On Common Ground: Summer 2007

SUMMER 2007

Check in onSmart Growth:

transportationfundinggreen designland conservationvoter preferenceform-based codesstreet planning

✔

✔

✔

✔✔

✔

Smart GrowthSmart GrowthProgressReportProgressReport

Are Smart Growth concepts having an effect onplanning and development in America? Is low-density sprawl continuing unabated, or has a

new approach taken hold? In this issue of On CommonGround, we give you a progress report on Smart Growth.

As Jason Miller reports on page 50, America’s growthoccurs primarily in the suburbs and exurbs, in a low-density form that requires a vehicle to get anywhere—but a shift is occurring. This shift is being noticed bymajor homebuilders and real estate companies, whohave recognized that a market for walkable communitieshas arisen. This market is being met not only in centralcities, but in new suburban developments that use manySmart Growth concepts of higher density, mixed-use,pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Consumers arestarting to make the connection between the form ofdevelopment and everyday issues, such as how muchexercise they get, as reported by Heidi Johnson-Wrighton page 32. Environmentalists are integrating SmartGrowth concepts into green building practices, asreported by John Van Gieson on page 38.

These Smart Growth approaches are becomingevident in public policy as well as the marketplace. In the November 2006 elections,as David Goldberg tells us on page 6, voters were clear in their support forcommunity planning. Open space conservation and funding of transportationalternatives were also popular with voters, as reported by Christine Sexton (p. 14)and Steve Wright (p. 20), respectively. State governments are adopting newtransportation policies that recognize the needs of pedestrians and transit users,according to Barbara McCann on page 26. And, as Brad Broberg reports in his articleon form-based codes on page 44, local communities are adopting new planning andregulatory techniques that will make it easier to achieve Smart Growth.

These market trends and public policy directions suggest that Smart Growth isalive and well.

SUMMER 2007 ON COMMON GROUND 32 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2007

A Smart Growth Check Up

For more information on NAR and SmartGrowth, go to www.realtor.org/smartgrowth.

On Common Ground is published twice a year bythe Government Affairs office of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (NAR), and isdistributed free of charge. The publicationpresents a wide range of views on Smart Growthissues, with the goal of encouraging a dialogueamong REALTORS®, elected officials and otherinterested citizens. The opinions expressed in On Common Ground are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the opinions or policy ofthe NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®,its members or affiliate organizations.

EditorJoseph R. Molinaro Manager, Smart Growth ProgramsNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®

500 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001

DistributionFor more copies of this issue or to be placed onour mailing list for future issues of On CommonGround, please contact Ted Wright, NARGovernment Affairs, at (202) 383-1206 [email protected].

SUMMER 2007 ON COMMON GROUND 54 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 20074 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2007 SUMMER 2007 ON COMMON GROUND 5

On Common GroundSummer 2007

6 The Pulse at the PollsIn 2006, voters shunned extreme anti-planning measures, while rewarding forward-looking vision.by David Goldberg

14 Land Conservation Continues to WinNationwide, voters support the smart use of land.by Christine Sexton

20 Transportation FinancingCreative solutions for the problem offuture transportation development and maintenance funding.by Steve Wright

26 Complete The Streets for Smart GrowthPlanners figure out the puzzle to pedestrian-friendly roadways.by Barbara McCann

32 On the Right Path to Better HealthSmart Growth has the potential to improve your health.by Heidi Johnson-Wright

38 Design GreenThe green building and SmartGrowth connection.by John Van Gieson

44 Making Smart Growth Possiblewith Form-Based CodesA closer look at form-based code developments.by Brad Broberg

50 A Tale of Two CitiesLong the inhabitant of central cities, America’seconomy has migrated to the suburbs andexurbs—but not entirely.by Jason Miller

56 Smart Growth in the States

On Common Ground thanks the following contributors and organizations for photographs, illustrations and artist renderingsreprinted in this issue: Brett Van Akkeren, U.S. EPA; Gayle Anderson, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority;Geoffrey Anderson, U.S. EPA; Lisa Babbs; Corinne Bloomfield, City of Hillsboro Parks & Recreation (Oregon); Fred Boykin,Decatur City Commission; Ken Bryan, Rails-to-Trails; DJ Burk, Old Town Wichita; Robert Gibbons, Metro TransitMinneapolis/St. Paul Metro Area; Russell Grace, The Trust for Public Land; Art Guzzetti, American Public TransportationAssociation; Alleyn Harned, Office of the Secretary of the Virginia Department of Transportation; Peter Katz; JamesKennedy, Contra Costa County Community Development Department; Aisling Kerins, Futurewise; Jason Miller; AnneNelson, The Trust for Public Land; Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center; Alan E. Pisarski; Project for Public Spaces;Eric Stachon, 1000 Friends of Oregon; G. Kim “KT” Taylor, Pacific Realty Associates, L.P.; Jenna Thomas, GCI Group;Maureen Toms, Contra Costa County Community Development Department Redevelopment Agency; Virginians for BetterTransportation; Michael Wray, The Trust for Public Land; and Trevor Wrayton, Virginia Department of Transportation.

44Form-Based Codes

20Transportation Financing

26Complete the Streets

6The Pulseat the Polls

32

LandConservation14 38 Design

Green

Path to Better Health

SUMMER 2007 ON COMMON GROUND 7

The

By David Goldberg

In 2006, voters shunned extreme anti-planning measures, while rewarding

forward-looking vision

The November 2006 election, watershed that it was in national politics, also was pivotal in theprogress toward better planning and more livable neighborhoods, cities and metro areas. But, itwas as important for what did not happen as for what voters actually approved.

When the dust settled, the voters had approved a great deal from the perspective of Smart Growthpractices and policies. At least 13 governors were elected or re-elected after advocating strongly forpolicies such as focusing public investment in older towns and cities; fixing existing infrastructure beforeexpanding into undeveloped land; creating more affordable housing near job centers; investing incomplete transportation systems that include roads, transit and safe streets for people on foot or bike; andprotecting critical farmland, forests and other natural areas. Voters approved 70 percent of the ballotmeasures supporting public transportation, voting to spend $40 billion in new transit-related investments,at the local, regional and state levels. The November vote was the strongest ever for land conservationmeasures, with voters in 23 states approving nearly 100 ballot measures totaling $5.73 billion in newfunding, surpassing the record of $5.68 billion set in 1998.

Pulse at the Polls

✔

at the PollsPulseThe


“No 993” cut in a Washington state barley field

6 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2007

in more than a decade, and they had hoped toreplicate it many times over in 2006. The initiativewas presented to voters with an appealinglyworded ballot title that read: “Governments mustpay owners, or forgo enforcement, when certainland-use restrictions reduce property value.” It wassold through a slick marketing campaign thatfeatured a nonagenarian widow, Dorothy English,who told a story of how a 30-year-old zoningchange had prevented her and her now-deceased

husband from realizing theirdream of developing their rural property and living off the proceeds. Measure 37,supporters said, would allowEnglish to demand that localand state governments pay herthe windfall that would havecome had she been allowed tobuild a subdivision on herproperty.

What the “pro” campaign didnot explain to voters was thatMeasure 37 would throw intochaos 30 years worth ofplanning, zoning and protectionof farm and forest land. Mostlocalities don’t have millions oftax dollars lying around to payclaims for long-ago down-zonings, meaning that

governments would have to “forgo enforcement” ofzoning and land protections—but only forlandowners who had owned land long enough tomake a claim. Everyone else had to abide by thelaws, and watch as farms and forests gave way tosubdivisions, gravel pits, strip centers or otherunexpected development.

Capitalizing on the eminent domain backlashEven as Oregonians were trying to sort through

the implications of Measure 37, anti-regulationactivists were looking to duplicate it in other states.However, because Oregon is nearly alone in havinga comprehensive system of land planning, therewere fewer obvious hooks to excite voter interest inother states. That seemed to change in June 2005,when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city ofNew London, Conn., had the right to condemn thehomes of Susette Kelo and six others to make roomfor “economic development”—in this case, a 100-acre drug manufacturing complex. The court didnot expand the use of eminent domain, but ratherdeclared that limiting it in this instance was a state,not a federal function. Still, the notion thatgovernment might condemn someone’s homesimply to enhance the local tax base, rather than for


When the dust settled, thevoters had approved a greatdeal from the perspective ofSmart Growth practicesand policies.

Nevertheless, that progress may well have been eclipsed had voters across the West embraced extrememeasures that sought to dramatically curtail communities’ right to use planning and zoning to shape theirgrowth and development. These so-called “regulatory takings” initiatives, part of a coordinated campaignby antigovernment groups, would require taxpayers to pay landowners any time a rezoning or otherregulation reduced the speculative value of their property. In effect, this would have forced communitiesto pay certain landowners or developers to obey zoning and land-use laws. Under most of the measures,communities that couldn’t pay would have to waive their planning rules or environmental protections,exclusively for those landowners. After making it to the ballot in four states (others were disqualified forvarious reasons), these “takings” initiatives were rejected by voters in California, Washington and Idaho.Only Arizona adopted such a measure.

The Oregon bombshellThese were copycats, to one degree or another, of Oregon’s Measure 37, which voters approved in a

statewide referendum in 2004. Measure 37 was the first major win for extreme property rights advocates

Oregon’sMeasure 37was the first

major win for extreme

property rightsadvocates in

more thana decade.

a public use such as a school or a road, provoked afirestorm of outrage.

Although the idea of paying people who areaffected by regulations is a different matter from agovernment compelling someone to sell theirproperty for economic development, the anti-regulation advocates saw a chance to wrap the twotogether under measures touted as protecting“property rights,” notes Bob McNamara, policy

representative for the NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONOF REALTORS®. “They considered eminent domainreform a sure thing, so there was an attempt made topair the regulatory compensation measures witheminent domain,” said McNamara, who followedthe measures nationally.

In April 2006, the Reason Foundation, alibertarian think tank based in Los Angeles,published a 58-page guide to “exporting” Measure37 to other states, using the Kelo decision as awedge. Later that spring, a wealthy New York realestate investor named Howard Rich—longtimesupporter of antigovernment causes—took up thechallenge and began channeling funds tosignature-gathering companies in at least six

states, in order to get these “Kelo plus” measureson the ballot. That effort initially appeared togarner enough signatures to put the initiative upfor a vote in California, Idaho, Arizona, Montana,Nevada and Missouri. Court decisions andapparent signature-gathering fraud knockedmeasures off the ballot in Missouri, Montana andNevada. That left three states—California, Idahoand Arizona—where “regulatory takings” was

riding under the banner ofeminent domain reform. In Washington, where theFarm Bureau had beenchampioning a Measure 37copycat before the Kelodecision, voters considered a“takings”-only measure.

A radical departureLibertarian theorists have

been advancing the notion ofregulatory takings for ageneration, says LarryMorandi, who tracks“property rights” legislationas the director of state policyresearch at the NationalCouncil of State Legislatures.The concept has been mostheavily promoted by theextractive industries—timber,mining, etc.—affected byenvironmental legislation,such as the EndangeredSpecies Act. They arguedthat restrictions on the devel-opment of wetlands or theextraction of old growthtimber, as examples, con-stituted a “taking” of some ofthe economic value of theirproperty. Taxpayers therefore

should compensate them for the “benefit” ofenvironmental protection.

“The idea found its way into the Contract forAmerica,” the legislative agenda of theRepublicans who took control of Congress in 1994,Morandi recalls. “They didn’t succeed in passingmuch at the federal level, but in the early to mid-1990s property rights issues were big in the states.Approximately 20 states from 1991 to 1996 passedlegislation addressing regulatory takings to somedegree.” Most were “mild,” Morandi says,requiring a state attorney general to issue a“takings” assessment on new regulations, to seewhether they resulted in a reduction in value thatshould be compensated. Others set a threshold in


There was an attempt made to pair the regulatorycompensation measures with eminent domain.

the reduction of value—usually 50 percent ormore—above which an owner might have to becompensated to some degree. The effects,ultimately, were limited.

“What they were pushing last fall wasdramatically different from what we saw in the1990s,” Morandi says. The first major difference isthe notion that taxpayers should pay for everydollar of claimed reduction in the speculative valueresulting from a zoning decision or environmentalmeasure. Here’s how it works: Say you bought 100acres of farmland in 1985 that had a “rural-agricultural” zoning of one house per acre and ahealthy chunk of granite beneath it. You farm it for20 years, during which time urban developmentencroaches and the county begins to worry that itcan’t afford to extend urban services across anentire county covered with one-acre lots. To avoidthat prospect, and preserve the viability of farmingfor future generations, the county changes thezoning to allow only one house per 20 acres, and to

disallow gravel mines in that area. Under aMeasure 37-style regime, you could demand thatthe county pay you for the 15 house lots and thegravel mine that you “lost.”

That brings up the second radical innovation ofMeasure 37: If taxpayers can’t cough up thatamount of money, the community must waive itszoning, but only for you. Everyone else around you,who thought they were living in a ruralenvironment, has to abide by the zoning, while youbuild a subdivision and a gravel mine in their midst.

That’s precisely what has happened in Oregon,according to numerous published reports andobservers in the state. To date, more than 7,500claims for over $4 billion have been filed, coveringmore than a half-million acres, according to datacompiled by the Portland State University Instituteof Metropolitan Studies. The largest number ofclaims by far is in the Willamette Valley, the richagricultural zone that also happens to surround thestate’s largest cities, such as Portland and Eugene.



Sixty-one percentof Oregonians

want the OregonLegislature to

either fix or repealMeasure 37.

In almost every case settled to date, localgovernments, lacking taxpayer cash, have feltcompelled to waive the rules. To this point, a seriesof unresolved legal questions has prevented mostof the development from going forward.

