenever historic and older buildings are present, their rehabilitation and reuse should be part of the new design. Architectural criteria and community layout should maximize a sense of local community in harmony with the natural setting.
· Encourage citizen and stakeholder participation in development decisions. Provide opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in decision makers.
· Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective. Local governments with zoning code responsibilities should facilitate innovative community designs consistent with Smart Growth principles, and they should not impose obstacles and delays that may place such designs at a competitive disadvantage to more common “sprawl” projects.
|
What
if we fail to stop the erosion of cities by automobiles?…In that case we
Americans will hardly need to ponder a mystery that has troubled men for
millenia: What is the purpose of life? For us, the answer will be clear,
established and for all practical purposes indisputable: The purpose of life
is to produce and consume automobiles. (Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961, p. 370.) |
Below is a list of specific planning practices that help create healthier communities:
·
Strategic planning. Is there a comprehensive community vision which
individual land use and transportation decisions should support?
·
Self-contained community. Are common services such
as shops, medical services, transit service, schools and recreation facilities
located within convenient walking distance of houses and each other? Is there a
good jobs/housing ratio within a 2-mile radius?
·
Walkability. Do streets have sidewalks? Are sidewalks well
designed, maintained and connected, and suitable for people using wheelchairs
and pushing strollers and carts? Are streets easy to cross, even by people with
disabilities?
·
Cycling. Are there adequate bike paths, lanes and routes? Are there
cycling skills training and law enforcement programs? Are there bike racks and
changing facilities at worksites?
·
School access. Are most children able to walk or bicycle to
school? Are walking and cycling condition around the school adequate. Are there
programs to improve walking and cycling, and encourage use of alternative modes
for travel to school?
·
Mixed income communities. Are there a mix of
housing types and prices, allowing lower income and disabled people to live in
the community? Are there programs to insure affordable housing is located in
accessible, multi-modal areas where residents can easily walk to public
services such as stores, medical clinics and transit stops?
· Sense of place. Does the community have a
strong sense of identity and pride? Does the neighborhood have a name?
·
Transit service quality. Does the neighborhood have high quality public
transit, with more than 20 buses or trains a day (less than half-hour headways)
and little crowding during peak periods?
·
Parking management. Are parking requirements flexible, so developers
and building managers can reduce their parking supply in exchange for
implementing a parking management program?
·
Roadway and walkway connectivity. Are streets and paths
well-connected, with short blocks and minimal cul-de-sacs. Are streets as
narrow as possible, particularly in residential areas and commercial centers.
Are traffic management and traffic calming to control vehicle impacts.
·
Complete streets. Are streets designed to accommodate walking,
cycling and public transit, and comfortable and convenient for activities such
as strolling, playing, shopping, sightseeing, eating and special events?
·
Site design and building orientation. Are buildings to be
oriented toward city streets, rather than set back behind large parking lots?
·
Transportation demand management. Are TDM strategies and
programs implemented to the degree that they are cost effective? Do employers
have incentives to implement commute trip reduction programs? Is there a local
transportation management association?
·
Greenspace. Are there efforts to preserve greenspace, particularly
wild areas such as streams, shorelines and forests?
To help
consumers, real estate professionals and planning practitioners apply these
concepts the Healthy Location Index below indicates the degree to which
a particular site or neighborhood reflects healthy community planning
principles.
