THE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

A Rating Tool to Judge Adherence to the Charter of the New Urbanism

Nathan R. Norris

Principal

PlaceMakers, L.L.C.

www.PlaceMakers.com

STEP ONE:

MISSION STATEMENT

To encourage the building of better places by creating a system of rating New Urban projects, both old and new, both big and small, that will identify the degree to which they adhere to the principles of New Urbanism.

STEP TWO:

IDENTIFY INTENDED USES1. Market Differentiation

2. Entitlement

3. Education and Encouragement

4. Debate

5. Source for Coding Details

MARKET DIFFERENTIATION

Developers can use this tool as a means of differentiating their projects from the projects of their competitors (who claim to be producing great places, but are only doing so in name only).

ENTITLEMENT

Developers can use the rating system to assist in them in the entitlement process by showing how well the project adheres to the principles of New Urbanism.

EDUCATION

This can be a tool to educate government officials and the public about how to create great places and to explain what New Urbanism is.

ENCOURAGEMENT

This tool can encourage better development by clearly articulating the details with which a developer is not already familiar. In other words, some developers will do better if they are exposed to information that outlines certain strategies for improving a project.

DEBATE

The creation of this system is an opportunity to raise the level of internal debate within the New Urban movement by establishing a more precise “best practices” body of knowledge.

SOURCE OF CODING DETAILS

This system can become a template that local communities can use to develop their own smart growth matrices (instead of being forced to do it from scratch).

An attractive name, coming to be associated with an attractive form of development,

rapidly acquires prestige. Men having sub-standard goods to offer will put the popular

label thereon; and in time the odium attaching to the substitute will diminish the

prestige of the label, and therefore of the original goods. That has happened to

Garden City. It is now happening to Satellite Town, which has been applied to

industrial excrescences on vast agglomerations, and to Green Belt, which has been

applied to exiguous ribbons of park-space which you can almost step over without

noticing. Perhaps we cannot prevent these perversions of good words by commercial and

demagogic interests. But at least we should avoid them in planning literature.

F.J. Osborn, Welwyn Garden City, September 1945; Preface to the the 1946 Edition of

Garden Cities of To-Morrow by Ebenezer Howard

STEP THREE:

REFERENCES: Part I1. Revisions to Swift’s System of Certification by Duany

2. Evaluation of Traditional Neighborhood Projects in Colorado by Swift

3. TND Checklist by Speck (Lexicon)

4. New Urbanist “DNA” by Russell

5. Urban Ecology Infill Development Project Endorsement Standards

6. British Columbia Sustainability Checklist

7. New Urbanism Charter Connectivity Rating by Mehaffy

8. Austin Smart Growth Criteria Matrix

9. CNU/EPA Smart Scorecard by Fleissig/Jacobson

10. Colorado Smart Growth Scorecard

STEP THREE:

REFERENCES: Part II1. National Governor’s Association New Community Design

Checklist

2. CNU/NRDC/USGBC Certifying & Rewarding Smart Growth Proposal

3. USGBC LEED Version 2.1 Draft

4. System for Judging CNU Award Applications by Gindroz

5. Restaurant Guide from NU Council III

6. Certification Terms by Aurbach

7. List of Impediements to Implementation by Duany

8. Entitlement Hurdles by Slone

9. List of Common Critiques of New Urbanism by Norris

10. Maryland Smart Growth Scorecard

STEP FOUR:

IDENTIFY CRITERIA

• 167 criteria were identified from the Resource Documents

• Many criteria were overlapping so we reformulated and consolidated the criteria down to 57

STEP FIVE:

ORGANIZE CRITERIA

Developed 4 different scorecard systems

1. Charter for the New Urbanism

2. Chronology of Development

3. Walkability & Connectivity

4. Simple Version (Reduction to 25 Criteria)

STEP SIX:

CRAFT GRAPHIC FORMAT FOR SCORECARDS

1. One to Five Ratings for Each Criteria

2. Different Weights for Different Criteria

3. Reviewers: New Urban Press

4. Film/Restaurant Star System

5. As Planned vs. As Built

6. Date of Review

STEP SEVEN:

DRAFT CRITERIA GUIDELINES

• Criteria are of limited use if they are not supported by detailed guidelines

• Gigantic Task: Recruited 20 Members of the PRO-URB Listserv to help author individual guidelines for specific criteria

• Four Key Components: Definitions; Standards; Reasoning; Examples

STEP EIGHT:

THE NEXT STEPS

• Not done (and technically, never will be)

• The Hope of LEED-ND

• Design Council: Compare 3 Rating Systems

• “Help Set the Standard”

STEP NINE:

HELP SET THE STANDARD

• http://nuappraisal.home.comcast.net

• Contact Nathan Norris or Allison Ude• Nathan@PlaceMakers.com• Allisonude@comcast.net