“My sense is that most folks … were probablythinking more of the right of a farmer to build ahouse on his farm, which sounds reasonable,” LaneShetterly, director of the Oregon Department ofLand Conservation and Development, told aninterviewer late last year. “I don’t know that mostvoters expected the extent of claims that we areseeing for subdivisions and major partitions of farmand forest lands.” Indeed, there appears to be agrowing sense of buyer’s remorse among voters: Ina statewide survey in late January, 52 percent of

respondents said they would vote against themeasure, while only 37 percent would support it. Inaddition, 61 percent of Oregonians want the OregonLegislature to either fix or repeal Measure 37.

REALTORS® weigh inThe confusion in Oregon played a large role in

the decision-making for REALTOR® associations inthe states facing “takings” ballot measures,McNamara says.

“Normally, REALTORS® are very friendly withconservative legislators who protect property rights.They themselves place a high value on privateproperty rights,” notes McNamara. “It’s difficultwhen they see the pendulum swinging kind of far inthis situation. Most probably don’t think it’s a goodidea to compensate for down-zoning, and they sawwhat happened in Oregon, but they wouldn’t wantto alienate the legislators who are usually friendly.So their instinct was to tell their membership to votetheir own conscience.”

But that wasn’t enough in this case, said AlexCreel, government affairs director for theCalifornia Association of REALTORS®. “We formeda task force to look at Proposition 90, and weconcluded we had to oppose it,” Creel said. “Therewere a number of aspects of it that were troubling.We already have good eminent domain law inCalifornia, and the additional restrictions wouldhave just eliminated redevelopment in the state.Any zoning change would have created a takingthat had to be compensated, and I don’t know howlocal government could have functioned with thatlimitation, or paid for it.”

The Idaho Association of REALTORS® came to asimilar conclusion and joined a broad array oforganizations and prominent individuals opposingProposition 2. The Washington REALTORS®

David A. Goldberg is the communications director for SmartGrowth America, a nationwide coalition based inWashington, D.C. that advocates for land-use policy reform.In 2002, Mr. Goldberg was awarded a Loeb Fellowship atHarvard University where he studied urban policy.

People want a balance, and most voters recognizedthat these measures went to an extreme.

declared itself “neutral,” even after noting that,should Initiative 933 pass, ‘homeowners’expectations regarding their neighborhood nolonger [would be] predictable.” The ArizonaAssociation also declared itself neutral on thestate’s Proposition 207.

In the end only Arizona’s initiative passed, with65 percent of the vote. In Idaho, by contrast, themeasure was crushed, rejected by 76 percent of thevoters in a state with a strong libertarian streak.Observers there say voters resented the infusion ofoutside money and pressure from activists such asHoward Rich, and were eager to maintain theability to manage growth and protect naturalresources. The “takings” measure was soundlydefeated in Washington with 58 percent voting“no,” 10 years after a somewhat similar measurewas rejected in like fashion. California’s vote wasmore of a squeaker, 52 to 48 percent. Campaignofficials there noted that the voters faced a crowdedballot and a number of high-profile, high-dollarraces clamoring for attention.

In the states where the measures went down,voters’ decisions seemed to turn on the likelyregulatory confusion and steep costs of paying for—or waiving—every zoning change or environmentalprotection, McNamara said. “People askedthemselves, ‘Who’s to compensate these folks?’ Well,the taxpayers, and that’s everybody. And if thegovernment has to back off the regulations, doesthat mean everything gets developed?”

Don Chen, executive director of Smart GrowthAmerica, says that voters want the regulations thathelp them shape urban growth and protect theenvironment to be fair for individual propertyowners. “But that doesn’t mean surrendering theright to determine their community’s future orabandoning their desire to leave a legacy worthy oftheir children. People want a balance, and mostvoters recognized that these measures went to anextreme that would benefit a few, special interests,but at a high cost to everyone else.”

Regardless of gender, age, political persuasion,or even zodiac sign, it doesn’t matter when itcomes to preserving the land. Voters

everywhere overwhelmingly support landconservation programs that promote a balancebetween maintaining fragile lands and allowingplanned, sustainable growth.

During the calendar year 2006 alone voters acrossAmerica were asked to weigh in on 180 landconservation ballot measures, whether at the local,state or federal level, and slightly more than 74 percent of the initiative passed, said Andrew du Moulin, a senior research associate in the Trust for

Public Land conservation finance program.When the scope is further narrowed to initiatives

that appeared in the 2006 November generalelection, the number of land conservation programsendorsed by voters jumps even higher, to 80 percent.

“Every single year, it doesn’t matter where themeasure takes place or what the political make up is,people care about preserving their land,” said duMoulin, who noted that in 2006 voters agreed to $6.4billion in tax increases to generate the additionalfunds for land conservation initiatives. The majorityof that, du Moulin said, is attributable to California’sproposition 84 which gives the state the authority to

issue $5.388 billion in bonds for a wide variety ofprojects related to water safety, rivers, beaches,levees, watersheds, parks and forests.

“It’s a universal issue and one that is bipartisan toits core,” du Moulin said of the popularity of landconservation initiatives at the poll.

Nature Conservancy Florida Associate DirectorSue Mullins agrees. She said land conservationprograms appeal to liberals for traditionalenvironmental reasons, but also appeal toconservative voters who usually oppose tax increases.

“Conservatives see the literal value of conserving,whether it’s conserving land or water or tax dollars,

so they tend to support tax initiatives to fund landconservation because they see that investment as apreventative approach to conserving resources,” saidMullins, who has campaigned for 17 local landconservation referenda, and, in 2006, worked onsuccessful initiatives in Charlotte and CollierCounties to create $200 million in new localconservation funds.

Mullins also stresses that Florida’s land buyingprograms are attractive to conservative votersbecause the programs compensate property ownersfor the land, instead of taking a regulatory approachthat appropriates the land.

Land Conservation continues to Win

By Christine Sexton

Land Conservation continues to Win

Nationwide, voters supportthe smart use of land.

Nationwide, voters supportthe smart use of land.

14 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2007 SUMMER 2007 ON COMMON GROUND 15


Indeed, land conservation initiatives are sopopular in Florida that the state Legislature hasauthority in statute to authorize the issuance of bondsfor land conservation programs.

The preservation bonds are secured by revenuegenerated from the state’s documentary stamp tax.The documentary tax applies to all land purchasesand generally is a 70-cent assessment per every$1,000 in property value.

With financing in place, the Legislature in 1990passed Preservation 2000, which had a record-setting$3 billion budget for land conservation andmanagement programs and bought 1,781,489 acresof land.

“It’s an absolute watershed program,” Mullinssaid of the initiative, commonly called P 2000. “It wasjust tremendous. It was the first ever of its type ofprogram and it was larger than the country’s landbuying programs.”

When P 2000 expired the Legislature followed itup with Florida Forever, again a 10-year, $3 billionland conservation program that through December2006, has been responsible for protecting more than535,643 acres of land for parks, recreation and wildlife reserve with $1.8 billion in funds.

P 2000 and Florida Forever have beensuccessful, most agree, because of their non-regulatory approach. The Division of State Lands isgiven a $105 million annual appropriation tonegotiate land deals on behalf of the people ofFlorida. In most instances, the property isappraised by two different private sector appraiserswho estimate the value of the land. All deals arefinalized by the governor and cabinet.

With just three years left before Florida Forever isset to expire, a group of more than 20 landconservation organizations—ranging from theFlorida chapters of the AmericanPlanning Association and theAmerican Society of LandscapeArchitects to Audubon—isworking together to forgeconsensus on what the nextiteration of the state’s land buyinginitiative should look like.

The ultimate goal for thisgroup, calling itself the FloridaForever Coalition, is to ensure that33 percent of the peninsula ofFlorida be managed forconservation, which would requirethe acquisition of an additional 2million acres of land.

The Trust for Public LandGovernment Affairs Director andFlorida Forever Coalition member,Andrew McLeod, said the state

needs to increase funding of its land conservationprogram so it can keep pace with the soaring realestate costs. Information compiled by the FloridaAssociation of REALTORS® shows that today’smedian home and land value is more than three timeswhat it was in 1994.

Consequently, McLeod says, the coalition wantsthe state to triple its conservation budget to $10billion over a ten-year period.

McLeod points to one of the state’s most toutedland conservation programs, the purchase ofBabcock Ranch, as an example to underscore theneed for more money.

Pittsburgh lumber magnate Edward Vose Babcockbought 91,000 acres known as the Babcock Ranch inSouthwest Florida in 1914. By the late 1930s his son,Fred Babcock, had taken over operations at the ranchand started managing the land, replanting forestsand removing invasive plants not native to the area.The largest continuous privately held undeveloped

parcel of land in the state, the Babcock Ranch hadlong been identified by Florida Forever as a priorityacquisition and after Fred Babcock died the stateentered into negotiations with the family.

Unable to reach agreement, negotiations brokeoff. Developer Syd Kitson in 2005 entered into anagreement with the family that preserved a majorityof the land but allowed Kitson & Partners to developa sustainable community on about 18,000 acres.

Finalized last summer the deal maintains anuntouched 74,000 acres and ensures that a corridorof undeveloped land from Lake Okeechobee to theGulf of Mexico continues for the Florida panther,Florida black bear and the crested caracara that livethere. The purchase protects a vitally needed water-recharge area. The land also has large tracts ofpine and scrubby flatwoods and a highly functionalfreshwater swamp system, called Telegraph Swamp.

The agreement allows Florida developmentcompany Kitson & Partners to develop up to 19,500homes ranging in value in a sustainable communitythat will be developed using green techniques,greenways and trails.

Because of the $350 million price tag, though,the Legislature purchased the land with a specialappropriation. That’s because the costs of the ranch exceeded the annual $300 million FloridaForever appropriation which, in addition to land

acquisition programs, is also used for the Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservationCommission and the state’s fivewater management districts.

To purchase the land, theLegislature agreed to a one-time$310 million appropriation inaddition to the $300 millionFlorida Forever funds. LeeCounty also contributed $40million to the purchase, moneywhich was available because ofthe county’s own localconservation referenda initiallypassed by voters in 1996. LeeCounty is one of 30 counties andcities in Florida that has adoptedlocal land conservation programs.

Through Preservation 2000 andFlorida Forever the state has beenable to manage about 27 percentof the nearly 35 million acres inFlorida for conservation. The goalis to manage 33 percent of the

state’s lands which will require another 2 millionacres and a lot more money.

While groups push for a long-term successorprogram to Florida Forever, they are also calling onstate officials to increase the funding available for landpurchases this year which could allow them to buysignificantly more land now that the state’s red hot realestate market is cooling.

Newly elected Florida Gov. Charlie Cristadvocated an increase in Florida Forever funds by$100 million in his proposed budget but theLegislature appears unwilling to go along with themove, to date.

Nonetheless, McLeod and his coalition membersremain optimistic that Florida will remain a leader inland conservation.

“We don’t underestimate the challenge,” McLeodsaid of triple funding for the program. “But the meritsof land conservation are recognized across Florida.”

While the Florida Association of REALTORS®

hasn’t officially joined the Florida Forevercoalition, the association has worked closely withenvironmentalists on land-use programs in Florida,said Florida Association of REALTORS® VicePresident of Public Policy John Sebree.

“REALTORS® support Florida Forever becausewe know that preserving land and green spaceadds to the quality of life here in Florida. Peoplewant to live here because of our pristine beachesand the ability to enjoy outdoor activities. FloridaForever has been a part of that,” Sebree said.

It doesn’t matter ...what the politicalmake up is, peoplecare about preservingtheir land.

Coalition members remain optimistic that Floridawill remain a leader in land conservation.

Christine Jordan Sexton is a Tallahassee-basedfreelance reporter who has done correspondent workfor the Associated Press, the New York Times, FloridaMedical Business and a variety of trade magazines,including Florida Lawyer and National Underwriter.

Photo provided by The Trust for Public Land; photographer Michael Wray

Photo provided by The Trust for Public Land;photographer Michael Wray

Photo provided by The Trust for Public Land; photographer Russell Grace


Kevin Mills has a passion for active transportation. Youmight think that the Washington D.C.-based Rails-to-TrailsConservancy, where Mills serves as vice president forpolicy, would have it easy on Capitol Hill selling as it doesa concept that has been linked to increased property valuesand helps promote health and wellness, historicpreservation and community identity, and a multi-modaltransportation system.

But nothing is a sure bet in politics. Mills said it took a key ally—House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minnesota)—to keep the funding source for the widelypopular Rails-to-Trails program, which promotes theconversion of old rail lines to trails amenable to biking,walking, in-line skating and virtually every type of activetransportation.

Oberstar, Mills said, “made a huge investment of politicalcapital” to make certain that the program remained apriority in the last transportation reorganization bill.

Rails-to-Trails faced an uphill battle when the oppositionto the funding started mounting, including “people who seepouring concrete for more highways” as the hallmark fortransportation policy, Mills said. That would includelobbyists for the powerful trucking industry.

Now, two years into the six-year bill, the present raid onmoney for Rails-to-Trails comes after more than a decade ofsuccess stories surrounding the popular program.

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy cites studies whichshow that as trails and greenways increase the naturalbeauty of communities, they also have been shown tobolster property values and make adjacent propertieseasier to sell.

A 1998 study of property values along the Mountain BayTrail in Brown County, Wis., shows that lots adjacent to thetrail sold faster than those not situated next to the trail andfor an average of 9 percent more.

And in a 2002 survey of recent homebuyers sponsoredby the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® andthe National Association of Home Builders, trailspromoting active transportation ranked as the second-mostimportant community amenity out of a list of 18 choices.