Table 3 Healthy Community Index Calculations
|
Feature |
How to Calculate |
Points |
|
Sidewalks on block |
No (0 points) Yes (10 points) |
|
|
Portion of local streets with sidewalks. |
Range from 0 points for no street within ½ kilometer have sidewalks up to 10 points for all streets have sidewalks. |
|
|
Portion of local streets and paths that accommodate wheelchairs. |
Range from 0 points for no street within ½ kilometer with sidewalks that accommodate wheelchairs, up to 10 points for all streets with sidewalks that accommodate wheelchairs. |
|
|
School walkability |
10 minus number of minutes required for a child to walk safety to school. 0 if walking to school is not feasible for a typical child. |
|
|
Cycling conditions |
Portion of streets within 1 kilometer that safely accommodate bicycles, rated from 0 to 10. |
|
|
Neighborhood service destinations |
One point for each of the following located within ½ kilometer convenient walking distance, up to 10 maximum: grocery store, restaurant, video rental shop, public park, recreation center, library. |
|
|
Public transit service quantity |
Number of peak period buses per hour within ½ kilometer, up to 10 maximum. |
|
|
Public transit service quality |
Portion of peak-period transit vehicles that are clean and comfortable from 0 (all vehicles are dirty or crowded) up to 10 (all vehicles are clean and have seats available). |
|
|
Local traffic speeds |
Portion of vehicle traffic within 1-kilometer that have speeds under 40 kilometers per hour, from 10 (100%) to 0 (virtually none). |
|
|
Air Pollution |
10 minus one for each exceedance of air quality standards. |
|
|
|
Total |
|
This table summarizes the calculation of the
Healthy Community Index, which can range from 0 (unhealthy location) to 100
(healthy location). It reflects various neighborhood design factors that affect
residents’ health.
Hirschhorn and Souza (2001) describe many successful examples of
public policies that support New Urbanist development.
The
N.C. Board of Transportation today approved Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND) Street Design Guidelines that will improve safety by
promoting low speeds and cautious driving while fully accommodating the needs
of pedestrians and bicyclists.
"By
approving these guidelines, our Board of Transportation is to be commended for
making smart transportation planning a priority," said Gov. Hunt.
"These guidelines will improve the quality of life for all
The
alternative guidelines were developed in response to increased interest in
balancing growth and quality of life initiatives and to promote neighborhood
development. They were created in consultation with citizens, developers,
builders, architects, engineers, planners, local government officials, state
agencies and environmental organizations.
The
following criteria are established in the new guidelines for TND developments:
· Streets will be designed to
be only as wide as needed for low-speed traffic.
· Narrow streets are part of a
dense transportation network that also includes sidewalks, walking paths and
bike lanes.
· Sidewalks will line both
sides of most neighborhood streets to encourage walking.
· On lower traffic volume
streets, bicyclists should be considered a normal part of traffic. On higher
volume streets, bicyclists should be accommodated with six-feet-wide bike
lanes, but separate routes for less experienced bicyclists may be considered as
well.
· On-street parking along major
streets should have signs, markings or otherwise clearly be designated.
· Planting strips, located
between the curb and sidewalk, help create shaded streets, promote walking and
slow traffic.
· As a general rule, more and
shorter street lights are preferred.
From
Initial
sales in 1982 were encouraging. Sales were also helped by early recognition, in
both the architectural and popular press, that the
There
are now more than 300 cottages in
Northwest Landing is a 3,000-acre mixed-use planned community developed by the Land Management Division of Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company, located in the city of DuPont, Washington, midway between Tacoma and Olympia, about 50 miles south of Seattle. Land uses include industrial, office and commercial development, homes, schools, parks, places of worship, open space and trails. As of December 31, 1999, Northwest Landing had over 1400 residents living in approximately 680 single family, condominium and apartment homes. On completion, Northwest Landing will include homes for approximately 10,000 people and jobs for 8,600 people.
|
URBAN WARFARE: The Fight for Talent Among American
Cities Brain-Gain
Cities Attract Educated Young Sam
Long was easy pickings. He was born, reared and very well educated in In
the early 21st century, Long
is part of an elite intercity migration that is rapidly remaking the way
American cities rise and fall. In the 2000 Census, demographers found what
they describe as a new, brain-driven, winner-take-all pattern in urban
growth. “A pack of cities is racing away from everybody else in terms of
their ability to attract and retain an educated workforce,” said Bruce Katz,
director of the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy at the Brookings
Institution. “It is a sobering trend for cities left behind.” In
addition to The
winner-take-all pattern of the past decade differs substantially from the
Rust Belt decline and Sun Belt growth of the 1970s and ‘80s. Then,
manufacturing companies moved south in search of a low-wage, nonunion
workforce. Now, talented individuals are voting with their feet to live in
cities where the work is smart, the culture is cool and the environment is
clean. Migrants
on the move to winner-take-all-cities are most accurately identified by
education and ambition, rather than by skin color or country of birth. They
are part of a striving class of young Americans for whom race, ethnicity and
geographic origin tend to be less meaningful than professional achievement,
business connections and income. The Sun Belt is no sure winner in this
migration. Such cities as |
LGC (2004) and various organizations such as the Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) and the Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) provide numerous case studies.
