Sprawl retrofit: sustainable urban form in unsustainable places

The need to support a more sustainable urban formöcompact, mixed-use, walkableönow lies front and center in current planning agendas. Three convergent and interrelatedforces have recently elevated this interest: (1) the need to reduce energy consumptionand `live local' (climate change); (2) the need to build incrementally and in small-scaleways (the global recession); and (3) the need to provide smaller and more centrallylocated housing types (demographic change).

Most of the interest in transforming existing unsustainable form into somethingmore sustainable is focused squarely on the suburbs. Time magazine rated ` recyclingsuburbia'' as the number 2 ` Idea Changing the World'' (Walsh, 2009), and Dwellmagazine recently sponsored a suburban design competition called ` Reburbia'', devotedto ` re-envisioning'' suburban growth (http://www.re-burbia.com). A recent ` SustainableSuburbs'' symposium sponsored by the Urban Land Institute in conjunction withWorld Habitat Day explored ways to ` leverage'' investment in order to promote moresustainable urban form in the suburbs (ULI, 2009). A supporting literature has alsoemerged, with titles like Retrofitting Suburbia (Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2008),Sprawl Repair (Tahchieva, 2009), Big Box Reuse (Christensen, 2008), Suburban Trans-formations (Lukez, 2007), Malls Into Mainstreets (CNU, 2005), Superbia! (Chiras andWann, 2003), and Greyfields Into Goldfields (Sobel and Bodzin, 2002). The Congressfor the New Urbanism (CNU) has long been a proponent of ` sprawl retrofit'' strategies,featuring the topic on its website and at its annual meetings (http://www.cnu.org).

Much of this interest is geared to architects and developers working on a site-by-site, project-by-project basis. Thus failed malls are converted to main streets,McMansions become apartment buildings, and big-box stores are reenvisioned asagricultural land. The projects can be small, like ``punctuation marks'' designed to`àctivate `dead' or neutral spaces'' (Ellin, 2006, page 124), or they can be much larger.The authors of Retrofitting Suburbia argue that the urgency of suburban transforma-tion warrants the need for ` instant cities'', involving redesign of large areas all at oncein the hope that large ``single-parcel projects'' can have an effect on surrounding areas(Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2008, page 5).

Sprawl retrofit: sustainable urban form in unsustainableplaces

Emily TalenSchool of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, School of Sustainability, Arizona StateUniversity, PO Box 875302, Tempe, AZ 85287-5302, USA; e-mail: [email protected] 15 April 2010; in revised form 7 January 2011; published online 2 November 2011

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2011, volume 38, pages 952 ^ 978

Abstract. This paper makes a contribution to the suburban retrofit/sprawl repair literature by suggest-ing a method that planners can use to evaluate the potential of some places to be catalysts for animprovedömore sustainableöurban form. The strategy is aimed at evaluating and then promotingsustainable urban form in unsustainable places. The method puts sprawl retrofit projects into a largerplanning framework, suggesting ways to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of places in relativeterms, taking into account how different kinds of nodesöfrom light rail stops to parking lotsövarying with respect to sustainable urban form characteristics. Overlaying data on accessibility,density, diversity, and connectivity reveals areas with varying levels of sustainable urban form.Intervention in potential retrofit locations consists of neighborhood and site-scale design, includingsuggestions for code reform, intensification of land use around nodes, public investment in civicspace, traffic calming, and incentives for private development.

doi:10.1068/b37048

This paper makes a contribution to the suburban retrofit/sprawl repair literatureöI use the term `sprawl retrofit'öby suggesting an analytical approach that planners cancontribute to the task. The analysis is specifically limited to the US context, which isarguably the country with the greatest need for sprawl repair. I propose a method thatplanners with their focus on city and neighborhood scales (as opposed to `sites' or`projects'), can introduce as an additional means of evaluating the sustainable charac-teristics of places, and therefore build support for generating sustainable urban form inunsustainable places. The method is intended to incorporate sprawl retrofit strategiesinto a larger planning framework: one that could be part of a general plan updateor neighborhood planning effort. Using Phoenix, Arizona and a case study, I showhow planners can first evaluate the retrofitting potential of nodes, and then approachthe task of retrofitting unsustainable places in ways that position singular projectsmore strategically. How might planners use their skills at plan making to transform` a thousand-square-mile oasis of ranch homes, back yards, shopping centers, anddispersed employment based on personal mobility'' (Gammage, 2003, page 146) intoa more sustainable city?