Developers in Apex, N.C., who realized the sellingpower of greenways, built the community Shepherd’sVineyard. The developer added $5,000 to the price of 40homes adjacent to the regional greenway, and despite theincreased price, the homes were still the first to sell in theplanned community.

While homebuyers are eager to purchase lots neargreenways and trails, many have little understanding as towhy the phenomenally popular program that establishesthe trails and green spaces exists.

Indeed, if it not for the fact that rail service—which oncespanned more than 270,000 miles—was displaced by theautomobile, the trails so many Americans enjoy todaywouldn’t be available.

In the early 1900s, the nation’s commerce and nationaldefense were, to a large degree, dependent upon thestrength of the rail system. But, as long-haul truckinggained momentum after World War II, many of the nation’srail lines fell on hard times. By the 1970s, bankruptcy hadclaimed several major railroads.

The rapid fragmentation of the rail system over the nextdecade prompted growing concern in Washington, D.C. Soin 1983, Congress passed the National Trails Systems Act(NTSA), which preserves established railroad corridors fortrail use as well as future rail use, if necessary.

The law established a national policy to preserve theseexisting railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation toservice, to protect rail transportation corridors and to encourage energy-efficient transportation use. Itallowed railroads to free themselves of the financialresponsibility for unprofitable rail lines bytransferring them to a qualified public orprivate organization for interim use as atrail until the line might be needed againfor rail service.

This so-called “railbanking” propelledwhat had been a primarily Midwesternphenomenon beginning in the 1960s ofconverting abandoned or unused railcorridors into public trails.

With the passage of the watershedIntermodal Surface Transportation Act of1991, the federal government agreed toprovide Transportation Enhancement(TE) dollars for the Rails-to-Trailsmovement and programs in 11 otherdesignated areas. The law requires that10 percent of the surface transportationprogram funding approved by the federalgovernment be distributed to statetransportation agencies and be used forthese projects.

In 2005, the TE reauthorization billwas passed and the federal governmentcommitted to provide another $803million in enhancement funding annuallyto the state transportation agencies, for a total of $4 billionthrough 2009. However, recent revenue shortfalls haveprompted the return of some of those dollars.

In 2006, federal budget constraints prompted three callsfor funding rescission by the state transportation agenciestotaling about $3.8 billion. To help meet that obligation, thestates returned about $600 million in TE funds. On March19, 2007, however, the state agencies in a single call wereordered to return another $3.5 billion of transportation funds.It is at their discretion whether the funds come from roads,enhancements or other programs.

Mills maintains that states’ true commitment to Rails-to-Trails and other conservation programs is reflected bythe portion of the recent rescissions that has been takenfrom TE. He noted that while TE represents only about 2percent of the overall transportation budget, 16 percent ofthe 2006 aggregate cuts came from the program. That,says Marianne Fowler, senior vice president for federalrelations with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, was “morethan our fair share—way more.”

Mills pointed out that Texas returned $225 million inTE money in 2006. That’s nearly 74 percent of the total itwas required to return. “Texas went out of its way to saythat TE has the least direct impact on its transportationgoals,” he said.

At the other end of the spectrum, Mills said, is Florida,which relied on TE money for just more than 6 percent ofits rescission, or $10.8 million.

Some would say that it is only fitting that a state largelybuilt upon the vision of railroad tycoon Henry Flagler andoffers residents and visitors access to year-round beautifulweather would throw its financial commitment behindRails-to-Trails and other TE programs.

Florida Department of Transportation EnvironmentalPrograms Engineer Bob Crim said that TE has beenembraced by state policymakers as a means of buildingpartnerships with local governments and organizationslike 1000 Friends of Florida and the Trust for Public Land.“There are a lot of dividends in these partnerships,” he said.

Florida currently boasts 35 trails totaling 328 milesfrom the Panhandle to the Florida Keys, and another 41trails totaling 524 miles have been proposed. The 30existing and planned trails that will make up threeproposed regional trail systems—the South Florida Multi-Modal Regional Trail System, the mid-Florida CitiesRegional Trail System and the Emerging PanhandleRegional Trail System—are projected to have more than11.4 million users per year.

Newly elected Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is on therecord in support of the health benefits of an activelifestyle. “Florida has the unique potential to become anational leader in health and physical fitness due to ourbeautiful climate and abundance of award-winningbeaches, state parks, and greenways and trails,” saidCrist. “By utilizing these natural resources and developingpartnerships among government, business, communityorganizations and private citizens, we can accomplish thegoal of improved physical fitness and health for all Floridians.”

With 1.2 million users annually, the Pinellas Trail,which runs for 34 miles from St. Petersburg to TarponSprings, is tied for third place, with the Iron Horse StatePark Trail in Washington State, among the most heavilyused rail trails in the U.S. The asphalt trail affordswalking, biking, in-line skating and mountain biking, andis wheelchair accessible.

The Conservancy bills the trail in the Southwest sectorof the state as “one of Florida’s most popular and uniqueurban pathways.” It connects several county parks, coastalareas and communities, and, with its multiple accesspoints, mile markers and parking areas, is particularlypopular among cyclists.

In the first 15 miles from St. Petersburg, the trail crossesdozens of pedestrian bridges, providing sweeping views ofthe urban landscape. Perhaps the most scenic of these isthe quarter-mile Cross Bayou Bridge, which spans BocaCiega Bay. The final 10-mile stretch begins in the quiettownship of Palm Harbor and runs through TarponSprings.

Area cyclist Alan Snel said the trail is equally popularamong folks who are looking for a little recreation as wellas people who use the trail to cycle to and from work.

“It’s a really great example of a resource that ispractical and recreational,” said Snel, who is a member ofa group calling itself the Southwest Florida Bicycle UnitedDealers, a consortium that represents six retail bicycleshops in the area. “Pinellas Trail is a prime example ofwhat we would like to see more of.”

New Conservation for Old Rails

Trails and greenwayshave been shown tobolster property values.

Photograph by Jennifer Kaleba


Gasoline prices aresoaring. Much publictransit is less than

adequate. Various taxes arefailing to keep up with inflationand failing to generate thefunding needed for bothmaintenance and expansion ofall forms of transportation—fromhighways to light rail.

Real estate has always beenabout location, location, location.But rather than the old sawapplying to good schools, goodjobs, good parks, etc., locationmay apply more to transportationthan any other element.

When homebuyers talklocation, they mean they areconcerned about: proximity torail, better buses, pedestrian andbike paths, improved highways,public tollways that charge apremium at peak times to reducecongestion, public-private part-nerships that have expandedroadways, and even location in astate, region or municipality thatis focused on transportationfinancing.

By Steve Wright

Creative solutionsfor the problem

of futuretransportation

development andmaintenance

funding

Photo courtesy of Metro Transit20 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2007

C. Kenneth Orski, editor and publisher of Potomac,Maryland-based Innovation Briefs, said every sourceof transportation funding is falling short.

“Local and state jurisdictions are running out ofmoney for transportation. All the money is used formaintaining what they have,” he said. “They areshort of any capital that would expand the system.Everybody is scrambling madly in search of newfinancing sources.”

The main source for highways is the federalHighway Trust Fund supported mostly through thefederal manufacturers’ excise tax on gasoline,which has remained at 18.4 cents per gallon formore than a decade.

“There is a huge political resistance to raisingthe gas tax in Congress,” Orski said. “There also isresistance in state legislatures,” because states alsoheavily tax gasoline, but with high crude oil prices,state governments are reluctant to add insult toinjury by adding higher gas taxes to spiraling costsat the pump.

Orski said that while tax revenue is basicallystagnant, the demand for transportation isincreasing very rapidly in terms of tremendousgrowth in both vehicle miles and number of cars onthe road.

“By 2009, the Highway Trust Fund will zero out.The billions of dollars in the balance have beenspent down, so only the funds collected that year willbe the balance,” he said of the alarming depletion offederal dollars in the face of growing demand.

Several states are looking to fund transportationthrough: toll lanes with premium prices, privately-

funded tollways and long-term leases of existingturnpikes to for-profit companies.

In Texas, the state converted some HighOccupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes into HighOccupancy Toll (HOT) lanes.

While HOV lanes have traditionally beenreserved for public transit plus car pool vehicleswith two or more occupants, HOT lanes charge apremium price for the fast lane.

Buses and vehicles occupied by three or morepeople still ride free, but cars with only two peoplein them pay an extra $2 toll. The entire operation iscash and slow-down free, operated by transponderssold to a limited number of car poolers who qualify.

Other states are building new lanes orconverting existing lanes into HOT lanes that willcharge a higher price for use at peak hours. Publictransportation and some car pooling gets a freeride, but individuals pay a much higher cost to usethe fast-moving lane during morning and eveningcommute peak hours.

The idea is that HOT lanes reward public transitand high occupancy vehicles, reduce congestion bycharging a higher price for use and increaserevenue to pay for expansion.

Texas is also leading a movement among thestates to work with private firms to add lanes orbuild entirely new highways. In many of thesescenarios under development or study, the privateoperator will finance construction in return for along-term lease that allows it to charge tolls andfees to make earnings on its investment.

Cintra-Zachary, a Spanish-Texas consortium,

By 2009, the Highway Trust Fund will zero out.

won the first bid to build a highway from Dallas toSan Antonio. It is the first of four Trans-TexasCorridors that will eventually include high-speed,limited-access highways separated for trucks andcars; tracks for high-speed rail, commuter rail andfreight rail; plus space for utilities, maintenanceand future expansion.

In Chicago, a long-established highway wasvirtually sold, via long-term lease, to generatedollars for transportation.

The Chicago Skyway, a six-lane, nearly eight-mile toll bridge that connects the Indiana Toll Roadto the city’s Dan Ryan Expressway, was leased for99 years to a Spanish-Australian group.

In return for $1.83 billion up front, the SkywayConcession Company will collect all tolls andconcessions for one year shy of a century. Therevenue to the city pays for many things, but it isnot solely dedicated to public transit or highways,prompting criticism.

“It’s like mortgaging the house to go to dinner,”said Alan Pisarski, a 40-year veteran transportationexpert based in Falls Church, Va. “Some future mayorof Chicago is going to look back and say (sarcastically)“‘what a good idea this was—you solved yourproblems back then and now we’re done.’”

Pisarski said there is great danger in virtuallyselling off the transit assets of the future to pay for thepension costs and other budget shortfalls of today.

“Pennsylvania and New Jersey are heavilyfinancially squeezed and their turnpikes willprobably be sold. The Jersey turnpike will pulldown maybe $20 billion. I have faith that theprivate sector guys will run it well, but are the lease proceeds being put into transit andtransportation?” asked Pisarski, author ofCommuting in America III released by theTransportation Research Board of the NationalAcademy of Sciences.

While new, creative financing options abound,several states and municipalities are expandingpublic transit through the tried and true means oftaxation approved by ballot issue.

Art Guzzetti, vice president for policy at theAmerican Public Transit Association, says thedemand for light rail and other forms of masstransit is on the rise as 34 million Americans usetransit each day and millions more are demandingit for their neighborhoods.

Guzzetti cites as evidence the Center forTransportation Excellence (CFTE) study“Transportation at the Ballot Box—Voters SupportIncreased Investment & Choice.”

The Washington, D.C.-based CFTE researchfound that, from 2000 to 2005, communities in 33states approved more than $70 billion intransportation spending—much of it for publictransit. In that span, more than 200 transportation

More than 200 transportation issues wenton the ballot and voters supported more

than 70 percent of them.

Photo courtesy of Metro Transit22 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2007 SUMMER 2007 ON COMMON GROUND 23


issues went on the ballot and voters supportedmore than 70 percent of them.

Nationwide, voters fretful of their tax burdenapprove only about a third of the spendingmeasures in elections. But the CFTE study foundsuch a support base for transit, that several of thespending issues were placed on the ballot viacitizen initiative.

Voters authorized transportation spending viasales tax, property tax (new, increased or extension ofexisting in both sales and property taxes), bondissue, dedicated revenue source and other meanssuch as tolls, surcharges and special fees.

The trend to support transit at the ballot boxcontinued in 2006 when a small city and a locationout west, where growth came by way of automobile-dependent development, both approved measuresthat will generate millions to billions.

The CFTE reported that: In Canton, Ohio,voters approved a one-quarter cent sales taxextension that is expected to raise at least $11.5million annually for the next five years for aregional bus service. In Tucson, Ariz., votersapproved a sales tax dedicated to transportationexpected to top $2.1 billion over 20 years.

The trouble with transit funding at the state levelis that different parts of a state have very differentpriorities. The urban area may need many modes oftransit to serve its density, the suburban area mayneed a commuter rail line linked to downtown andother suburban job centers, the port cities requiretransit to move workers, goods and visitors, andone rural area may want highways and publictransit to speed along development while anothermay snub transit in hopes of remaining pastoraland undeveloped. Also, experience has shown thatlinking ballot measures to specific transportationprojects, rather than general plans to improveroads or transit, results in a higher rate of successat the polls.

These varying dynamics have hit hard inVirginia, where transit funding battles have beenwaged in the general assembly for years.

The failure to address the diverse funding needsin the Old Dominion is why Virginians for BetterTransportation (VBT) was founded as an advocacygroup “working to implement statewide, multi-modal transportation solutions through increased,dedicated and sustainable funding and responsiblebusiness practices.”

More public transportationservice is the quickest,cheapest and most costeffective way to free upspace on existing roads.

Steve Wright frequently writes about Smart Growth andsustainable communities. He and his wife live in arestored historic home in the heart of Miami’s LittleHavana. Contact him at: [email protected].