Urban
Development Institute (www.experts.uli.org),
April 30, 2003
The
development of pedestrian-friendly communities that promote walking and biking
as a substitute for driving, rather than for purely recreational purposes,
presents challenges that are formidable, but not impossible, to overcome,
concluded participants in a recent land use forum hosted by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI).
The pedestrian-oriented development forum was held as part of a ULI project
funded by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to document and raise
awareness of the value to real estate developers in creating communities that
de-emphasize auto use as the primary means of transportation. As the first
phase of the project, the forum aimed to clarify the specifics of pedestrian-friendly
development, including connectivity features and appealing public spaces that
encourage physical activity. The forum also explored how to build interest for
such projects among the development community.
While there are a number of communities nationwide that cluster housing,
recreational amenities, shopping, and, in some cases, office space in close
proximity to each other, few of these developments are well connected to other
neighborhoods and do little to curb driving within the surrounding community,
participants noted. “A big challenge for this (walkable communities) movement
is figuring out how to connect with the rest of the community,” said Gary
Fenchuk, president of East West Partners of Virginia, Inc., in Midlothian, Va.
“What we are talking about is choice,” said Forum Chairman Nancy Graham,
president of Urban Properties LLC in West Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. “In so many
places, there are no choices besides driving.” For instance, while Florida
contains a high number of mixed-use communities, several cities in the state
have been ranked by the Surface Transportation Policy Project’s “Mean Streets”
study as being among the least conducive to safe walking, she noted.
With obesity rates in the United States reaching epidemic levels, traffic
congestion paralyzing entire regions, and social interaction in communities
severely limited by automobile-dependent development, there is little question
that more pedestrian-friendly development is needed. However, an analysis of
walkable communities should distinguish between those designed to permit
walking or bicycling for just for exercise, and those that encourage
“destination” walking or cycling to school, offices or shopping, forum
participants pointed out.
Over the past 50 years, as development has become increasingly spread out,
people have become accustomed to driving to complete even short-distance
errands. The participants noted that even in development projects with exercise
trails, developers have traditionally considered trail systems solely as a
recreational amenity, rather than having a transportation purpose. As a result,
such trails are seldom connected to outside destinations. Moreover, while there
are health benefits achieved by walking purely for exercise, a large percentage
of people do not make time for regular fitness activities. More people would be
apt to reap the benefits of exercise if they were provided more opportunities
to integrate walking or biking into daily tasks, participants said.
The high number of individuals driving from one dispersed location to another
is reflected in transportation data showing a national average of 230 million
solo-driver trips daily. In comparison, there are 98 million multiple-passenger
car trips daily; 20 million trips involving walking; seven million public
transit trips; and three million bicycle trips. Despite being a distant second
to the automobile, walking is “the most common alternative to driving,” noted
ULI Senior Resident Fellow Robert Dunphy, who specializes in transportation
issues. “To promote walking, you need an attractive destination, attractive
paths for connection, and a layout that promotes compact, multi-use
development,” he said.
In addition to providing health benefits, pedestrian-oriented development can
cost less to build, said Harrison Rue, executive director of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission and Charlottesville-Albemarle
Metropolitan Planning Organization in
Through the regional planning initiative, the commission determined that
continuing to build in a conventional manner, emphasizing low-density, isolated
uses and heavy auto dependence, would require $1 billion in transportation
infrastructure improvements by 2050; the funds would be spent on bypasses and
wider roads to serve dispersed areas on the fringe. However, under an alternative
plan, development would be clustered strategically around community focal
points, with an emphasis on pedestrian-friendly design as well as an expansion
of the transit system. This plan would reduce the need for roadway investment
by $500 million – half the cost of the “business as usual” plan, Rue noted.