The method is implemented at the scale at which planners typically operateöie theorganization and management of lots, blocks, land uses, and streets, and the collectiveform and pattern of buildings. Unfortunately for urban planners, this is often the mostdifficult scale at which to instill a more sustainable pattern because, unlike green buildingor technological approaches to sustainability, it requires behavioral changeöie a loss ofautomotive freedom, the prioritization of walking, an acceptance of more compactliving, and tolerance for social diversity and land-use heterogeneity. Yet these adjustmentswill be difficult to avoid, given their impact on sustainabilityölow-rise, spread-out buildingshave significantly higher carbon footprints than apartment buildings and high-rises(Rybczynski, 2009). Compact neighborhoods bring with them the intrinsic environmental,social, and economic benefits of living smaller, closer, and driving less, including areduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), lower energy costs, strengthening of socialconnection, and strengthened networks of economic interdependence (see Owen, 2009).

While a significant literature supports the need for compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented cities (Ewing et al, 2008a; Frey, 1999; Jenks and Dempsey, 2005), few areprepared to dictate the specific levels of density, mix, and the like that a more sustain-able urban form would require. A typical summation of what sustainable urban formactually means argues the point generally, such as Frey's (1999) call for an urbanstructure that ` enables a high degree of mobility and access ... a symbiotic relationshipbetween city and country ... social mix ... self-sufficiency ... [and] highly legible andimageable settlement forms'' (page 342). We know that VMT and carbon emissionsdecline as density and mixed use increase (Cervero and Kockelman, 1997; Ewing et al,2008b), but there are no specific rules about how the form of density or the level ofmixed use should vary given different regions and contexts.

The retrofitting analysis presented in this paper is premised on this kind of vari-ability, arguing that planners can help prioritize retrofitting strategies based on a better,more contextualized understanding of sustainable urban form and its dimensions.In Phoenix, places that have the potential to catalyze sustainable urbanismöcalled`nodes'öcan be assess on the basis of how they score on different dimensions of urbanform in a relative way. This is an approach that helps planners work with what theyhave. It is not an attempt, as one defender of Phoenix has complained, to ` impose theshape, form, and values of Greenwich village'' on Phoenix through ` high residentialdensities [and] vast mass transit schemes'' (Gammage, 2003, pages 146 ^ 147), butneither does it take the view that single-use subdivisions and strip malls are a legacyto be continued. The question to be posed is: given the existing form of a place like

Sustainable urban form in unsustainable places 953

Phoenix, how might planners realistically approach the task of advancing sustainableurban form in a way that is both realistic and responsive to local context? Theapproach offered here involves evaluating places for their overlapping layers of urbanquality, and then proposing future public and private investment that works off thestrengths and weaknesses of potential retrofitting target areas. As with all planningendeavors in the US, there will be limitations in terms of what planners can accom-plish with this. Market forces and the politics of urban redevelopment will oftenoverride a more measured sprawl retrofitting strategy. Still, this paper suggests thatthere is nothing stopping planners from at least introducing a more sophisticatedretrofitting logic into the plans they help to develop.

A òne size fits all'' approach, whereby every city becomes a mosaic of walkablemixed-use neighborhoods and connecting boulevards, is often resisted not only for itslack of realism, but for its disconnection from underlying economic and culturalconditions (Marshall, 2000; Scheer, 2010). What planners have come to acknowledgeis that the definition and actualization of compact, walkable, diverse cities is some-thing that will require local sensitivity, a certain level of flexibility, and adjustment ofinitial expectations (Goodchild, 1994; Knaap et al, 2007; Yang, 2008). This paperpresents an example of just this kind of adaptation. I draw on the standard principlesof sustainable urban form but show how these principles can be evaluated strategically.