“The benefits to transit are significant at alllevels. Two income families, where one earner cantake the bus or train to work, can save about $6,200a year,” said Linda McMinimy, executive directorof the Richmond-based Virginia Transit Associationand a VBT steering committee member. To achievenational, state and regional goals, transit must beexpanded. To manage and reduce road congestion,more public transportation service is the quickest,cheapest and most cost effective way to free upspace on existing roads.”

“Most of the travel trips in Virginia areregional—people getting to and from dailyactivities—yet in many parts of Virginia, especiallysuburban and rural areas, transit service is verylimited, inconvenient or not available at all,” sheadded. “Public transportation service needs to beexpanded to provide better local and regionalaccessibility. Expanded regional publictransportation service needs to be frequent, fasterand convenient to more Virginians. This willrequire a higher level of reliable, dedicated stateand federal funding.”

Fellow VBT steering Committee member NancyFinch, executive director of Richmond-basedVirginians for High Speed Rail, supports inter-cityheavy rail for alternative transportation that is“environmentally clean, saves fuel, reducescongestion, and is safe and convenient.”

“Rail cannot be a local government or even,totally, a statewide issue. It needs to be a federalissue supported primarily with tax dollars as wesupport air, ports and highways with tax dollars,”she said. “We need leadership on the federal levelfor a national rail program and federal funding.Already the new leadership—with Sens. Lott andLautenberg’s legislation for Amtrak funding—offers hope that a new day is here.”

Virginia Secretary of Transportation PierceHomer said it is increasingly difficult to hike user fees.

“Gas prices have risen steeply in recent yearsand additional gas taxes are a hard sell in thelegislative and political arenas,” he said. “Otheruser fees, such as vehicle sales taxes or insurancepremium taxes, are more stridently resistedbecause these industries are all national in scopeand in some cases international in scope. Even aslight fee change can substantially affect a givenindustry in the competitive and globalmarketplaces.”

In late February, Virginia lawmakers passedwhat the Washington Post dubbed the state’s “firsttransportation plan in a generation, voting to spend$1.5 billion a year on roads, bridges and transitafter ending a Republican feud that has stymiedthem for years.”

On April 4, a compromise measure betweenDemocratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine andRepublican leaders in the General Assembly wasapproved, providing $1.1 billion per year fortransportation by using a mixture of state, local andregional taxes.

“It raises only one traditional user fee on astatewide basis (vehicle and truck registrations),but authorizes numerous local and regional taxesand fees in the Northern Virginia and HamptonRoads areas (regional gas taxes, additional vehicleregistration fees, etc.),” Homer said.

Even with the plan to spend billions, Homerobserved “the bill falls well short of solving thethree major areas of deficiency Virginia faces:deficit in highway maintenance; lack of identifiedfunding source to support current debt obligations;and extraordinary shortfall in transit capitalreimbursements.”

Like Virginia, most states will face the samefunding obstacles in the near future. It’s obviousthat new funding sources plus creative solutionsand partnerships will be necessary to sustain ourcountry’s transportation infrastructure.

www.pedbikeimages.org/ITE Pedestrian Bicycle Council


Complete the StreetsComplete the Streetsfor Smart Growth

Complete the streets so everyone canuse them safely and conveniently—

that’s the new cry of advocates,planners and elected officials who

are behind a movement tofundamentally alter the way roads

are planned, designed and built.

for Smart Growth

www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden26 ON COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2007

By Barbara McCann

Planners figure out the puzzle to pedestrian-friendly roadways


Abasic tenet of Smart Growth is the creationof walkable communities that providetransportation choices. But in many cases,

state and local transportation agencies have beenslow to get the message. Yes, they may have spentextra time and energy on redesigning that oneboulevard to include a bicycle lane and widesidewalks, but everywhere else, they keep

churning out high-speed roads for cars with littlethought to the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians andtransit riders who are also using that street.

Recently, the mayor of Louisville, Ky., JerryAbramson, joined a growing chorus that wants tochange that practice. “For decades, we inLouisville—and cities around the nation—havebuilt roads only for vehicles. That was an urbanplanning mistake,” Abramson said in a statement.“The Complete Streets policy will help rectify that.”Louisville’s combined city/county government isconsidering adoption of a comprehensive completestreets policy that would require the city to take intoaccount the needs of all users, every time engineersset out to change or build a street. Those usersinclude motorists, transit riders, bicyclists andpedestrians of all ages and abilities—includingolder people, children and people with disabilities.The city worked with a broad advisory group tocreate the comprehensive policy.

Louisville is expected to soon join close to 50other places—ranging from states to small towns—that have adopted some form of a complete streetspolicy. In some cases, lawmakers have passed lawsor ordinances, or citizens have approved ballotmeasures; in others, planning agencies havewritten internal policies or re-written their designmanuals. But, everywhere the intent is the same—to change long-standing transportation planningpractices that narrowly focus on moving as manycars as possible.

In Massachusetts, a state law passed in 1996required the state Highway Department toaccommodate bicyclists and pedestrians inprojects. Initially, the law was poorly implemented.But, ultimately it helped spark a citizen-ledplanning process that tossed out the old highwaymanual that had focused on improving automobile‘Level of Service’—a measure of traffic congestion.Thomas DiPaolo, assistant chief engineer for MassHighway, says, “What we tried to do, was make itacceptable to advance projects that have purposesother than improving vehicular Level of Service fora road. For example, now supporting economicdevelopment would be a legitimate ‘design control’to make a project worthwhile.” The new guide,adopted in January of 2006, sets multi-modalaccommodation as one of its three guidingprinciples—and the needs of bicyclists,pedestrians, transit users and disabled people areintegrated into every aspect of design, fromintersections to bridges.

About one year earlier, the city council ofColorado Springs, Colo., adopted a complete streetspolicy, which recently led to the inclusion of bikelanes and sidewalks on a new bridge project. But,the policy isn’t just about adding extra pavement.

Cheyenne Boulevard “was a four-lane road withon-street parking, driveways, a cross street every400-500 feet, a transit line and hopscotchpedestrian facilities that start and stop,” accordingto Colorado Springs Senior Transportation PlannerKristin Bennett. “There were always lots ofcomplaints of people speeding, and people wereuncomfortable using the on-street parking becausecars were going 40 miles per hour.” The road wasput on a ‘diet’, with just two through lanes, a centerturn lane, and bicycle lanes, as well as streetparking. Many road diets also include pedestrian‘refuge’ islands. On Cheyenne Boulevard, speedsare lower and residents are happy. A similar roaddiet on a nearby business street with diagonalparking was welcomed by business owners,

according to Beth Kosley, executive director of theDowntown Partnership. “Delivery trucks havebetter places to pull in and make deliveries withoutinterrupting customers; that’s a great thing, andour diagonal parking is much more accessible andsafe. Apparently tempers have calmed down a lot.”

Dan Gallagher, transportation planning sectionmanager in Charlotte, N.C., learned about suchtransformations when he was working in Orlando,Fla. There, a road diet accomplished on the cheap,mainly with paint, resulted in reduced speeding, adramatic reduction in crashes and injuries (down35 percent and 68 percent respectively), and anincrease in bicycle and pedestrian use (up 23percent and 30 percent). The change helped spureconomic development. “All of a sudden there are

By providing for these diverse users, completestreets can improve safety and health.

The needs ofbicyclists, pedestrians,transit users anddisabled people areintegrated into everyaspect of design.

www.pedbikeimages.org/Annie Lux



million-dollar condos, it has become a realrestaurant row, and it wasn’t before it got roaddieted,” says Gallagher. “Maybe some of thatwould have happened on its own, but it would nothave been to this level without the road diet.” Sucheconomic impact may extend to residential areas—after a road diet in West Palm Beach, Fla., residentsreported to planners that it dramatically increasedproperty values.

Now, Gallagher is making sure that Charlotte’scomplete streets policy changes the way hisdepartment does business. Traditional measuressuch as ‘Average Daily Traffic’ and Level of Serviceare considered—but they do not drive the processas they did in the past. The new “six-step” designprocess starts with questions about where a road islocated and who is using it. The third step is toidentify deficiencies—with the intent to fill in gapsin the street and sidewalk network for bicyclists,pedestrians and transit users.

By providing for these diverse users, completestreets can improve safety and health. A recentFederal Highway Administration assessment ofwhat safety features are effective in protectingpedestrians listed many items found on a completestreet—sidewalks, raised pedestrian medians,better bus stop placement, measures that slow or‘calm’ traffic and treatments for disabled travelers.On the health front, public health officials fightingthe obesity epidemic are calling for complete streetnetworks with continuous sidewalks that allowchildren to walk to school and adults to walk todestinations, getting essential physical activityalong the way.

Complete streets also improve mobility for transitvehicles and the people who use them. A study inHouston found that sidewalks are not providedbetween home and the nearest bus stop for three outof five disabled and older residents; nearly three-quarters said streets near their homes also lack curbramps and bus shelters. As a result, few take the bus.Transit advocates point out that better access totransit stops will help reduce the number of timesdisabled people will need specialized (andexpensive) door-to-door paratransit service.

Complete streets policies can also spark newcooperation between transit agencies and publicworks agencies to include design features that helpbuses operate more smoothly.

A broad coalition has formed to urge adoption ofcomplete streets policies at the local, state andfederal level. The National Complete StreetsCoalition has brought together bicycle advocates—who have been fighting for complete streets thelongest—with those working on behalf ofpedestrians, disabled people, seniors and transit.

But, the Coalition does not stop at such “usergroups.” Transportation professionals, such as theInstitute of Transportation Engineers and theAmerican Planning Association, are activelyinvolved, as well as groups working on widerdevelopment issues, such as the Congress for theNew Urbanism and Smart Growth America. All seedifferent benefits in complete streets.

“Walking, bicycling and easy access to transitare all important elements of a livable communitythat works for older Americans,” says AARP’sElinor Ginzler. “Complete streets help get usthere.” AARP is an active supporter of the nationalcoalition, and AARP’s Honolulu state officerecently joined with Hawaii bicycle advocates topass a complete streets amendment to theHonolulu City Charter.

Thomas DiPaolo of Massachusetts saysinvolvement from outside groups led the way inMassachusetts in changing the set ways of thetransportation agency. “We had a lot of pushesfrom outside. It is hard to change from within, wereally do need outside organizations, as well aspeople in very high positions saying this is whatwe want to do.” The bicycle advocacy group, theThunderhead Alliance, is training advocates acrossthe country to push for new complete streetslegislation. The National Complete StreetsCoalition maintains a growing Web site(www.completestreets.org) to share best practiceson complete streets. Many members of theCoalition have developed presentations andtraining materials aimed at planners, transitoperators, engineers and advocates on how toadvance complete streets—whether from theoutside or from within transportation planningagencies. The Coalition is also working withmembers of Congress to craft a federal completestreets bill that would require that federaltransportation spending support complete streets.

Elected officials and agencies have sometimesobjected that building complete streets will cost toomuch. But, Dan Burden of Glatting Jackson andWalkable Communities Inc., questions that logic.“It is a matter of what we value,” says Burden. “Wespend all the money on intersections, and it isconsidered a normal cost of doing business. But,when it comes to walking or bicycling, that’s a frill;we’ll tax you [to pay for] that. It is not quite fair. Itsays one mode is more important than the other.”Complete streets policies are about ending thatinequity—and making sure the public right-of-wayreally works for everyone.

Barbara McCann serves as Coordinator of the NationalComplete Streets Coalition. She also writes ontransportation and land-use issues and is the co-author of the book “Sprawl Costs” from Island Press.

Complete streetsalso improve

mobility for transitvehicles and the

people who use them.

Before

After: Bridgeport Way in University Place, Washington

By Heidi Johnson-Wright

There was a time when Americans putmore shoe leather to the sidewalk andbicycle wheels to the road. Mom and

Dad were more likely to walk a few blocks toget out of the house, to pick up a loaf of breadat the local IGA, or to visit with neighborsaround the block. Junior and Sis rode theirbikes or hoofed the half dozen blocks to theneighborhood school.

But times—and transportation modes—have changed. Today, Americans find italmost a necessity to drive to any finaldestination. Because of unplanneddevelopment, neighborhood sprawl, andpedestrian-unfriendly streets, we have littlechoice but to drive through winding streets ofsuburban developments in order to get to themain arterial. We wait our turn to pull outonto six lanes of traffic, drive through severalmonstrous intersections then into themassive parking lot of a strip mall. Now wewouldn’t even consider letting our childrenwalk or bike along the pedestrian-unfriendlyor downright dangerous streets to get to theregional school on a large parcel at the edgeof town. Mom and Dad chauffeur them.

But these aren’t the only changes inAmerican life. Adults and children arepacking on the pounds to the detriment oftheir health. Are the changes connected? Ifso, what can and should we do about it?

“In 1978, 15 percent of Americans werenot just overweight but clinically obese, andby 2002 it was 31 percent. One in sevenyouths is classified as obese,” said Dr.Richard Joseph Jackson in a 2006 speechdelivered in London, England.

Smart Growthhas the potential

to improve your health


RightOn the


BETTER HEALTHPATH

to


“Overweight and obesity increase the risks ofcancer, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure,gall bladder disease, joint and bone disease, andmany other afflictions.”

“But the obesity epidemic also is because weand our children increasingly cannot walk to wherewe need to do our life work—schools, sports fields,friends’ homes, libraries, shops or churches. Thedifference between highly walkable and non-walkable communities is an average of sevenpounds of body weight,” said Jackson, an adjunctprofessor in both the department of environmentalhealth science and in the City & Regional PlanningCollege of Environmental Design at the Universityof California at Berkeley.