“Walkable communities supported by efficient transportation networks are
viable, sustainable, and less expensive (to develop) than building freeways to
accommodate dispersed growth…If all we care about is going through places, soon
there will be nothing left to go to,” he said.
Two pedestrian-oriented projects highlighted during the forum were CityPlace in
CityPlace, built on an 80-acre, mostly-vacant parcel of land in the heart of
West Palm Beach, is a mixed-use development combining retail, restaurant,
entertainment, cultural and residential uses in a design that reflects the
area’s Mediterranean-style architecture. (It received a ULI Award for
Excellence in 2002.) Forum Chair Nancy Graham, who was mayor of
The success of both the
The TND Design Rating
Standards (Aurbach, 2005), provides a five-start rating system for evaluating
Traditional Neighborhood Development, taking into account housing choice, land
use mix (non-residential), connectivity, external connections, proximity
(portion of homes within walking distance of a commercial center), location
(relative to a regional center), streetscapes, civic space, and architectural
aesthetics. This can be used to help planners and developers create
communities, and households choose communities, that support strategic
objectives, such as reduced automobile dependency and increased walking and
cycling.
According
to an October 18th story in the Charlotte Observer, “The reign of the
cul-de-sac ended Wednesday, with a unanimous vote of the Charlotte City
Council.” Under a change in the subdivision ordinance, the dead-end circles so
common in suburbia can be constructed only when geographic barriers prevent
street connections. Though existing cul-de-sacs won’t be affected, the idea,
city planners and politicians say, is to alleviate traffic by better linking
future communities.
“
A study of Orenco Station, a suburban New Urbanist
community on
Ninety-four percent
said that they find the community’s New Urbanist design superior to typical
suburban communities. Podobnik believes the
Over the last
20 year,
Concerned
about the impacts that pollution was causing on local economy, the Chattanooga
Chamber of Commerce created a Air Pollution Control Board in 1967. The board
included a diversity group of business leaders and citizens. It established a
1972 deadline for all existing major sources of pollution to be in compliance
with emission standards, which was met at a cost of $40 million. National and
international attention was focused on a city that in three years had changed
from the most polluted city in the
In
the early 80’s, city officials established a goal that
This
led to creation of the RiverCity Corporation, a private, nonprofit organization
with a mandate to implement the Riverfront Master Plan and 40 community
development goals. Among other achievements, it developed the Tennessee
Aquarium, the world’s largest freshwater aquarium, which opened in 1992. The
structure has become a trademark for the city that in 10 years transformed
itself from a dying city to one of growth and sustainable development.
A
second "structure" that defines
Metro
planners get new tool for New Urbanism projects By Judith R. Tackett,
jtackett@nashvillecitypaper.com
June 04, 2004
Nashville Metro (www.nashville.gov/mpc)
planning agency has a new tool to help create traditional neighborhoods
following the New Urbanism style. The Planning Commission adopted the new tool
called the Transect - a guidance and analysis tool for creating a
vibrant neighborhood. Transect was created in cooperation with developers,
Metro Council members and neighborhood groups.
“Our goal is to proved housing, transportation and development choices for
different needs and life stages,” says Planning Director Rick Bernhardt. “To do
so fairly and equitably, we must level the regulatory playing field and make it
just as easy to develop a community with mixture of retail, restaurants, town
homes and single-family homes as it is to build the conventional, single-use
subdivision.”
Until now, it usually took up to six months longer to plan for a development
incorporating New Urbanism than for conventional developments.
“It’s common to think of each community as having an urban core in the center
with each of the subsequent zones around it, like a fried egg,” Bernhardt said.
“But in fact, the zones are usually mixed throughout a community. The key is
that the zones must be internally consistent for a successful town.”
Transect consists of six zones (T1-T6) — natural zone, rural zone, suburban
zone, neighborhood zone, urban center zone and urban core zone – and a district
zone that serves for a specific single use such as industries, universities and
airports. The Transect is a guidance and analysis tool, which identifies the
necessary elements for a vibrant neighborhood.