What is sustainable urban form?Defining and measuring sustainable urban formösometimes termed `sustainableurban neighborhoods' or `sustainable urbanism'öhas advanced significantly over thepast two decades (eg, Breheny, 1992; Clemente et al, 2005; Far, 2008; Frey, 1999;Jabareen, 2006; Jenks and Dempsey, 2005; Mazmanian and Kraft, 1999; Miles andSong, 2009; van der Ryn and Calthorpe, 2008; Wheeler, 2005; Williams et al, 2000).Sustainable urban form has walkable and connected streets, compact building forms,well-designed public spaces, diverse uses, mixed housing typesöin short, qualities thatoften run counter to a previous generation of city building that promoted segregatedland use, superblock `projects', socially insular and physically disconnected housing,and car-dependent subdivisions and shopping malls.

The concept of a `sustainable city' is broader and includes more than the physicalqualities of built form (Farr, 2008; Newman and Jennings, 2008; Roseland, 2005). Forexample, institutional strategies like recycling programs, local governance, and civicparticipation are considered important for promoting sustainable cities. Sustainableindustrial and energy systems, food production, and mitigation of heat-island effects arealso essential. Sustainable cities support passive solar design, sustainable stormwaterpractices, organic architecture, the harnessing of waste heat, and the protection ofbiodiversity corridorsöall of which are impacted by urban form, but not synonymouswith it.

My focus is on the human-built dimensions of urban formöstreets, lots, blocksöwhich constitute what Scheer (2001) calls the ``static tissues'' of urbanism. Planners knowwhat the sustainable urban qualities of these static tissues are likely to be, supported byresearch linking urban form to public transport (Cervero, 2009), physical health (Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2003; Moudon et al, 2006), social equity (Murray and Davis, 2001;Talen, 1998), global warming (Ewing et al, 2008a; 2008b), and environmental quality(Beatley, 1999; Newman and Jennings, 2008), among other linkages. Planners' commit-ment to walkable, compact, diverse urban form is now bolstered by research that showsthat support for ` traditionally designed communities'' is increasing (Handy et al,2008), and there are predictions that demand for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoodsis likely to grow in the coming decades (Leinberger, 2008; Levine et al, 2005).

954 E Talen

But what are the particular dimensions of sustainable urban form that can bemeasured and evaluated? The measures used here are based on morphological con-cepts of form, rather than sustainability defined by environmental characteristics(eg, water conservation, habitat protection, drainage, stormwater systems, passive solardesign, or district energy systems), or building and site design (eg, building layout,heating and cooling systems, or microclimate conditions). Reviewed below are the mostimportant dimensions of relevance to urban planners: accessibility, connectivity, density,diversity, and nodality.

AccessibilityAccessibility is a long-standing component of theories of good (ie, sustainable) urbanform (see in particular A Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; J Jacobs, 1961; Lynch, 1981).A sustainable settlement pattern should increase access between residents, their placesof work and the services they require (Dittmar and Ohland, 2003). In this way, accessi-bility is tied to the principles of smart growth (Song and Knaap, 2004) and active livingenvironments (Heath et al, 2006; Norman et al, 2006) in which pedestrian access todaily life needs is viewed as especially important. Measures of access have been usedextensively in the past few years as part of an effort to evaluate the built environmentfor health effects (eg, Greenwald and Boarnet, 2001; Moudon and Lee, 2003).

Walkable access to services is an essential part of the sustainability equationbecause people living in well-serviced locations will tend to have lower carbon emis-sions (Ewing et al, 2008a). The higher the access to opportunities like jobs and services,the lower the transport costs. Related to this, sustainable urban form is defined by thedegree to which it supports the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists over car drivers(Moudon and Lee, 2003). This has been motivated by a concern over the effects of thebuilt environment on physical activity and human health. Streets that are pedestrianoriented are believed to have an effect not only on quality of place but on the degreeto which people are willing to walk (Forsyth et al, 2008). Researchers have arguedthat activity levels can be increased by implementing small-scale interventions in localneighborhood environments (Sallis et al, 1998), and a whole catalog of design strategiesare now used to make streets more pedestrian oriented (ITE, 2005).

