outline what is sprawl? problems of sprawl coping strategies transit oriented development smart...

Outline

What is sprawl?

Problems of sprawl

Coping Strategies Transit Oriented Development Smart Growth New Urbanism

Critique of coping strategies

What is Sprawl?

Low density development on the edge of cities and towns, poorly planned, land consumptive, auto-dependent, and designed without respect to its surroundings

Housing At Very Low Density0.5-2 Dwelling Units/Acre

Source: Planning Center, City of Clovis

Housing At Low Density2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre


Housing At Medium Density4-7 Dwelling Units/Acre


Housing At Medium High Density7-15 Dwelling Units/Acre


Housing At High Density 15-25 Dwelling Units/Acre


Housing At Very High Density25-43 Dwelling Units/Acre


Traits of Sprawl Unlimited outward extension of development Low-density residential and commercial settlements Leapfrog development Fragmentation of powers over land use Dominance of transportation by private automobiles Segregation of types of land uses in different zones

Sprawl in United States

Measuring SprawlSprawl may be said to occur when the rate at which land is converted to non-agricultural or non-natural uses exceeds the rate of population growth

Measure: Per capita Land consumption

Baltimore’s growth, 1792-1992

Sprawl in American Cities

1950-1990Urbanized Area

Population Growth, 1950-90

Urbanized Area

Growth, 1950-90

Area Growth/Pop.

GrowthPittsburgh 9.5% 206.3% 21.7Buffalo 6.6% 132.5% 20.1Milwaukee 47.9% 402.0% 8.4Boston 24.3% 158.3% 6.5Philadelphia 44.5% 273.1% 6.1St.Louis 39.0% 219.3% 5.6Cleveland 21.2% 112.0% 5.3Cincinnati 49.1% 250.7% 5.1Kansas City 82.7% 411.4% 5.0Detroit 34.3% 164.5% 4.8Baltimore 62.7% 290.1% 4.6New York 30.5% 136.8% 4.5Norfolk 243.6% 971.0% 4.0Chicago 38.0% 123.9% 3.3Minneapolis-St.Paul 110.7% 360.2% 3.3Atlanta 325.4% 972.6% 3.0Washington 161.3% 430.9% 2.734 Metro Areas with Pop.>1 million92.4% 245.2% 2.7

1982-1996Urbanized Area

Population Growth, 1982-96

Urbanized Area

Growth, 1982-96

Area Growth/Pop.

GrowthDetroit,MI -1.1% 19.6% -Rochester,NY -3.1% 15.5% -Buffalo-Niagara Falls,NY 0.0% 52.0% -Pittsburgh,PA 6.6% 39.0% 5.9Harrisburg,PA 14.5% 72.0% 5Boston,MA 5.6% 26.9% 4.8Chicago 10.9% 44.2% 4.1Cleveland,OH 6.3% 23.8% 3.8New York 2.9% 10.1% 3.4St.Louis,MO 9.2% 30.8% 3.3Baltimore,MD 26.2% 64.4% 2.5Nashville,TN 25.0% 53.9% 2.2Tucson,AZ 42.2% 86.7% 2.1Las Vegas,NV 138.9% 243.8% 1.8Los Angeles,CA 23.4% 22.7% 1Houston,TX 27.5% 9.8% 0.4Avg.Of 70 U.S.Metropolitan Regions20.2% 28.8% 1.43

Problems of Sprawl

Social problem Alienation; poverty concentration

Economic problem Infrastructure costs

Environmental problem Pollution, loss of farmlands

Health problem Obesity

1982 1987 1990 1994 1998 2001

Los Angeles area* 19 39 53 46 56 52

San Francisco 12 35 37 24 32 42

San Jose 10 32 43 24 26 34

San Bernardino and Riverside 4 11 20 20 29 34

San Diego 3 9 16 14 16 25

Annual hours of delay per person on all travel during peak hours of 6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.

*Includes Orange and Ventura counties.

Note: Delays eased during recessionary periods due to a combination of road improvements and slower traffic growth.

Source: Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility Study [from LA Times, Oct. 5, 2003]

Transportation Transportation as a %

expenditures of total expenditures

San Diego $9,161 20.8%

Houston $9,566 20.1%

Los Angeles* $8,104 17.9%

Atlanta $6,577 17.3%

San Francisco/San Jose** $9,492 16.9%

New York $7,295 15.1%

United States $7,633 19.3%

Household spending on transportation, by metropolitan area, during 2000-2001:

*Includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.