A
transect approach was used to implement goals of specific neighborhoods in the
Davidson County Strategic Plan for Sidewalks and Bikeways and the Parks and
Greenways Master Plan. Sidewalks are sized and parks are located according to
Transect zones. The zones are also used in community planning efforts, where
the Transect gives the basis for developing more detailed plans. The principle
of New Urbanism is to build entire neighborhoods and the 45-50 zoning districts
planners had to use so far have provided little flexibility for mixed land use.
The city of
The Livable Communities Coalition developed a score
card for evaluating proposed developments on smart growth criteria. It asks 50
questions that exhaustively probe plans for new developments. The questions
touch on 50 separate criteria in eight categories, including location and
availability of basic services; density and compactness; diverse mix of land
uses; housing choice; accessibility, mobility, and connectivity; pedestrian safety,
streetscapes, and parking; environmental protection; and community needs.
Judgments are made by a team of volunteer experts. Each criterion is rated by
the team. Answers include poor, good, very good, and excellent, with each
answer earning points – 3 points for excellent, two for very good, one for
good, and none for poor. All answers are then averaged. Projects must earn an
overall average score of 2 points (very good) to win recommendation for
approval.
The Your Next Move: Choosing a Neighbourhood with Sustainable Features, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/62180.pdf) helps consumers evaluate community sustainability when selecting a home. It describes features that create safe, convenient, environmentally-friendly and affordable neighborhoods.
The
The American Planning Association has developed various types of model ordinances and regulations that reflect smart growth principles and objectives. These objectives include encouraging mixed uses, preserving open space and environmentally sensitive areas, providing a choice of housing types and transportation modes, including affordable housing, and making the development review process more predictable. Communities based on these principles tend to encourage walking and bicycling, and increase human interaction, leading to more active, socially engaged lifestyles that result in better public physical and mental health. The Phase I report contains the following 11 model smart growth ordinances with commentary:
Celebration,
“Celebration takes the best of what made small towns
great in our past and adds a vision of the future. All the conveniences and
technology of modern life will be hidden in timeless architecture. There will
also be a sense of community. Hence the lakeside town center, complete with
town hall, post office, library, deli, restaurants, bookstore-cafe, grocery
store, dry cleaner, and movie theater. It is meant to be a sociable place, with
people living above the shops and streets designed for pedestrians. In
addition, the town will have a Health Campus with a fitness center and
“healthcare edutainment”
Celebration
first opened in 1996. It currently has 700+ residences with a population of
2,000+, with plans to expand to about 8,000 residential units and 20,000
people. It includes a downtown, health center, school, post office, town hall,
golf course, single family homes, townhouses and apartments. The town has
restrictive covenants that limit what property owners can and cannot do,
including strict building design standards.
A survey of Celebration
residents shows that 43% said they drive significantly less, while the rest
said they use their cars somewhat less. Ninety percent fell that the physical
characteristics of New Urbanist planning contribute to and improve the quality
of their lives, and 98% said the feeling of community in Celebration has met
their expectations. With the central village containing essentially all
community activities, including schools, one respondent reported that his
two-and-a-half-year-old car only had 13,000 miles on it, and another said his
son was disturbed that he hadn’t been in a car in over a month.
APA (2006), Smart Codes, American Planning Association (www.planning.org/smartgrowthcodes). These model ordinances and regulations reflect New Urbanist principles.
Danielle Arigoni (2001), Affordable Housing and Smart Growth: Making the Connections, Subgroup on Affordable Housing, Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) and National Neighborhood Coalition (www.neighborhoodcoalition.org).
ARC (2002), Community Choices Quality Growth Toolkit - Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Implementation, Atlanta Regional Commission (www.atlreg.com/qualitygrowth/planning/Toolkits/TND_TOOL.pdf). This document provides information on Traditional Neighborhood Development, including case studies and TND model ordinances.
Laurence Aurbach (2005), TND Design Rating Standards, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/dced/scorecards/TND_Design_Rating_Standards_2.2.pdf).
Michael Aaron Berman (1996), “The Transportation Effects of Neo-Traditional Development,” Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 10, No. 4, May 1996, pp. 347-363.