ConnectivityConnectivity, a related concept, refers to the degree to which local environments offerpoints of connection and contact (to people and resources) at a variety of scales andfor multiple purposes. This quality promotes sustainability in that higher connectivityleads to higher levels of interaction between residents and the environment, society,and cultural and economic activityöall of which is believed to improve neighborhoodstability in the long term.

Urban form plays a significant role in promoting or constraining connectivity.The underlying mechanisms involved have been investigated at a variety of scales,from microenvironmental factors and site layout to regional systems. Social connectionat the neighborhood scale is seen as a pedestrian phenomenon (Michelson, 1977), andnetworks of `neighborly relations' are related to interconnected pedestrian streetsand the internal neighborhood access those street networks engender (Grannis, 2009).The importance of maximizing connectivity in urban space is a common theme inurban form studies (Alexander, 1965; Hillier and Hanson, 1984), where the main focus ison maximizing opportunities for interaction and exchange and increasing the numberof routes (streets, sidewalks, and other thoroughfares and pathways) through an area.Providing alternative routes and access points affects both the public space networkand the corresponding patterns of movement (Salingaros, 1998). From an urbanform point of view, increasing connectivity translates to gridded street networks, short


blocks, streets that connect rather than dead-end, establishment of central placeswhere multiple activities can coalesce, and providing well-located facilities thatfunction as shared spaces (Carmona et al, 2003). It is generally agreed that large-scaleblocks, cul-de-sacs, and dendritic (tree-like) street systems are less likely to providegood connectivity (Trancik, 1986).

DensityDensity is another essential component of sustainable urban form. There is somedisagreement over the exact relationship between density and sustainability, particularlyas it relates to social justice goals (Burton, 2002; Jenks et al, 1996). But there is generalagreement that cities that are more dense and compact and less sprawling and landconsumptive are likely to be more sustainable, especially in environmental and eco-nomic terms. Among many other negative effects, identified in studies like Costs andSprawl (Burchell et al, 1998; 2005), low-density development has been linked to higherinfrastructure costs (Speir and Stephenson, 2002), increased automobile dependence(Cervero and Wu, 1998), and air pollution (Stone, 2008). Density has been seen as anessential factor in maintaining walkable, pedestrian-based access to needed servicesand neighborhood-based facilities, as well as a vibrant and diverse quality of life(Jacobs, 1961; Kunstler, 1994; Newman and Kenworthy, 2006).

DiversityDiversity is an important dimension of sustainable urban form. In particular, land-usediversity is related to foster a number of sustainability benefitsöeconomic vitality,social exchange, accessibility, and walkable provision of the diverse services and facili-ties a neighborhood requires. Socially diverse neighborhoods continue to be seen asessential for broader community well-being and social equity goals (eg, Popkin et al,2009; Turner and Berube, 2009), but the connection to sustainability is also madeömixing incomes, races, and ethnicities is believed to form the basis of àuthentic',sustainable communities (CNU, 2000; see also Talen, 2008). Mixing housing-unit typesis an important strategy. Also essential are land use that complement each other topromote the active use of neighborhood space at different times of the day, creating` complex pools of use'' (Jacobs, 1961), a component of natural surveillance and socialsustainability. Supporting this are findings that a mix of neighborhood public facilitiesplays a role in reducing crime (Colquhoun, 2004; Peterson et al, 2000). Studies ofsocially mixed neighborhoods consistently identifying urban form as a key factor insustaining diversity (Nyden et al, 1997).

NodalityFinally, sustainable urban form is associated with what could be termed polycentricor multinucleated urbanismöthe idea that urban development should be organizedaround nodes of varying sizes (see Frey, 1999). Whereas sprawl tends to be spreadacross the landscape uniformly, sustainable urban form has a discernible hierarchy toitöfrom regional growth nodes to neighborhood centers or even block-level publicspaces. At the largest scale, centers may be conceived as regionally interconnectedùrban cores', with higher intensity growth converging at transportation corridors,a strategy supported by the Phoenix General Plan (Hall and Karnig, 1984). At theneighborhood level, nodes support sustainable urban form by providing public spacearound which buildings are organized. It is not a place where all shopping and socialinteraction necessarily occurs, nor does it need to be literally at the center of apopulation. Neighborhood cores have been conceived as being either along majorthoroughfares or away from them (constituting a neighborhood edge), although otherconceptions based on pedestrian activity have also been proposed (Mehaffy et al, 2009).

