The Case for Compact Development

A meta-analysis published recently in the Journal of the American Planning Association says the single most important factor to minimize driving is to plan development in existing centers near the core of the metropolitan area. We couldn’t agree more. At CEOs for Cities, our work points to the same  – a push toward mixed-use development and dense development near existing city centers.
 
The report goes on to say that if you’re trying to minimize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and maximize walking and transit, you’re better off emphasizing mixed-use development and proximity to “trip attractions” like shopping, employment and recreational facilities, rather than just bumping up density.
 
The report culls research from other studies to develop a road map for planners and policy makers hoping to minimize our dependence on vehicles. It is encouraging to see that the analysis supports our Green Dividend work.

  

Marcella, July 9, 2010

This is also true for locating offices as well. In Area Development's article about ways to improve sustainability at work, one tip is to make offices friendly to mass transit and bike commuters: http://bit.ly/cws0bp

Link: URL

Rick Rybeck, July 13, 2010

The case for more compact cities goes back many years. I recall a "Costs of Sprawl" report from HUD in the 1970s. However, knowing what to do and doing it are not the same thing. In particular, our society is riddled with economic incentives and subsidies that actively promote sprawl. As much as we cantry to educate folks, it is very difficult to get them to vote against their pocket books. However, the economic incentives and subsidies for sprawl are largely creatures of public policy and can be remedied by appropriate public sector action. We can make it cheaper to ride transit than to drive and park in congested places at congested times. We can remove the economic penalty for property development and maintenance that is embedded within the traditional property tax. Let's get to work! Rick Rybeck. www.justeconomicsllc.com

Link: http://www.justeconomicsllc.com

Rick Rybeck, July 18, 2010

To be sure, there's much more to successful smart growth than merely increases in density. However, increased density is the key. Unfortunately, today there are myriad incentives and subsidies that encourage auto-oriented sprawl. Abundant free parking and a lack of congestion pricing are just two examples. Real estate speculation is another culprit. By inflating urban land prices, speculation prematurely pushes development out to cheaper suburban, exurban and rural locations. Until we re-orient these economic incentives and subsidies, our exhortations to use transit and redevelop already-urbanized areas will have very limited success. Plans for vital and attractive urban areas will gather dust or exert minimal influence on actual development. However, if we can create economic incentives that reward building construction and maintenace, if we can discourage speculation and thereby reduce urban land costs, and if we can make transit less expensive than driving to the person deciding how to travel, then the private sector will respond accordingly, and planning documents for smart growth and TOD will become more relevant. For information about reorienting the economic incentives, see http://www.justeconomicsllc.com or review the ICMA article at http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9202/public/cover.cfm?author=walter rybeck&title;=retooling property taxes

Link: http://www.justeconomicsllc.com

Post a Comment

Name:* E-mail Address: URL:

Comment*

Please type the word below*

Please leave the following field blank:

*Required fields (your email address will not be published)