“The other side of the obesity epidemic is themix of good and bad news brought to us bytechnology. Technology has eliminated a lot of thereally backbreaking labor from our lives. But wehave also ‘designed’ a lot of incidental exercise outof our lives, such as walking. In 1969, 48 percent ofstudents (90 percent of those who lived within onemile) walked or cycled to school. In 1999, only 19 percent of children walked to or from school and6 percent rode bicycles to school. Overall,Americans walk or cycle a trivial amount—onlyabout 6 percent of our trips—as compared to almost50 percent for the people of Scandinavia.”

“The current low-density, car-requiring buildingstyles of the 20th century in the face of immensepopulation growth are not sustainable. Thesolution, in my opinion, is high-quality density—safe, clean, quiet and healthy—with high energyand resource efficiency,” Jackson said.

Dr. Lawrence Frank, a professor in theSustainable Urban Transportation Systems in theSchool of Community and Regional Planning at theUniversity of British Columbia, agrees with Jackson.

In a paper titled “Promoting Public HealthThrough Smart Growth,” which Frank co-authoredfor Smart Growth BC, he states: “Our builtenvironment shapes our transportation choices,and in turn, human health.”

“Land-use patterns, because they relate withtransportation behavior, subsequently affect publichealth in a number of ways: through physicalactivity levels, availability of health food choices,exposure to crashes, air pollution and noise, andcommunity interaction and mobility.”

“Compact land-use patterns with high-qualitypedestrian environments and a mix of land usescan improve public health by promoting activeforms of transportation, reducing per capita airpollution and associated respiratory ailments, andlowering the risk of car accidents.”

“Smart Growth communities—those that arecompact with a mix of land uses, well-connectedstreet and sidewalk networks, a supportivepedestrian environment—can help to achievevarious health objectives primarily by affectingpeople’s travel behavior.”

“Research has documented that, all else beingequal, residents of Smart Growth communitieswalk and bicycle more and drive less than residentsof more isolated automobile-dependent locations.This results in measurably better physical fitness,reduced likelihood of obesity and traffic crash risk,and fewer air pollutants per capita than residents ofmore automobile-oriented communities.”

Frank believes that the solution boils down toSmart Growth principles applied to a variety ofdifferent settings such as small villages, developingsuburbs, old town centers and central cities, such as:

• Integrating land uses with one another, so thatpeople can easily accomplish basic utilitarianneeds on foot and bicycle;

• Locating retail such as small shops andservices near where people live to attract morewalking trips as opposed to having a few largeshopping centers or a mall;

• Designing compact residential developmentsto put more people within walking distance of

parks, schools, transit, shops and services;• Building streets and buildings with a

pedestrian perspective thereby creating placesthat are safe, vibrant and interesting forwalkers, bicyclists and transit users; and

• Linking street and trail networks, which willreduce the time and distance needed forpedestrians and cyclists to get from point A to point B.

But not everyone believes that Smart Growth isthe answer to America’s obesity and health crisis.Matthew Turner, professor of economics at theUniversity of Toronto is one of them.

“You walk by a school and an old folks’ home nextdoor. You notice young people in one building andold people in the other. You ask yourself, ‘what aboutthese buildings make some of the people young andthe others old?’ Now picture two buildings, but inone building the people are heavy and the otherbuilding the people are thin. What is it about thebuildings that make people thin or heavy?

“This conclusion is perfectly consistent with theobservation. But to really get a true understandingof what’s going on, you must watch people comingand going from the buildings, otherwise you can’tdraw a valid conclusion,” said Turner.

“Planners are carrying out really bad science.They go to the suburbs and weigh people, thenthey’re weighing people downtown. You can’t tellfrom the data if suburban folks are heavier or ifheavier people happen to be moving to thesuburbs. It’s junk science—there’s no evidence for

an association between obesity and suburbansprawl. There’s an inference problem,” he said.

Turner claims to be one of a small group ofresearchers who have collected data that observesthe same set of people as they move around. Hisresearch is focused on whether the same person’sweight changes when he moves from the city tothe suburbs.

“If you do that type of study, you’ll find themovement of the same person from oneenvironment to the other has no effect on his or herweight,” Turner said.

Turner agrees that people living in suburbs aregenerally heavier than people in cities, but hebelieves there’s a different explanation than SmartGrowth makes people healthier.

“Why are people in suburbs heavier? Because ofdifferent habits, like walking less and driving more.Overweight people in cities move to the suburbsand people who are predisposed to gain weightmove to the suburbs. They like to be reliant oncars,” he said.

Turner agrees, however, with the Smart Growthproponents that Americans are too reliant on theirautos. To counteract this, he believes it comes downto hitting people in the pocketbook with thingssuch as specific time of day tolls on roads, chargingmore for parking and auto insurance premiumsbased upon the number of miles driven.

“Since people are driving too much, they shouldpay for this privilege. If they have to pay for it,people will want to stop organizing their lives

Our built environmentshapes our transportationchoices, and in turn,human health.

Residents of Smart Growth communities walkand bicycle more and drive less than residents

of more isolated automobile-dependent locations.

Atlantic Station


around cars. People choose what they want to do,and should not have to be told where to live andwork. I’m not comfortable telling people where tolive. But I’m pretty comfortable telling people theydrive too much,” Turner said.

Dr. Howard Frumkin, of the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, understands Turner ’sskepticism and acknowledges some contradictoryfindings, but believes this is typical with anyemerging field of science.

“Opponents of the theory that Smart Growth andbetter health are linked point to limitations in theresearch. Many of the studies have been cross-sectional, involving the study of two groups; one ofwhich lives in walkable communities and the otherwhich doesn’t. Such studies don’t irrefutably provethat one’s environment affects one’s travelbehavior. It may simply be that people who enjoywalking move to Smart Growth neighborhoods. Tofind a link between environment and travelbehavior, you need to approximate a randomized

trial, much like those used in experimental drugstudies,” said Frumkin, director of the NationalCenter for Environmental Health and Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry at the CDC.

“In Atlanta, there’s an infill development calledAtlantic Station being built that’s also the subject ofa research project focused on the health effects ofSmart Growth. Through a collaboration betweenthe developer, academics and public healthprofessionals, homeowners who are coming from

sprawled communities and have purchased homesin Atlantic Station pre-construction are beingstudied in regard to their weight and generalhealth. It will provide an excellent opportunity tolook at the same people before and after they’ve moved to a Smart Growth community,”Frumkin said.

Soon, Georgia just might have the evidence ofpositive health changes that a dose of SmartGrowth can affect.

Childhood Obesity and Safe Routes to School Program

Established in 2005 by federal legislation, theSafe Routes to School (SRTS) Program was createdto address the growing problem of childhoodobesity and the health issues it gives rise to.According to the SRTS Web site, in 1969 about halfof all students walked or bicycled to school. Today,fewer than 15 percent of all school trips are madeby walking or bicycling, one-quarter are made on aschool bus and more than half of all children arriveat school in private automobiles.

The decline in children walking and bicycling toschool has not only added to traffic congestion andair quality around schools, but also sedentarylifestyles of American children. This puts them atrisk for obesity, diabetes and cardiovasculardisease. SRTS also addressed safety issues ofconcern to parents, who cite traffic danger as areason why their children are unable to bicycle orwalk to school.

The program’s main goal is to empowercommunities to make walking and bicycling toschool a safe and routine activity. The programmakes funding available for a wide variety ofprograms and projects, from building safer streetcrossings to establishing programs that encouragechildren and their parents to walk and bicyclesafely to school.

“Communities can use the money to fix existingproblems, such as schools near major arterialswithout sidewalks. To make it work, it’s importantto gain community support by bringing school andcity officials and stakeholders together to set

goals,” said Deb Hubsmith, coordinator for theSRTS National Partnership, a coalition of 250nonprofits, governments, schools and privateorganizations.

Most communities are getting a positivereception to these programs; many communitiesbelieve that 20 to 30 percent of morning trafficconsists of parents driving kids to school each day,”said Hubsmith.

Fred Boykin, chairperson of the Metro AtlantaSRTS coalition and a city commissioner in Decatur,Ga., helped organize a very successful four-yearpilot program implemented in four schools.

The goals of the program were to promotephysical activity in order to reduce childhoodobesity, improve air quality and reduce trafficcongestion—a big issue in greater Atlanta.

“We’ve done a lot of safety training, includingorganizing bike trains and walking school busesled by parents and volunteers,” Boykin said.

“The program has resulted in an 86 percentincrease in walking and biking at one elementaryschool and a 22 percent drop off in afternoon schoolpick ups using cars.”

For an SRTS on-line guide, including areference manual designed to support thedevelopment of programs and links to other SRTSpublications and training resources, visit:http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/index.cfm.

Heidi Johnson-Wright frequently writes about SmartGrowth and sustainable communities. She and herhusband live in a restored historic home in the heart ofMiami’s Little Havana. Contact her at:[email protected].

People choose what they want to do, and shouldnot have to be told where to live and work.

The program’s maingoal is to empower

communities to makewalking and bicycling

to school a safe androutine activity.

Atlantic Station

Atlantic Station


The GreenBuilding andSmart GrowthConnection

By John Van Gieson


Atlantic Station in Atlanta, Georgia


Evaluators will assign up to 106 points toprojects applying for LEED-ND certification. Thereare four certification levels: Platinum (80 to 106points); Gold (60 to 79 points); Silver (50 to 59points); and Certified (40 to 49 points). The higherthe score, obviously, the more the developer cancrow about it. Developers who don’t like their scorehave the option of changing their plans andresubmitting their applications.

“It’s designed with the idea that there’sfeedback, and the ratings can be improved,” saidSusan Mudd of Chicago, an environmental lawyer

who represented the Congress for the NewUrbanism on the Core Committee.

Evaluating the applications is likely to be a time-consuming job. Henry said, it will probably be theend of this year or early 2008 before ratings arereleased. The ratings will be modified after anothercomment period and won’t be finalized until 2009,she said. Hopefully, Mudd added, that will involvetweaking, not rewriting, the ratings.

What do the designers hope LEED-ND willaccomplish? Basically they want to create apowerful incentive for developers to design mixed-use neighborhoods that are compact, close totransportation, attractive and green.

“It gives developers a certificate of authenticitythat this is really a green development,” said TomRichman, a Palo Alto, Calif., urban designconsultant who represented the Congress for theNew Urbanism on the Core Committee. “It willmove the market toward better design. It will givea competitive advantage for neighborhoods that arereally environmentally sound and nice places tolive, and the third thing is that it will protect thewell-intentioned developers in the public process.”

LEED-ND certification will save developerstime and money as they work their plans throughthe local government approval process, Richmansaid, because it will tell local officials that theproposed development meets national standardsfor quality neighborhood development. It will alsogive developers an effective tool to overcome theobjections of people who abuse the process tooppose growth, he said.

“What happens so often is that people who areagainst any growth, the NIMBYs if you will, objectto development on the basis of the environment,but they’re really just against growth,” Richman

said. He said the LEED-NDcertification “will help toclarify the conversation whenthere is opposition. Is it reallyenvironmental stewardship, oris it just anti-development?”

The resultsAlthough it will be months

before the results of the firstround of ratings are known,there are neighborhooddevelopments around thecountry that Smart Growthexperts think meet withLEED-ND standards. GeoffAnderson, director of theEnvironmental ProtectionAgency’s Development, Com-munity and Environment


Green building advocates, new urbanistsand environmentalists have joined forcesto merge their individual interests with

their common interest in promoting Smart Growthand fighting sprawl into national standards forneighborhood development.

Starting about four years ago, the NaturalResources Defense Council and the Congress forthe New Urbanism opened discussions with theGreen Building Council about creating a nationalneighborhood development certification programsimilar to other Green Building Councilcertification programs. The Green BuildingCouncil has had the Green Building RatingsSystems since 2000.

“We wanted to incentivize a good location, gooddevelopment and good environmental practices,”said Kaid Benfield, director of Smart Growth for theNatural Resources Defense Council.

With considerable input from other groups, thethree organizations developed the Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design NeighborhoodDevelopment (LEED-ND) ratings system and havelaunched a pilot program to test the certificationstandards.

Jennifer Henry, program manager of LEED forNeighborhood Development at the Green BuildingCouncil, said the standards incorporate theprinciples of Smart Growth, new urbanism andgreen building and are designed to encouragedevelopers to build better projects.

“The first linkage is where you put yourdevelopment in relation to transportation,” Henrysaid. “The second is neighborhood patterns anddesign. How you lay out the streets; how compactand workable is your design; and does it live up tothe principles of new urbanism and Smart Growth?The third is green building and technology. Howenergy efficient is your building going to be?”

The developmentDeveloping the LEED-ND standards involved

an enormous amount of work. A Core Committeecomprising members of the three organizations andsupportive groups released a preliminary version ofthe ratings in 2005 and revised them after receivingmore than 4,000 suggestions during a commentperiod. Earlier this year, the Green BuildingCouncil launched the pilot project, solicitingapplications from developers who want to becertified. The applications will be processed byteams of evaluators who will score projects ondozens of criteria.

The ratings are based on four broad areas: SmartLocation and Linkage, Neighborhood Pattern andDesign, Green Construction and Technology, andInnovation and Design Process. There are as many

as 20 categories in each of the four areas. Most ofthe categories are worth a single point, but theratings place special emphasis on issues such aslocation, reduced dependence on automobiles,compact development and walkable neighborhoodsby awarding up to 10 points in those areas.