956 E Talen

In all cases, neighborhood-scale centralized spaces or nodes of activity can provide aphysical articulation of community'öa place-based connection that people living inthe same area necessarily share. By providing a common destination for surroundingresidents, such spaces support other aspects of sustainable urbanism, such as increasesin surrounding density, mixed housing type anchored by a centralized space, or theviability of neighborhood-based retail. At the smallest scale, the idea of nodality is notunlike ` urban acupuncture'' (Ellin, 2006, page 124), which seeks to leverage small-scaleinterventionsöstratefically located nodesöfor wider effect.

(Un)sustainable urban form in PhoenixThese dimensions that define sustainable urban form can be easily contrasted with thesprawling metropolis of Phoenix, now the fifth largest city in the US. It is a quintes-sential sunbelt city, built mostly of post-World-War-II suburbs, and organized almostentirely to accommodate private modes of consumption (see Hayden, 2003). Between1950 and 1970 the urbanized area of the region (which includes thirty-two incorporatedmunicipalities surrounding Phoenix) grew 630%, while its population grew 300% (USCensus). Unfetted growth in Phoenix over the past sixty years has resulted in apredictably harsh, automobile-dependent environment (Gober, 2006), as evidenced bythe map of street-facing surface parking lots shown in figure 1. Until the recentrecession slowed expansion in the region, developers had been making vast fortunesbuilding large-scale, leapfrog residential development of homogenous `product', withlittle regard for the cumulative effect on Phoenix's social and environmental quality(Schipper, 2008).

Phoenix is a relatively young city (incorporated in 1881), and had a population ofjust 30 000 in 1920. Initial interest in planning Phoenix began in the 1920s, when aCity-Beautiful-like plan (including a civic center, railway stations, boulevards, park-ways, and parks) was completed by Edward Bennett, Daniel Burnham's partner on theChicago Plan of 1909. Only a small portion of this plan was realized. Of more interestat the time was the adoption of comprehensive zoning. A zoning plan was adoptedsoon after the Bennett plan, following a clamor for ` utility over beauty'', and a desirefor a more business-oriented planning approach (Larsen and Alameddin, 2007, page 111).Phoenix is now burdened with the usual array of poorly conceived regulations(zoning), and public fund expenditures are directed toward road-widening projectsthat accommodate far-flung growth.

Aside from zoning, long-range comprehensive planning in Phoenix has been weak(Collins, 2005; Schipper, 2008). While Phoenix's planning department is charged withguiding physical development, city planners have so far been unable to reverse the tideof unsustainable growth. The state recently adopted a Growing Smarter Act wherebyplans and zoning are required to be in conformance, but development remains pre-dominantly a project-by-project affair, driven by the narrow ` let's-make-a-deal trivia ofdevelopment'' rather than broader concerns about land-use policy (Gammage, 2003,page 141). And, although Phoenix is divided into fourteen ` urban villages'' (figure 2),they are little more than ` lines on a map'' (Gober, 2006, page 203) whose essentialpurpose is to organize community input (mostly opposition) on rezoning requests.Planners in Phoenix are thus confronted with strong and well-researched ideas aboutsustainable urban form, but few realistic options for implementing those ideals.

This is not to say there are no successes. Planners in Phoenix have been successfulin supporting light rail, and the new Metro Light Rail (opened in 2008) is likely topromote sustainable urban form in the long term. Overlay zoning for transit-orienteddevelopment was put in place to help stimulate compact urban development (ie,sustainable urban form) around the new transit stations.


Planners have had more limited success in their attempts to foster better regionalcooperation among local governments, in support of sustainability. There is hope thatland-use and infrastructure planning can be combined in a way that considers largerareas of the region as single planning entities (Morrison Institute, 2008), but there islittle evidence that this integration is occurring. Like many large cities, Phoenix hasa metropolitan coordinating entity (Maricopa Association of Government), whoseprimary purpose is the planning of new highway development (Davis, 1996), despiteclaims to be concerned with broader regional planning principles. Lack of politicalbacking for coordinated regional infrastructure planning for water, transportation, andland use remains a significant challenge (Gober, 2006).