Constance Beaumont and Leslie Tucker (2002), Big-Box Sprawl (And How to Control It), National Trust for Historic Preservation (www.nationaltrust.org).
Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean (2002), Visualing Density: A Catalog Illustrating the Density of Residential Neighborhoods, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu).
Charles C. Bohl (2003), “To What Extent And In What Way Should Government Bodies Regulate Urban Planning,” Journal of Markets & Morality, Vol. 6, No. 1, Action Institute (www.acton.org), Spring 2003, pp. 213-226.
Charles C. Bohl (2002), Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets and Urban Villages, Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org).
Geoffrey Booth, et al (2001), Transforming Suburban Business Districts, Urban Development Institute (www.uli.org).
Building Green (www.buildinggreen.com) publishes information resources for designing more resource efficient and environmentally friendly building.
Dan Burden (1998), Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc).
Dan Burden and Peter Lagerway (1999), Road Diets Free Millions for New Investment, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org).
Stephen Burrington & Veronika Thiebach (1995), Take Back Your Streets; How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic, Conservation Law Foundation (www.clf.org).
CALTRANS (2004), California Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Searchable Database, California Department of Transportation (http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov).
Michael Carley
(2000), Sustainable
Transport and Retail Vitality: State of the Art for Towns & Cities,
Donaldsons, National Trust
for
Michael Carley, Karryn Kirk and Sarah McIntosh (2001), Retailing, Sustainability And Neighbourhood Regeneration, (ISBN 1 84263 49 0) Joseph Roundtree Foundation (www.jrf.org.uk).
CCAP (2005), Transportation Emissions Guidebook:
Land Use, Transit & Transportation Demand Management,
Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc) helps local governments and community leaders be proactive in their land use and transportation planning.
Center for Urban
Transportation Research, USF (
Center for Watershed Protection (www.cwp.org) provides analysis and resources for minimizing hydrologic impacts and pollution.
CITE (2004), Canadian Guide to Promoting Sustainable Transportation Through Site Design, Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.cite7.org); at www.cite7.org/Technical_Projects/sitedesignreview.htm.
Cities For Mobility (www.cities-for-mobility.org) is a global network of cities that promotes the development of sustainable and efficient transportation systems.
Citizen Planner Institute (www.citizenplanner.com) trains average citizens, public officials, business people, and kids in the basics of neighborhood and town design.
CIVITAS (www.civitas-initiative.org) is a European Commission supported initiative to help introduce sustainable urban transport strategies.
The City on the Move Institute (www.ville-en-mouvement.com) supports the development of the cultures of urban mobility and of civilities, with particular attention to streetscape design and management.
CMHC (2006), Your Next Move: Choosing a Neighbourhood
with Sustainable Features,
CNU (2003), Civilizing Downtown Highways: Putting New Urbanism To Work On California’s Highways, Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org).
Commuter Choice Program (www.epa.gov/oms/traq), by the Transportation Air Quality Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.
Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org), provides a variety of information on innovative urban design. The CNU Narrow Streets Database (www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm) describes more flexible zoning codes being implemented in various communities.
Wendell Cox (1999), The President’s New Sprawl Initiative: A Program in Search of a Problem,
Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org).
Randall Crane (1999), The Impacts of Urban Form on Travel: A Critical Review, Working Paper WP99RC1, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu).
DCE, et al (2006), Understanding
The Relationship Between Public Health And The Built Environment: A Report
Prepared For The LEED-ND Core Committee, U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC), the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) to assist with the preparation of a rating system for
neighborhoods called LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for
Neighborhood Development) (www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1480).
DEA & Associates (1999),
DfT (2006), Manual for Streets, Department for Transport (www.manualforstreets.org.uk). Provides guidance to practitioners on effective street design.
Marie Demers (2006), Walk For Your Life! Restoring Neighborhood Walkways To Enhance Community Life, Improve Street Safety and Reduce Obesity, Vital Health Publishing (www.vitalhealthbooks.com/book/2414947630.html).
DPZ (2005), Smart Code; A Comprehensive Form Based Ordinance, The Town Paper (http://tndtownpaper.com). This model zoning code developed by Duany Plater-Zyberk promotes New Urban development by allowing more flexibility and innovation in building and street design.