Under Neighborhood Pattern and Design, asone example, some of the standards that will beconsidered by the evaluators are affordable for-saleand rental housing, parking, walkable streets andaccess to public spaces. The complete standardsare laid out in the file “LEED for NeighborhoodDevelopment Rating System Pilot Version” on theGreen Building Council Web site, www.usgbc.org.

We wanted toincentivize a goodlocation, gooddevelopment and good environmentalpractices.

Orenco Station near Portland, Oregon

Stapleton near Denver, ColoradoPhoto provided by U.S. EPA


intended to build a commercial-industrialdevelopment on the site, but that changed whenthe city of Hillsboro was required to rezone theland for compact, mixed-use development to getfunding for the light rail project. At that time,PacTrust had no experience developing residentialcommunities, let alone new urbanist projects.

There was no such thing as LEED-ND whenwork on Orenco Station started about 10 years ago,but Dick Lofflemacher, director of residentialdevelopment at PacTrust, said the companyembraced Smart Growth principles because itwanted to do it right.

“Your infrastructure is very important and has tobe very well done,” he said. “People are paying apremium for a small lot and a small house, youbetter have something going on, otherwise they’renot showing up.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council thinksthere is something going on at this Oregondevelopment, reporting in an article on its Web sitethat “Orenco Station is proof that traditionalsprawling suburban development is not the onlychoice that sells well in the market.”

Old Town Wichita is a 40-acre redevelopment of

a warehouse district contaminated by groundwaterpollution. The neighborhood features 690,000square feet of retail and office space, numerousshops and restaurants, three museums and eighthistoric buildings that were rehabilitated forresidential use.

The discovery of the contamination nearlybrought the project to a halt as banks were reluctantto lend money to potential developers. The city ofWichita brought the project back to life by forming apublic-private partnership with the prime developer,MarketPlace Properties. The city leveraged publicfunds to encourage redevelopment, and privateinvestors poured more than $111 million into theneighborhood.

“Old Town is a testament to the effective use ofpublic-private partnerships. Despite challenges,the partnership improved the environment andestablished Old Town as a charming communitythat capitalizes on the historic beauty of downtownWichita,” the EPA said in presenting a SmartGrowth Award to Old Town Wichita.

John Van Gieson is a freelance writer based inTallahassee, Florida. He owns and runs Van GiesonMedia Relations, Inc.

Division, said two excellent examples are AtlanticStation, a mixed-use brownfield redevelopment onthe site of an old steel mill in Atlanta’s Midtownneighborhood, and Orenco Station, a newneighborhood built on open space next to a lightrail station near Portland, Ore.

Another example may be Old Town Wichita, apublic-private partnership that redeveloped ablighted warehouse district in downtown Wichita,Kan. Old Town Wichita won the 2006 EPA NationalAward for Smart Growth Achievement in the BuiltEnvironment category.

Atlantic Station is a 138-acre site bordering one ofAtlanta’s infamously congested freeways. It’s toutedas the largest urban brownfield redevelopment inthe country. The developers, AIG Global Real EstateInvestment and Jacoby Development, Inc., removedabout 165,000 tons of contaminated materials toprepare the site for development.

The project includes office towers, hotels, trendyretail stores, high-rise condos, lofts, apartmentsand single-family homes. There’s even a buildingthat rents apartments to students attending nearby

Georgia Tech, Georgia State University andAtlanta’s historically black colleges. A shuttle thatconnects Atlantic Station with the nearestMetropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority rapidtransit station hauled 900,000 people last year,doubling ridership projections.

Brian Leary, vice president of design anddevelopment for Atlantic Station LLC, said thedevelopers ensured from the beginning thatAtlantic Station met Smart Growth, new urbanistand green building standards.

“We see it really as a value-added statement,”Leary said. “To the market it says that it’s a goodproduct.”

Orenco Station is a 190-acre new suburbancommunity built on what was essentially agreenfield next to a light rail stop in Hillsboro,Ore., about 15 miles west of Portland. Thecommunity features a town center, office and retailspace, and residential buildings ranging fromsingle-family homes to condos to lofts andapartments.

The developer, PacTrust of Portland, originally

People are paying apremium for a small lotand a small house, youbetter have somethinggoing on, otherwisethey’re not showing up.

The U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energyand Environmental Design certification program forneighborhood developments is off to a rousing start.

The LEED-ND program has launched a pilot projectbased on certifying 120 neighborhood developments. Whenthe application process closed in April, the council hadreceived applications from developers seeking certificationfor about 370 projects.

“There was a lot of interest,” said Jennifer Henry,Program Director of the LEED-ND program at the Council.

Evaluating the applications is the responsibility of aconsultant hired by the Council, Criterion Planners ofPortland, Ore., and its subcontractors, Henry said. Inselecting the 120 projects that will be evaluated, she said,the consultants will focus on projects that are most likely tosucceed. She said they will also seek a balance ofdevelopments based on geography, project type and projectsize. The goal is to certify a mix of projects in high-growthand slower-growing areas; urban, suburban and rural areas;and large and small developments.

“If we only get one from South Dakota and we get 100from California, it’s a good bet we’ll pick the one in SouthDakota,” Henry said.

She said she could not identify applicants because theywere promised confidentiality until they are selected toparticipate in the pilot project. Henry said the council plansto certify the first projects this summer. “I think there will be

a lot of competition to be the first neighborhooddevelopment to be certified,” she said.

Once the process of certifying the 120 pilot projects hasbeen completed, the Council will solicit comments on theprocess and revise the LEED-ND standards next year. Thefinal standards may not be ready until 2009.

LEED-ND is a joint project of the Green Building Council,the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Congressfor the New Urbanism. The program is designed toincorporate principles of new urbanism, Smart Growth andgreen building into the first nationwide standards forneighborhood development.

THE APPLICATIONS ARE IN

Old Town Wichita

Atlantic StationPhoto provided by U.S. EPA

Orenco Station

Making

possible with

Every “Next Big Thing” must cross the same threshold onits way to acceptance. It happens when people stopsaying, “Huh?” and start saying, “Hmmm.”

Form-based codes are at that point. Sure, they’re still theexception. And skeptics continue to carp. But the buzz isundeniable. From Pleasant Hill, Calif., to Miami, Fla.,planners, developers and citizens have all caught wind of theconcept and are more and more inclined to take a look.

“Form-based codes are a long way from being pervasive, butpeople don’t automatically rewrite their zoning codes theconventional way anymore,” said Karen Parolek, a principalwith Opticos Design in Berkeley, Calif.

That’s because they want codes that support a more finelytuned approach to planning. “There’s a huge interest out therein finding a better way to write regulations to encourage SmartGrowth—much bigger than we expected,” said Bill Spikowskiof Spikowski Planning Associates in Ft. Meyers, Fla.

Form-based codes primarily seek to regulate the physicalform of the built environment to create a specific type of“place.” Conventional codes, on the other hand, primarily seekto control the use of the land and the density of developmentwithout great regard for the resulting built environment. Whileeach strategy includes elements of the other, they start withdifferent priorities, support different visions and typicallyproduce different results.

By Brad Broberg

SMARTGROWTH

Form-Based Codes


Making

SMARTGROWTHpossible with Form-Based

Codes


“You could use form-based codes to create anykind of vision, but nobody uses them to createsuburban sprawl—the current codes do that justfine,” said Spikowski. “With form-based codes, themost common vision is the Smart Growth vision.”

The right toolForm-based codes are to Smart Growth what

rudders are to ships. It’s possible to reach portwithout them, but good luck. “When the codesdon’t spell it out, the chances of getting [SmartGrowth] are not as good,” said Spikowski.

Conventional zoning codes were not conceivedto create walkable neighborhoods with a mix ofuses and a range of housing choices—three majorprinciples of Smart Growth and its cousin newurbanism. They were conceived in the early part ofthe 20th century primarily to separate homes fromindustry and other incompatible activities.

“One of the major impetuses of zoning was … toseparate noxious uses from residential areas,” saidBob Sitkowski, an attorney with Robinson & Cole, aConnecticut-based firm with a well-known land-use practice. “But times have changed. Today, moreand more communities are looking for ways toshape the look and feel of the built environmentand not just control the use.”

In at least one sense, form-based codes are nodifferent than conventional codes. Both are tools tosupport better planning. But, as the decadespassed, the challenge that inspired conventionalzoning codes—the intrusion of noxious uses intoneighborhoods—morphed into a new set ofchallenges: sprawl, congestion, environmentalissues. As new strategies emerged to meet thosechallenges, so did the need for an alternative toconventional zoning codes.

“As people attempted to implementSmart Growth and new urbanism, theydiscovered a need for a different way toregulate development that wasappropriate to those new models,” saidPeter Katz, president of the Form-BasedCode Institute and former director of theCongress for New Urbanism. “You can doSmart Growth and new urbanism withconventional zoning codes, but they’re notthe best tool for the job.”

In terms of supporting Smart Growth,conventional codes don’t—at least notvery well. Their emphasis on separatinguses and controlling density force homesto be built far from work and shopping,makes inefficient use of available land andrequires car trips for nearly every activity.In other words, conventional codescontribute to sprawl. They also make key

elements of Smart Growth—such as mixed use andgreater densities—illegal without variances orrezones.

That’s why form-based codes occupy such aprominent place in the Smart Growth tool box. “Itstands to reason that a different form ofdevelopment would go hand-in-hand with adifferent form of regulation,” said Katz. “Use stillmatters. It just falls to a different level in thehierarchy of considerations.”

One of the benefits of that approach is it arguablymakes it easier to convert buildings to new uses,promoting sustainability and allowing developers torespond to changes in demand. “It gives the marketmore flexibility on a finer scale to determine whichuses are appropriate to be near each other,” saidSitkowski.

Miami’s bold moveIn the 25 years since Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co.

(DPZ) used a form-based code to plan Seaside,Fla.—considered the birthplace of the concept—thenumber of projects involving form-based codes hasgrown, but their application has somewhatnarrowly focused. “They’re usually applied whenyou have a clear vision for a particulardevelopment,” said Spikowski.

Now, all eyes are on the city of Miami. Instead ofapplying a form-based code to a particular projector even neighborhood, Miami is rolling out a newform-based code for the entire city. “It’sunprecedented—such a project has never beendone in a city as large as Miami,” said LucianaGonzalez, assistant to the director of thedepartment of planning.

The form-based code is the backbone of Miami21, Mayor Manny Diaz’s blueprint to guide the

With form-based codes, themost common vision is the

Smart Growth vision.


Miami development

Planned townhomes in Pleasant Hill

Form-based codes can promote “lifetime communities”by providing several housing types in one block


bustling city’s future growth. “The city of Miamihas experienced an enormous development boomin the last few years,” said Gonzalez. “Theregulations we had in place created chaos, failed toprotect historic and traditional neighborhoods andaffected the quality of life of our residents.”

Developed with help from DPZ, Miami 21 willtake effect over the next two years in one quadrantof the city at a time. “The entire concept of Miami21 is based on a form-based code that emphasizesthe shape and envelope of buildings rather thantheir use and density,” said Gonzalez.

Why does that distinction matter? Becauseregulating use and density does little to ensure thatthe look and feel of a building—its configurationand relationship to the street—will be in harmonywith its surroundings. Form-based codes do. InMiami, the hope is that a form-based code will,among other things, address the spread of high-rise residential buildings that are “way out of character and proportion” to adjacentneighborhoods—but without reducing develop-ment capacity, said Gonzalez. Another goal is tofoster the development of live/work/playneighborhoods. “Long-term, we hope to create amore walkable city,” she said.

The straightest lineParolek is excited to see a city the size of

Miami embrace form-based codes in such acomprehensive manner. “Miami will prove howsuccessful they can be when applied citywide,” shesaid. Katz, on the other hand, is taking more of await-and-see approach. “When you find somethinggood, there’s always a tendency to want to extendit to as many situations as possible,” he said. “Idon’t maintain that form-based codes are intendedto be applied to an entire city. It’s too massive.”

Katz said form-based codes tend to work bestwith neighborhood-scale projects and areespecially good at turning controversy intoconsensus. That’s because form-based codesevolved in tandem with a strong commitment tocommunity-driven design through charrettes. Acharrette is a three- to seven-day process thatestablishes a specific overall vision for the desiredlook and feel of development in a specific project, aneighborhood or an entire community.

All stakeholders—planners, developers,property owners, elected officials, local citizens—participate in the charrette. The goal is to producea mutually acceptable and highly detailed finaldesign that will allow development to moveforward without the usual logjams. “Normally, adeveloper puts a proposal on the table andeverybody attacks it,” said Parolek. “This way, thecommunity puts the proposal on the table and says

this is what we want, as long as you build it thatway, go ahead and do it.”

Where do form-based codes fit in? The codes,created in close concert with the overall vision,ensure that what gets built looks and feels likewhat people expected it to look and feel like—something conventional codes don’t do so well.Conventional codes are essentially “defensivecodes,” said Parolek. “They say what you can’t do,but they leave open any number of windows forwhat you could do. Form-based codes say this iswhat you must do.”

Form-based codes are a means to a predictableend. “A form-based code is the straightest line fromthe vision to the actual implementation of thatvision,” said Katz. “All the code is really doing isdelivering the vision.”

All aboardA good example of form-based codes helping a

stalled project get untracked is the Pleasant HillBART Station in Contra Costa County, Calif. Over

the years, various proposals to redevelop a largeparking lot surrounding the rail station were foughtby the community, which considered the proposalsincompatible. Finally, the county hooked up with adeveloper and held a charrette to produce a visionfor the 18-acre site that everyone could support.