0 3 6miles

Figure 1. Street-facing surface parking lots in the main developed areas of Phoenix. The smallrectangle is the downtown.

958 E Talen

Given existing political realities and a relatively weak planning culture, howmight planners reasonably support the development of a more sustainable urbanform in Phoenix? Since the form and pattern of Phoenix stand in stark contrast toprinciples of sustainable urban form, it is not realistic to propose that all of Phoenix betransformed into walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoodsöbut what steps couldplanners take in that direction?

0 2.5 5miles

Figure 2. [In color online.] Fifteen urban villages and 856 neighborhood associations inPhoenix.


Evaluating sustainable urban form in PhoenixGiven the contrast between ideal (sustainable urban form) and reality (low-densitysubdivisions and a weak planning culture), transforming Phoenix into a city of sustain-able urban neighborhoods defined as walkable, compact, and mixed useöor, accessible,connected, dense, diverse, and nodalöwill necessarily require flexibility. How canplanners proactively create sustainable urban form in this context? One question toexplore is whether it makes more sense to revitalize an area that has at least somecharacteristics of sustainable urban form, or, whether it would be better to targetinvestment in places that are the worst kind of sprawl, for example, a `dead' suburbanmall with no surrounding population or walkable urban form. In short, where shouldsprawl retrofit be targetted?

I approach this question by evaluating the potential sustainability of a range ofpossible locationsöplaces that could be thought of as potential nodes of future sustain-able urban form. Conceptually, potential nodes could range from places that are transitserved and thus already sustainable, to places that are the most in need of retrofittingstrategies, such as vacant parking lots. How might one location be considered better thananother as a place to recommend policies that promote the transition to sustainableurbanism? How might a range of possible locations be compared? If cities are goingto prioritize locations for suburban retrofit and sprawl repairötransitioning froman unsustainable urban fabric to one that has at least pockets of sustainabilityöhowmight they approach such a task?

To answer this question, I evaluated four types of potential nodes in Phoenixand compared the degree to which they satisfied the goals of sustainable urban form.This comparison was intended to answer the following question: if the goal is to findand promote some locations as sustainable places in terms of urban formöaccessible,connected, dense, diverseöwhat locations are furthest along in terms of satisfying thebasic requirements? In relation to this question, I wanted to know whether one locationwas stronger on some aspects of sustainable urban form than another.

I selected the following four types of places that could provide the `nodality'dimension of sustainable urbanism in Phoenix. The first two reflect previous strate-gizing by the City of Phoenix to stimulate sustainable urban form in core locations.The second two can be viewed as possible alternative locations for retrofitting activity.1. Seventeen Phoenix ` cores'' identified in the Phoenix General Plan (updated in 2008).These cores are intended to serve as a ` focal point'' to each Phoenix village, providinga mix of uses, a ` physical identity'' and ` a gathering place with pedestrian activity''(City of Phoenix, http://phoenix.gov/PLANNING/gpland1.pdf). Both primary and secondarycores identified in the plan were used.2. Twenty-four Phoenix Light Rail Transit station (LRTs) areas. These locations wouldseem to be obvious targets for the promotion of sustainable urban form.3. Nineteen parking lot nodesöareas in which surface parking lots make up a signif-icant portion of developed land area. These were selected on the basis of the ratioof parking lot area to total area by census block group. For these nineteen blockgroups, parking lots make up more than a third of the land area of the block group.4. Twenty-one shopping center nodesöshopping centers (malls and strip malls) thatare within a quarter mile of both a publicly owned park and elementary school.Despite being auto-dependent malls, these locations might form the nucleus of amore sustainable urban form, given their proximity to essential public facilities.

I use the measures of sustainable urban form identified aboveöaccessibility, con-nectivity, diversity, densityöto identify varying levels of sustainable urban form. Themeasurement methods are shown in table 1. The measures draw from some of the morestandard measures of urban sustainability that have become prolific in the literature

960 E Talen

[see Condon et al (2009) for a recent review of some of these measures]. Specifically,density is a straightforward measure of population per square mile; access is measuredbased on distance between residential parcels and retail; and connectivity uses twostandard measuresöstreet centerlines and intersections per area. For diversity I usetracts that scored high on the Simpson diversity index for housing-unit type.(1) Therationale is that areas with a greater mix if housing unitsöfrom single-family detachedto apartment buildingsöwould have an urban form more supportive of social diversity,a key feature of sustainability.