DTLR (2001), Better Places to Live, U.K. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/betrplac/index.htm) and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (www.cabe.org.uk). This report examines attributes that underlie successful residential environments.
Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck (2000), Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, North Point Press (www.fsgbooks.com).
ERM
Mitchell McCotter Pty (2000), Livable Neighborhoods: Street Layout, Design and Traffic
Management Guidelines, Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the Western
Australian Planning Commission (www.planning.wa.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?page=/publications/content.html).
Mark Eppli and Charles C. Tu (2000), Valuing the New Urbanism; The Impact of New Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes, Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org).
Reid
GQGP (2003), Smart Growth Audit Tool, Georgia Quality Growth Partnership (www.georgiaqualitygrowth.com). Identifies best practices for Smart Growth zoning codes and development requirements.
Global Urban Sustainability Solutions Exchange (GUSSE) (www.gusse.org) is an Internet resource for sharing urban sustainability information. International partners work together to curate thousands of existing online sources of sustainability information, similar to sites such as Wikipedia.
Susan Handy, Robert G. Paterson and Kent Butler (2004), Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting From Here to There, Planning Advisory Service Report 515, American Planning Association (www.planning.org).
Koh Ee Huei and Jon D. Fricker (2005), Evaluating the Feasibility of New Urbanism in an Existing Neighborhood, TRB 84th Annual Meeting, TRB (www.trb.org), 2005.
Joel S. Hirschhorn (2000), Growing Pains; Quality of Life in the New Economy, National Governor’s Association (www.nga.org).
Joel Hirschhorn
and Paul Souza (2001), New Community Design to the Rescue; Fulfilling
Another American Dream, National Governor’s Association, Center for Best Practices (www.nga.org).
Wolfgang Homburger (1989), Residential Street Design and Traffic Control,
Asad J. Khattak
and Daniel Rodriguez (2005), “Travel Behavior in Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Developments:
A Case Study In USA,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 39, No. 6 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra),
July 2005, pp. 481-500.
JTC (2003), Sustainable Urban Landscapes: Site Design Manual, James Taylor Chair, Landscape Architecture Program, University of British Columbia, (www.sustainable-communities.agsci.ubc.ca/projects/DesignManual.html).
Walter Kulash (1990), Traditional Neighborhood Development: Will the Traffic Work?,
Presentation at 11th Pedestrian Conference,
LCC (2008), Smart Growth Scorecard, Livable Communities
Coalition (www.livablecommunitiescoalition.org);
at www.livablecommunitiescoalition.org/uploads/100012_bodycontentfiles/100636.pdf.
Christopher
B. Leinberger (2001), Financing Progressive Development, Capital Xchange,
Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/es/urban/capitalxchange/article3.htm).
Michael Lewyn (2006), New Urbanist Zoning for Dummies, George Washington University Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 183, (http://ssrn.com/abstract=873903).
LGC (2003), Smart Growth Zoning Codes: A Resource Guide, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org). This document includes a CD that contains examples of progressive building codes.
LGC (2004), Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org), US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Realtors; at www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/reports/density_manual.pdf.
Todd Litman (2003), Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf.
Todd Litman (2004), Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), Land Use Impacts on Transport, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/landtravel.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Smart Growth Policy Reforms, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/smart_growth_reforms.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Community Cohesion As A Transport Planning Objective, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/tca); available at www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.
Todd Litman (2007), Pavement Buster’s Guide: Why and How to Reduce the Amount of Land Paved for Roads and Parking Facilities, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/pavbust.pdf.
Todd Litman (2008), Recommendations for Improving LEED Transportation and Parking Credits, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/leed_rec.pdf.
Living Streets (www.livingstreets.org.uk) (previously the Pedestrians Association) campaigns for urban redevelopment and pedestrian welfare. It provides a variety of information on ways of making streets and urban neighborhoods more livable.
Barbara McCann
(2000), Driven to
Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, STPP (www.transact.org).
NAHB (various years), Smart Growth Case Studies, National Association of Home Builders (www.nahb.org).