Attended by 500 different people over the courseof six days, the charrette resulted in a plan for atransit-oriented development featuring 549dwelling units, 270,000 square feet of commercialspace, 35,590 square feet of retail space and a newparking garage. The creation of a form-based codeto regulate the development played no small role inwinning community support. “It helped thecommunity believe it was going to get what itapproved,” said Maureen Toms, a principalplanner with the county.

The Pleasant Hill model—a city or countyworking with a specific developer at a specificsite—is one of the most common applications ofform-based codes. A variation is the approachtaken by Farmers Branch, Texas, a suburb of Dallas.

There, the city is using form-based codes to guideredevelopment in two specific districts but withouta specific developer in tow. “These are two very good opportunities to experiment withlive/work/play projects,” said Andy Gillies, thecity’s planning director. “From the research we did,form-based codes seemed to be … the bestregulatory mechanism we could find.”

St. Lucie County in South Florida adopted aform-based code to support a master plan for thefuture creation of four new towns—from scratch—within a 28-square-mile of grapefruit groves. Theplan preserves 60 percent of the land asagricultural by relying on the transfer ofdevelopment rights to locations where the townswill be built. “That’s very different from whatMiami is doing, but it’s still cutting edge,” saysSpikowski, who helped create the master plan.“Quite a few developers are looking at this area.”

More than a ‘cool thing’St. Lucie County is just another example of how

“communities are finding creative ways to try form-based codes,” said Parolek. Many are getting theirfeet wet by adopting form-based codes as overlaysto existing codes, allowing developers to pickwhich code they want to follow. “The biggestproblem we have is misinformation,” said Parolek.“People think form-based codes are being done justbecause they’re the cool thing to do.” What mostpeople probably don’t realize, she said, is thatmany of the country’s most vibrant neighborhoodssprang up before the advent of zoning codes andcould not be built today without replacingconventional codes with form-based codes.

“We’re also seeing a lot of jurisdictions latch onto the term form-based code … without any realknowledge of it,” said Parolek. “Form-based codesinvolve a much finer level of detail than manypeople are used to.” Katz has observed a similarphenomenon. “A lot of communities are recognizingthe value of mixed use, but the hard part is writingan ordinance that defines what mixed use is,” hesaid. “They’re either too loose or too restrictive.”

To promote better understanding of form-basedcodes, the Form-Based Code Institute(www.formbasedcodes.org) offers three levels ofcourses and this spring gave out its first DriehausForm-Based Codes Award. Another resource is theSmartCode manual, a guide to the form-based codes created by DPZ and available atwww.placemakers.com.

Form-based codesseemed to be the bestregulatory mechanismwe could find.

Brad Broberg is a Seattle-based freelance writerspecializing in business and development issues. Hiswork appears regularly in the Puget Sound BusinessJournal and the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.

Before: Pleasant Hill BART Station in Contra Costa County, California

Planned development for Pleasant Hill

Long the inhabitantof central cities,

America’s economy has migrated to the

suburbs and exurbs—but not entirely.

By Jason Miller

A Tale of Two CitiesA Tale of Two Cities

Chicago



Prior to World War II, America’s citiesflourished. Hotbeds of commerce, culture andsocial interaction, they provided everything

families wanted—or at least needed. In-town andnearby residential neighborhoods were builtdensely, only a streetcar ride away from employmentand retail opportunities. Our major metropolitanareas were compact, concentrated affairs, operatingefficiently while judiciously using resources such asenergy and land.

Things changed after World War II, when a massexodus from almost every major city drained thepopulations in those urban areas, sometimesdrastically. During the decades following the war,Americans moved out to first-, second- and third-ringsuburbs, chasing a dream of more land, lower density,less crime, better schools, higher-paying jobs, cleanerair … in short, a better way of life. Sensing a trend,many retail, commercial and manufacturing interestsfollowed the outward migration, further damagingsome central cities’ vitality. Suburbs across Americaboomed in physical size and population; slowly, theU.S. economy became a suburbia-driven affair, fueledby the decentralized, low-density developmentpattern and nourished by a business model that somesay is tenuous at best and at worst, unsustainable.

But, suburbia seems here to stay—and so too itseffect on the U.S. economy. Suburban growth has insome cases surpassed the level claimed by thecentral cities they once served; the “children” arebigger than the parents. At the same time, however, arenewed interest in the amenities and lifestyle thatmature, compact urban spaces can provide hashelped some metro areas nearly recover—or at leaststabilize—their population levels. The United Statesis pursuing two development patterns; simultaneousforces that are feeding the growth of suburbia and arevitalization of traditional urban cores. And theeconomy is following that growth.

History repeats itselfTo understand the

nature of today’seconomy and growthpattern, one needonly look toprecedent both hereand abroad, saysRobert Bruegmann,professor of arthistory, architectureand urban planning at the University of Illinois atChicago, and author of “Sprawl: A CompactHistory” (University of Chicago Press, 2005). “For200 years it’s been the same: a population pushingoutward with a corresponding movement inward,and at different times there’s been a difference instrength between the forces,” he says.

“Paris in the mid-19th century was moving out, butthere was still an inward countermovement. Lowereconomic-scale people were moving out; the moreaffluent folks were moving in: sprawl at the edge andgentrification at the core. That’s identical to whatwe’re seeing today in the United States I think what’shappening today are centrifugal and centripetalforces that push people out and pull people in; [theseforces] are always combining and recombining.That’s the way it’s been since the beginning of time.”

But, if suburban growth is swelling at a faster pacethan central city growth, what is moving even faster?According to Bruegmann, exurban growth; i.e., thedeveloping areas beyond what we would considerthird-ring suburbs, where the easily recognizablesubdivisions end and the two- to five-acre lots begin.“That’s probably the fastest growing part of the U.S.,”he says. As for which pattern will dominate,Bruegmann favors an inclusive outlook. “It’s a messyreality: We’re looking at more of the same of all threepatterns, but I don’t think there will be an effectivemove of people toward the city.”

Our current state of economical affairs is neitherright nor wrong, neither good nor bad, it’s simply theway things are, says Robert Lang, co-director of theMetropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech in Alexandria,Va., and author of the upcoming “Boomburbs: TheRise of America’s Accidental Cities” (BrookingsInstitution Press, May 2007). With more than 50percent of the U.S. population in the suburbs, “theeconomy has already left the central city,” he says.

According to Lang, even our terminology isbecoming obsolete. In 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau

stopped using the term “central cities,” changing it to“principal cities.” “Suburbs” was omitted entirely;instead, “nonprincipal city metropolitan area” becamethe preferred term.

Why? “Because suburbia is the new metropolis,”says Lang. “What people think of as suburbs have amajority of the U.S. commerce—a larger share ofoffice, retail, etc. Fairfax, Va., has a huge economy,bigger than Washington, D.C. And [former suburbs]Naperville, Ill.; Scottsdale, Ariz.; Plano, Texas; andIrvine, Calif.—all are principal cities now.”

These new principal cities play host to the majorityof commerce in the United States, says Lang, includinga huge share of Fortune 500 companies who havechosen to build headquarters and branch offices there.For Lang, the U.S. economy’s move from principal cityto nonprincipal city metropolitan area is alreadycomplete. “You find me one major high-tech companythat is in a [central] city,” he says. “I dare you.”

No conspiracies or fear drive the movement to asuburbia-based economy, says Lang. The reality ismuch simpler than that: It’s a growth pattern based onAmericans’ preference for lower-density development.Since America has been a land of open spaces eversince the 1800s, there has been plenty of land toaccommodate this low-density pattern of growth. And,ever since the 1950s, technological advances havegiven us the tools to organize that growth into aworkable model that many Americans prefer.

Back to our rootsWhile thousands of Americans are moving to

suburbia and exurbia, a growing number are seekinga lifestyle that suburbia, for the most part, has notbeen able to deliver in any meaningful quantity. Thisnew demographic sometimes seems to be flyingunder the radar of social commentators, butproduction builders are taking notice of them andadjusting their strategies accordingly, says AnthonyFlint, author of “This Land: The Battle over Sprawland the Future of America” (The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 2006), and a former journalist nowat the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a think-tank inCambridge, Mass.

“Almost before it’s been studied or realized, theshift from the conventional suburban developmentpattern to more concentrated urban, walkableenvironments is happening,” says Flint. “For me, theproof of this shift is the big home buildersthemselves. Toll Brothers is working in Manhattan.KB Homes and Pulte have high-density projects. Sodoes Lennar Homes. These guys don’t get into thingsunless they have a reasonable chance of makingmoney. I think they realize the future is more dense,more mixed-use, more urban. They’re looking aturban infill and redevelopment, and what they’recalling ‘urban villages.’”

Whether these higher-density projects are built oninfill lots or in densifying suburbs, someone willchoose to live there, says Flint, pointing to 70 millionaging baby boomers as a prime target demographic.Recent surveys conducted by the AmericanAssociation of Retired Persons (AARP) indicate aclear interest in urban neighborhoods, where manydaily needs are within a short walk of residences, anda car is not a necessity. This suggests a different typeof development than conventional suburban.

Research conducted by the National Associationof REALTORS® has found that 70 percent ofhomeowners feel a shorter commute is important tothem—a statistical fact that, while not a smokinggun, certainly points in the direction of desire forhigher-density development.

For many, a non-suburban lifestyle may be aforegone conclusion, a decision based on dollars andsense and environmental awareness, says Flint. “Thesprawl economy took a beating over the past year.When gas prices spiked, I think people thought twiceabout how far they were commuting and factoredtransportation costs into their living arrangements ina more honest way, so that the true cost of gettingaround the suburban environment became apparentin the family budget.

“With the growing concern over global warmingand driving emissions, I think there’s a slowlyincreasing environmental awareness and sensitivity,an awareness that if you live in a more urbanneighborhood, you can actually walk for some thingsor take transit. In this way, urban environments areseen as more energy-efficient. Climate changeactivists are slowly coming around to this land-useconnection. I think consumers are, too.”

Christopher Leinberger, a fellow at the BrookingsInstitution in Washington, D.C., and a partner inArcadia Land Company (a new urban developer),puts the proportion of Americans who want to live inwhat he calls “walkable urbanism” at between 30and 40 percent—even if that urbanism doesn’t occurin central cities. “These people want downtowns,new suburban town centers, new lifestyle centers,transit-oriented development, new urbanism. They

Suburban growth has insome cases surpassed

the level claimed by thecentral cities they

once served.

San Francisco

Las Vegas suburb

Minneapolis


Jason Miller is a freelance writer, editor and publishingconsultant based in Concrete, Wash.

When the housing market slows, do Smart Growth projects performbetter than their conventional suburban competition? Anecdotalevidence and some early research seem to indicate they often do,although some markets disprove that assertion.

According to a Reuters report released in February 2007, close-in,higher-density suburbs are performing better than distant exurbs inhousing price, volume and the length of time it takes to sell properties.Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Alexandria Center of Virginia Tech’sSchool of Urban Affairs and Planning, also has generated data thatindicates higher-density housing generally fared better during therecent market downturn.

In a January 2007 report titled “The Market Acceptance of Single-Family Housing Units in Smart Growth Communities,” authored by MarkEppli, professor and Robert B. Bell, Sr., Chair in Real Estate at MarquetteUniversity in Milwaukee, Wis., and Charles Tu, associate professor ofReal Estate at the University of San Diego, hard numbers demonstratethe ability of Smart Growth communities to sustain price premiums.

Eppli and Tu analyzed 4,744 actual single-family housing saletransactions between 1997 to 2005 in the Smart Growth developmentsof Kentlands and Lakelands in Gaithersburg, Md., and in non-SmartGrowth developments in Montgomery County, Md., measuring thepossibility of a Smart Growth price premium and the sustainability of thatpremium. The study employed approximately 30 control variables—suchas lot size and house size—to produce as accurate a result as possible.Their analysis revealed a price premium for Kentlands and Lakelands of16.1 percent and 6.5 percent, respectively, over comparable houses insurrounding conventional subdivisions. That translates to an increase insale price of $35,000 to $42,000 per home in Kentlands, and $10,000to $15,000 per home in Lakelands. The Kentlands percentage wasactually an increase of a previous, similar study from Eppli and Tu, whichhad studied the same segment of housing type from 1994 to 1997 andfound a 13 percent price premium (Lakelands was not built out at thetime of that earlier study). The consistently higher price premiums overan extended period prove two points:

• A significant segment of homeowners are willing to pay more fora home in a Smart Growth development, as opposed to aconventional suburban subdivision; and

• Smart Growth developments have the potential to be moreresilient during market fluctuations.

In addition to the numbers, there is abundant anecdotal evidence ofnew urban neighborhoods trumping their sprawling neighbors in bothprice and volume during the market slowdown. Donna Arbogast,REALTOR® and sales manager at East Beach Realty, selling properties

at East Beach in Norfolk, Va., says a large part of their success isattributable to the uniqueness of the community, its location and thecharacter of its architecture. “There’s nothing to compare it to in ourmarket,” she says, “so even though we’re not immune to the outsidemarket, we certainly have a buffer.”

Barbara Warner, sales and marketing manager for Hedgewood inCumming, Ga., says her firm’s projects in the Atlanta area—such asVickery and Woodstock Downtown—demonstrated a notable resiliencywhen the market pulled back. “When people had a choice and the valueswere the same, they chose the mixed-use neighborhoods. That’s whatpeople love. If they have a choice of being out in the suburbs with otherhouses that look just like theirs, or being in an urban setting with mostconveniences nearby, they choose the latter—especially in Atlanta.”

Sometimes, however, no level of quality can pull a market out of its doldrums.