Figure 3 shows the locations of the four types of nodes, together with the areas thathad the highest levels of density, diversity, connectivity, and accessibility. Figure 4 is acloser-in view of the same map, showing the central and northern parts of the city inwhich most people in Phoenix live. An immediate impression is that the most sustain-able areas do not seem to bear much relation to the potential nodes. This would not besurprising in the case of block groups with high surface parking. It is more surprisingin the case of Phoenix's core areas and LRTs.

Table 2 and figure 5 present the results numerically. Table 2 presents comparativestatistics using mean scores, while figure 5 shows medians and boxplates of the dis-tribution of all scores. Several observations about these data can be made. First, theresults indicate that Phoenix cores do not score particularly well in terms of sustain-able urban form. They do not rank highest on any measure, and clearly rank lowest interms of density and connectivity. Second, LRTs do score slightly higher than the otherlocations on the diversity measure (in terms of overall distribution), but not in termsof density, connectivity, or accessibility. Third, shopping centers appear to be betterconnected and have higher accessibility than all other node types, although they doless well on diversity measures. Finally, parking lots appear to do well in terms ofdensity and diversity, but do less well on other measures. It is especially significant thatparking lots do not score worse on sustainable urban form measures than Phoenix'sdesignated cores.

Ultimately, it may be that the level of investment needed to get Phoenix's coreareas to a level of sustainable urban form is significantly higher than that needed forshopping centers close to parks and schools. Shopping centers scored higher thanPhoenix cores on all measures of sustainable urban form, indicating that there mightbe fewer costs associated with achieving sustainable urbanism in those locations.

(1) Eight housing-type categories were used: referring to figure 5, a score of `6' indicates very highdiversity, while a score of `1' indicates very low diversity (no tracts had all eight categories). Formore information on the methods used for the diversity calculation, see Talen (2008). The Simpsondiversity index is also used in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ^NeighborhoodDevelopment (LEED^ND) rating system (US Green Building Council, 2009).

Table 1. Calculation of four measures of sustainable urban form.

Measure How measured Spatial unit

Density population per square mile block groupDiversity housing-type diversity a tractConnectivity street centerlines per area of tract; tract

and intersections per area of tractAccessibility count of residential parcels within a 500 ft tract

of retail, divided by area of tract

a The Simpson diversity index was used to calculate diversity. Categories were: 1 unit detached,1 unit attached, 2 units, 3 or 4 units, 5 ± 9 units, 10 ± 19 units, 20 ± 49 units, 50� units.


On the other hand, shopping centers near parks and schools tended to score low inthe diversity measure, which is especially significant given the policy goal that accessto public facilities should be maximized for a broad range of income levels.

0 3 6miles

General plan core

Light Rail Transit stations, shopping centers, parking-lot density

Dense, diverse, connected, accessible

Figure 3. Nodes of potential, together with areas that scored highest on four measures ofsustainable urban form.

962 E Talen

The results point to several complexities that seem counterintuitive. How could itbe that shopping centers are more connected than cores and LRTs, or that blockgroups defined by high levels of parking are also areas that score better in terms ofdensity? In fact these contradictions are explained by looking more closely at the urbanforms that score highly on sustainability criteria. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show someexamples.

Figure 6 shows a shopping center node that scored high on accessibilityöie, thetract contains a relatively high number of parcels that are close to retail. It is doubtful,however, that this area would qualify as sustainable urbanism by most definitions.

0 1 2miles

General plan core

Light Rail Transit stations, shopping centers, parking-lot density

Dense, diverse, connected, accessible

Figure 4. Nodes of potential, together with areas that scored highest on four measures ofsustainable urban formöcentral Phoenix.