**Includes Alameda, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties.

Source: Surface Transportation Policy Project analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data [from Los Angeles Times, Oct. 6, 2003]

Transit Oriented Development

“Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is moderate to higher density development, located within an easy walk of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians without excluding the auto. TOD can be new construction or redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design and orientation facilitate transit use.”

Source: Technical Advisory Committee to the Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study

Transit Oriented Development Neo-Traditional, New-

Urbanist development Walkable community Reinforces the use of

public transportation High density Mixed housing type

Source: Report on Smart Infill, Greenbelt Alliance

Why TOD?Provides alternatives to the consequences of

low-density suburban sprawl and automobile- dependent land use patterns

Helps reduce the shortage of affordable housing

Benefits of TODTOD can lower rates of air pollution and energy consumption

TOD can help conserve resource lands and open space

TOD can play a role in economic developmentTool to help revitalize aging downtowns and declining urban neighborhoods, and to enhance tax revenues for local jurisdictions.

TOD can decrease infrastructure costsIt can help reduce overall infrastructure costs for expanding water, sewage and roads to local governments by up to 25% through more compact and infill development.

TOD can contribute to more affordable housingIt can add to the supply of affordable housing by providing lower-cost and accessible housing, and by reducing household transportation expenditures

Innovations in Bus Service

Metro RAPID, Los Angeles

Advanced Passenger InformationReal-time and new multi-lingual displays

Signal Priority SystemHigh-quality signal communication

Level Boarding and AlightingLow-floor buses to provide level platform and improve access

Color-Coded Buses and StationsTo share visual cues including colors and graphics themes

Enhanced Passenger AmenitiesStreetscape improvements, improved security lighting, and surveillance

Transformation [Design Strategy]

Better Use of Existing Roads & Highways Bus Rapid Transit in Center Lanes of Existing Roads

Transformation [Design Strategy]Taming the Suburban HighwayWork with large adjacent landowners; project initiated by landowner at right

Source: Thomas Jefferson Planning District CommissionCharlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization

Taming the Suburban HighwayBuildings moved up to street; landscaping & bike lanes added; parking and street grid at rear


Taming the Suburban HighwayMixed-use buildings added one at a time on adjacent properties


Taming the Suburban HighwayStreet trees added to median


Taming the Suburban HighwayAlternative with two lanes each way for through traffic and service lane with diagonal parking


Smart growth principlesCreate Range of Housing OpportunitiesCreate Walkable NeighborhoodsEncourage Community Collaboration Foster Communities with a Strong Sense of Place Mix Land Uses Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities Take Advantage of Compact Building Design

New Urbanism Principles

Region: Metropolis, City and Town

Neighborhood, District, & Corridor

Block, Street, and Building

Principles of New UrbanismWalkability Pedestrian friendly streets

Connectivity Integrated street network

Mixed use and Diversity Residential,commercial Age, income, race

Mixed housing

Quality Physical Design

Traditional Neighborhood Structure Discernible center and edge

Increased Density Compactness

Smart Transportation Multi-modal

Sustainability Minimal environmental impact

Quality of Life

Principles of New Urbanism

Seaside

KentlandsLaguna West

New Urbanist Projects

210 developments under construction or complete in the United States

Seaside, FL

–High density–Picket fences –Paved roads–Small setback

Kentlands, MD

High Density

Market Street

Overlooking porch

San Diego, CA

Th

e V

illag

eN

aval Tra

inin

g C

en

ter

Raleigh, NC

Moore

Sq

uare

Mu

seu

ms

Mag

net

Mid

dle

Sch

ool

Residential

Village

Commericial

Playa Vista, CA

Playa Vista, CA

High Density Housing

Critique of Coping Strategies (Macro)

Historical context of urban growth Durability of physical capital

Sprawl not environmentally problematic Agriculture is more polluting

Freedom of choice Residential preferences

Is compactness really desirable? U shaped infrastructure costs Overcrowding; noise; incompatible uses

Critique of Coping Strategies (Micro)

Spatial Determinism (Harvey) Physical solution to social/ economic issues

Untenable self-containment Job centers/ housing duality Increase in non-work trips

Transit Inefficiencies

Weak Sense of Community

Social equity Elitist approach; limited mixed housing

ConclusionProspects of coping strategies Control of outward movement Inner-area revitalization Design innovation Land and natural resources preservation Transportation reorientation

Problems of NU for controlling sprawl Macro level problems Micro level problems

Sprawl or New Urbanism?

Mixed use Town Center

Suburban Strip

OR

outline what is sprawl? problems of sprawl coping strategies transit oriented development smart...

Documents

city of clovis slide

low density development

dwelling unitsacre source

higher density development

measuring sprawl sprawl

planning center

medium density

transit use