In Miami, a glut of condominiums caused that market to slumpbeginning in April 2005, a slowdown that only worsened as Septemberapproached, says REALTOR® Ron Shuffield, president of Efflinger-Wooten-Maxwell REALTORS® in Miami. “This wasn’t related to style orpattern of development,” he says. “We simply have more inventory thanever before in our history—both for condos and single-family houses.

“The condo situation is worse, though, because as sales began todecrease, inventory began to increase. In April 2005, we had 14,000homes (single-family and condo) on the market in Miami and FortLauderdale. Currently, we have 74,000.”

In the opposite corner of the United States, development patternscarried virtually no weight in driving sales, says Lester VanMersbergen,a REALTOR® with Windermere Real Estate in Lynden, Wash. “We wentthrough a dip in prices and sales starting in November 2005 and endingaround October 2006,” he says. “The slowdown affected every area oftown; it didn’t play favorites.”

That statement is significant, since Lynden has virtually every kindof typical housing options in a smaller town (pop. 10,000), fromestablished traditional neighborhoods to newer suburban development.It even offers Greenfield Village, its first attempt at a full-fledged TND,with starter homes beginning in the $230s.

But, no matter the neighborhood, no matter the price range, buyerswere basing their decisions on the dwellings themselves, saysVanMersbergen. “Buyers are paying attention to the houses, not somuch the neighborhood,” he says. “If they were looking for an entryhome, they bought in Greenfield Village or chose a smaller home inHomestead (the suburban subdivision). If they could afford a largerhouse and lot, they bought it.”

WEATHERING THE DOWNTURNS

enough. He believes the demand will be met mainlyin the existing suburbs, which will need to urbanizeappropriately. “Five to 10 years from now, probably60 to 70 percent of the demand will be satisfied inwhat we now call the suburbs; 30 to 40 percent willbe satisfied within the central city limits.”

America’s economy largely has followed its peoplefrom the central cities to its suburbs. Even though asignificant flow has begun to move back to the

country’s larger urban cores, the scales seem tippedto the side of suburbia, a trend that shows noimmediate sign of changing. The suburbs have thepopulations and the components to maintain itsstrong economic vitality. Whether they will morphinto the complex, central-city model of commerce,culture and social interaction remains to be seen.

want high-rise and mid-rise condos, townhouses andsmall-lot, single-family homes, but the key issue forthem is that it’s within walking distance to somethingsignificant: either regional- or local-serving retailand commercial uses.”

It’s not just consumer research that supports this,says Leinberger, it’s the price-per-square-foot figuresof walkable vs. drivable real estate. “The walkableproduct tends to be anywhere from 30 to 200 percentmore on a price-per-square-foot basis,” he says, eventhough Arcadia has been seeing a range of 40 to 80percent. And, even though that price differential canbe partially explained by the higher construction andland costs associated with high-density development,it’s also the result, says Leinberger, of “underlyingdemand pressure and the fact that the market iswilling to pay it.”

Unfortunately, that 30 to 40 percent of the home-buying demographic may have to wait a while to getthat walkable urban environment it craves. Accordingto Leinberger’s research, most U.S. markets havebetween 5 and 20 percent of their offerings in awalkable urban condition, a gap that will takedecades to close—especially since dense, mixed-useprojects are more complex and riskier undertakingsthan conventional suburban developments.

But those urban environments will never lose theirappeal, says Leinberger, because, by their very nature,they deliver a sizzle that suburbia has not yet matched.

“The suburban product is delivered in an insularfashion; the only thing it has to do with the rest of theworld is the traffic counts that it shares with itsneighbors,” says Leinberger. “Walkable urban productis integrated with a variety of different product typessurrounding it. Think of downtown Seattle—the retail,housing, Pike Street Market, the new art museum—allof these amenities have to be within walking distanceof housing. As more amenities are added, they becomehuge benefits to the residential and retail components.As you shoehorn in additional housing and amenities,the place gets better, which leads to an upward spiral

of value creation. Rents go up, sales go up, propertytaxes go up, more people are on the street, enticingmore developers to come into the market, adding morecomplexity, which keeps it spinning further. Once youget it started, it’s a pretty exciting place to be.”

Will it last?Can this shift in economy centers sustain itself or

will it eventually collapse under its own weight, avictim of flawed assumptions or global realities?Again, the answer is “all of the above.”

Robert Lang sees the situation as one in constantflux, adapting to change as necessary. “We havenever been a society that built permanence,” he says.“The suburban pattern of development is a decades-long—a centuries-long—legacy of a country loadedwith land and light with people. This pattern hasbeen land-consumptive—although there’s stillplenty of land left in the United States—andwasteful of resources. But, hybrid cars andrenewable energy resources are more likelyoutcomes than a reversal of the built environment.”

Lang points to quasi-urban developmentscropping up in suburbs as approaches likely toincrease in the coming decades. “They’re creatingmore pedestrian-oriented places with more mixed-use components configured to higher density,” hesays. “There’s a focus on nodes of density, as inFullerton, Calif., and Plano, Texas. Denver has a hugelight-rail project under way, with a great emphasis ondiversity and complexity of uses. So does Phoenix.”

If suburbia continues with its “business as usual”attitude for much longer, however, it may be in for arude awakening, says Anthony Flint. “The sort of‘what’s wrong with sprawl?’ argument is lacking insome creativity for me these days, because we’re notdealing honestly with our uncertain future. What isthe answer, in terms of these living arrangementsand our dwindling fossil fuel supply? What is theanswer for how people can continue to function incar-dependent environments when global warmingis such a clear threat?

“It’s almost a matter of security for Americans,being out in these far-flung developments. Butsecurity from what? Terrorist attack? A flaggingeconomy? Crime? Those are the traditional reasons,but there’s a different kind of security that’s emerging,having to do more with how one can support a familywhile paying a lot more for gas, heating and cooling a3,000-square-foot home, and food that has to travelover long distances and is growing more expensivebecause of energy costs. In that context, I think wecan look at security in a different way.”

For Leinberger, suburbia is a necessary evil ofsorts, since the demand for walkable urbanenvironments cannot be satisfied entirely in thenation’s existing downtowns; they’re not large

America’s economy largely hasfollowed its people from thecentral cities to its suburbs.

San Francisco


smartGrowthinthestatesCompiled by Gerald L. Allen, NAR Government Affairs

Sidewalks are now required undernew subdivision regulations approvedby the Phenix City PlanningCommission in December. The mostnoticeable changes for residents in thecity are new curb and gutterregulations. All roadways withinsubdivisions are required to besurfaced for their entire width andinclude curb and gutter. The curb andgutter requirement includessidewalks. The revised regulationshave two conditions for waiver: (1) Thecurb and gutter requirement does notextend to subdivisions that lie morethan 1.5 miles outside the corporatelimits of Phenix City containing aminimum lot width of 100 feet; and (2)the regulations will not apply to asubdivision containing at least 20 lotshaving a minimum area of one acreper lot and average frontage of 200feet (e.g., estate-type lots).

The Vision Fairbanks plan aimsto incorporate urban design,economic development andland-use components into aguiding blueprint for the city’scenter. The project’s task forceincludes local transportationand land-use planners andofficials from the city ofFairbanks and the FairbanksNorth Star Borough. The taskforce has hired a consultingfirm to help work through thisprocess. By way of smartplanning, the Vision Fairbanksproject offers Fairbanks achance to attract investment inthe relatively near future, saidGeorge Crandall, a partner atthe firm leading the project.

City leaders in Lawrence have chosensix areas for scrutiny as a team ofplanning consultants visits the townseeking the community’s input on a“smart code,” which is essentially a setof building rules that developers canelect to use instead of the city’sstandard zoning code. The idea is thatif the city offers incentives fordevelopers to follow the “smart code,”they’ll opt to create pleasant, walkable,mixed-use neighborhoods. At therecent forum, people split into groupsto brainstorm about what they like andwhat they’d like to see improved aboutthe places being studied. A commonquestion posed is whether the ruleseventually could be made mandatory.Consultants said the rules can stand bythemselves, but that the group usuallyrecommends that city leaders makethem mandatory only for newlyannexed areas.

The Oklahoma City Council recentlyresponded to the growing downtownhousing market by rezoning the areato make way for residential and retaildevelopment amid the downtownoffices and skyscrapers. The change isintended to make it easier to turndowntown into a community wherepeople can live, work and play. Thenew rules will simplify downtownzoning, replacing the current 20-plustypes of zoning districts with justthree. All three zones will allow formixed-use development, includingresidential, retail and commercial.The new rules will also make it harderto build new industrial developmentsdowntown as they will now requirespecial permission from the city. Newdevelopments will be subject to adesign review committee similar tothe one that oversees Bricktowndevelopment. The committee willreview major developments to makesure architecture and design matchother buildings in the area.

OKLAHOMAALABAMA ALASKA KANSAS

True to his electoral plank ontransit and transit-orienteddevelopment, Democratic Gov.Deval Patrick unveiled a $1.4billion plan for commuter rail fromBoston to Fall River and NewBedford, some 50 miles to thesouth, confident the line will helpbring private investment to theunderserved corridor, expandaffordable workforce housing,reduce car dependency andimprove air quality. Announcedjust a week after the TransportationFinance Commission estimated thestate’s transportation repair andmaintenance backlog at $15 billionto $19 billion, the project will bemuch harder to fund.Administration officials expectmost of the $1.4 billion to comefrom taxes generated bydevelopment in the rail corridor,hopefully even before lineconstruction begins.

Kansas City is about to overhaulits zoning ordinance for the firsttime in half a century, withmajor changes anticipated forlandscaping, parking andhousing throughout the city.City officials say the public willhave plenty of opportunity tocomment and if all goes asplanned, the city council couldvote on the new rules sometimein the summer or fall. Therevisions are intended to permitmore pedestrian-oriented,mixed-use development, suchas corner grocery stores, andwould provide for improvedlandscaping and lightingstandards and greater attentionto a neighborhood’s characterwhen builders construct infillhousing. A significant goal forthe consultants was producing azoning ordinance that is mucheasier for the average person tounderstand. Illustrations andgraphics were provided to makethe regulations easier toadminister and enforce.

MASSACHUSETTS MISSOURI


smartGrowth inthestates (continued)

Villa Muse, a $1.5 billion, mixed-useproject near Austin, was recentlyannounced by developers. Theanchor would be the $125 million,200-acre Villa Muse Studios, withfacilities for film, television,advertising, music and video gamemakers. The development wouldinclude a 50,000-square-footsoundstage and recording studiosand an outdoor amphitheater withseating for more than 70,000. Asplanned, Villa Muse wouldtransform 681 acres in eastern TravisCounty, near the Texas 130 toll roadabout 10 miles south of Manor, intoa small city 15 minutes fromdowntown Austin.

St. George city planners havecome up with a design for LittleValley that strikes a balancebetween residents who don’t wantto see developers take over therural area and pressures for newdevelopment. The 5.2-squaremiles in southeast St. George isone of the largest tracts ofundeveloped land within citylimits. Under the preliminary plan,a majority of the land would bezoned residential, but the existing“equestrian enclaves,” with horsetrails traveling through thedeveloped areas and connectingwith canals and the Virgin River,would be preserved. Theresidential developments wouldbe built around mixed-use,commercial town centers.

Worried about ‘’profound quality oflife issues’’ caused by sprawl andtraffic in North Charleston, acrossColumbia’s suburbs and along thenorthwestern I-85 corridor,Republican Gov. Mark Sanford tolda state planning conference that heseeks ‘’constructive ideas thatwork’’ and is ‘’struck by the lack oftrust’’ between developers,environmentalists and planners.Expecting South Carolina’spopulation to increase from 4 to 5.3million within two decades, Gov.Sanford stressed the importance ofsmart decisions on growth toimprove the state’s status in thenational competition for jobs,businesses and retirees. Thegovernor is supporting the PriorityInvestment Act, now in the generalassembly, which would requirelocalities to coordinate theircomprehensive plans.

Despite some concerns aboutrestrictions, Charleston planningcommissioners approved a billthat will amend regulations andmake it much easier for residentsto form conservation districts totry to protect the architecturalintegrity of their neighborhoods.Residents already have theability to form NeighborhoodConservation Districts, but theprocess has been described asbeing too tedious. The measurewill now go to the city council.

Launched in 2000 and saved frombudget cuts two years ago,‘’Wisconsin’s Smart Growthprogram is a model for the nation’’as it puts localities ‘’in charge oftheir future, allowing localdecisions to determine thedirection that each communitytakes,’’ said Gov. Jim Doyle,announcing almost $2.3 million in2007 Local ComprehensivePlanning Grants for 12 multi-jurisdictional applicants, repre-senting 145 villages, municipalitiesand counties, with a totalpopulation of more than 350,000.Under the program, designed toencourage intergovernmental co-operation and public participationin local growth planning, the statehas already helped 964 com-munities that matched the grants tocomplete their plans by 2010 andqualify for future state developmentand infrastructure funds.

Casper and Natrona Countieswould like to make it easier toconvert vacant parkland to otheruses, most notably for school construction. However, countymanagers say that state lawprevents them from doing so.Currently, new schools require acertain amount of acreage forparking, but communities arehaving problems finding enoughland to meet the parkingrequirements. The state lawprevents them from convertingthe vacant parkland into parkinglots. Consequently, these schoolsmay be forced out to the fringes,with the city facing higherinfrastructure and serviceextension costs. Managers arguethat several hundred thousanddollars could be saved if thecounty were able to convertvacant parkland into parking lots.

SOUTH CAROLINA TEXAS UTAH WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING

On Common Ground: Summer 2007

Real Estate

john van gieson

world war

contra costa

themost common

complete streets

voters supportthe

national associationof

public transportation