National Association of Realtors (www.realtor.org) provides many resources that support New Urbanism, particularly the magazine On Common Ground (www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf).
National Charrette Institute (www.charretteinstitute.org) supports collaborative community planning activities.
New Colonist (www.newcolonist.com), a web magazine about urban living, provides information on New Urbanist and Smart Growth issues.
New Urban News (www.newurbannews.com) is a professional newsletter covering the new urbanism, smart growth and traditional neighborhood development.
NewUrbanism.Org (www.newurbanism.org) provides a variety of information on New Urbanism.
NEW (2001), This Place On Earth 2001, Signline Institute (www.sightline.org).
Dom Nozzi (2003), Road To Ruin: An Introduction To Sprawl And How To Cure It, Praeger (www.praeger.com).
Otak Inc (1999), Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm).
PBQD
(2000), Data Collection and
Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale
Design, Transportation Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip).
Bruce Podobnik (2002), The Social and
Environmental Achievements of New Urbanism:
Evidence from Orenco Station, Department of Sociology
Lewis and
PFBE (2007), Valuing Sustainable Urbanism: Measuring & Valuing New Approaches to Residentially Led Mixed Use Growth, The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment
Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org) works to create and sustain public places that build communities. It provides a variety of resources for developing more livable communities.
Reconnecting
Resource for Urban Design Information (RUDI) (www.rudi.net) supports urban design, transport, architecture and planning professionals involved in placemaking.
RMLUI (2008), Sustainable Community Development Code, Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, Strum College of Law (http://law.du.edu); at www.law.du.edu/index.php/rmlui/sustainable-community-development-code-main.
Karen E.
Seggerman, Sara J. Hendricks and E. Spencer Fleury (2005),
Incorporating TDM into the Land Development Process, National Center for
Transportation Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-11.pdf).
SFLCV (2003), This View of Density Calculator, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (www.sflcv.org/density). This website illustrates various land use patterns, predicts their effects on travel behavior, and discusses various issues related to New Urbanist development.
The Smart Code (www.smartcode.org) is a planning implementation tool based on Smart Growth principles.
The Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) includes planners, govt. officials, lenders, community developers, architects, environmentalists and activists.
Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2003), Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography (Previously titled: Does Public Transit Service Raise Nearby Property Values Enough To Pay For Itself Were The Value Captured?), Geonomy Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); at www.vtpi.org/smith.htm.
Yan Song and Gerrit-Jan Knaap (2003), The Effects of New Urbanism on Housing Values: A Quantitative Assessment, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, University of Maryland (www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/POSTSongKnaap2.htm).
Robert Steuteville and Phillip Langdon (2008), New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report & Best Practices Guide, New Urban News (www.newurbannews.com/compPage.html).
The Town Paper (www.tndtownpaper.com) provides information on new urbanism and traditional town design, including numerous examples and case studies.
Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm), provides a variety of information and practical resources for creating more efficient and livable communities.
Urban Land
Institute (www.uli.org)
is a professional organization for developers that provides practical
information on innovative development practices, including infill and
sustainable community planning.
Urban Renaissance Institute (www.urban-renaissance.org) works to help cities and their regions flourish by applying innovative market-based policies.
USEPA, Smart Growth Policy Database, US Environmental Protection Agency (http://cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/browse.cfm) provides information on dozens of policies that encourage more efficient transportation and land use patterns, with hundreds of case studies.
US
WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) calculates the walkability of a location based on proximity to public services such as stores, schools and parks.
WCEL (2004), Smart Bylaws Guide, West Coast Environmental Law Foundation (www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg). This comprehensive guide describes smart growth practices, provides technical standards and model bylaws that can be tailored to specific municipal circumstances, and includes numerous case studies.
Wim Wiewel and Gerrit-Jan Knaap (2005), Partnerships for Smart Growth: University-Community Collaboration for Better Public Spaces, Smart Growth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/univ_collaboration.htm).
Alex Wilson (2007), “Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation Energy Intensity of Building,” Environmental Building News (www.buildinggreen.com), Vol. 16, No. 9, Sept. 2007; at www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=160901a.xml.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org
info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#24