What this does show, however, is that higher sustainability on one variable, for onetype of node, can provide something to work with. Figure 6 is an area with many ofthe right ingredientsöretail, park, school, residentialöall in relatively close proximity.The higher accessibility of this area might be used as leverage to promote a fuller degreeof sustainable urban form, targeting increases in other dimensions, such as connectivity.Drawing these kinds of visual connections between data and form provides insightabout the kind of retrofitting strategy that might be most appropriate.

Two areas identified in figure 4 (labeled `1' and `2') can be similarly investigated.Aerial views of the two locations are shown in figure 7. Area 1 contains all four typesof potential nodesöan LRT, an identified core from the Phoenix General Plan,an area with a high percentage of surface parking, and a shopping center near apark and a school. What is interesting from an analytical point of view is that thisarea did not score high on any sustainable urban form measures. But since this areacontains multiple interpretations of nodality, this might be a good area for planning

30

20

10

0

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

6

4

2

0

0.00015

0.00010

0.00005

0

Con

nectivity

Density

Con

nectivity

Diversity

150

100

50

0

Accessibility

Cores Light Rail Parking ShoppingTransit lots centersstations

Cores Light Rail Parking ShoppingTransit lots centersstations

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 5. [In color online.] Box plots comparing measures of sustainable urban form for fourtypes of suburban retrofits (`nodes'): (a) density (population per acre), (b) diversity (Simpsondiversity index, by census tract, for housing type), (c) connectivity (density of street centerlines),(d) connectivity (density of intersections), (e) accessibility (count of residential parcels close toretail).

964 E Talen

Table 2. Four suburban retrofit strategies (as `nodes') and four measures of sustainable urbanform.

Measure Strategy

General Plan Light Rail block groups shopping centerscores Transit with high within ÃÙÆ mile of

stations surface school and parkparking

Density (mean block 3075 5375 7485 6716group density)

Diversity (mean tract 2.934 3.179 3.341 2.317diversity)

Connectivity (mean 0.0072 0.01 0.0058 0.0106score for streetcenterlines per area)

Accessibility (mean 41 49 44 63count of residentialparcels close to retail)

Number of events 17 24 19 21Number of tracts 15 12 17 12

Figure 6. [In color online.] This shopping center node scored high on accessibility.


(a)

(b)

Figure 7. [In color online.] Details of (a) area 1 and (b) area 2 shown in figure 4. Area 1 is cluster ofnodes, but does not score high on any measures of sustainable urban form. Area 2 is a nodeconsisting of high parking-lot density, and scores high on three measures of sustainable urban form.

966 E Talen

and design intervention. Area 2 is interesting for different reasons, and might require adifferent approach that draws on its particular strengths. The area is a node consistingof high parking-lot density which also scored high on three dimensions of sustainableurban form: density, diversity, and accessibility. The aerial photograph verifies thesecharacteristics perfectlyöa place of high density and mix of uses, but with an internalconnectivity that could be stronger.

Figure 8 shows three areas that scored very high on densityöa shopping centernode, an LRT node, and a parking-lot node. The images show how density varies bythe type of node involved. High density for a shopping center near a park and schoolis configured very differently from high density near an LRT or a parking lot.The images show that it is important to recognize that, for each type of node, thekind of density that can be expected varies. Second, parking-lot areas may in fact havevery high density (area C in figure 8), but that does not mean they are exemplars ofsustainable urban form. In fact, all three examples of high density scored low onconnectivity, and only area B scored high on unit-type diversity.

Other retrofitting approaches can be similarly informed by the degree to whichdifferent types of nodes measure up to different dimensions of sustainable urbanform. For example, it is useful to know that LRTs did well on the diversity measure.If the goal is to increase sustainable urban form using transit stops as nodes forretrofitting opportunities, it might be particularly important for planners to keep theirstrategies focused not only on increasing accessibility, connectivity, and density (whichthe LRTs did not score as well on), but on maintaining the relatively high levels ofdiversity currently enjoyed in the LRT areas. If the main objective is to look forretrofitting opportunities that do not require adding density, parking-lot retrofittingin some locations might be something to emphasize, since parking-lot nodes alreadyhad higher density than many designated cores.

The variables of accessibility, density, diversity, and connectivity, and how they varyfrom one location or node to another, can help planners get a sense of the kinds ofurban forms being considered, how their potentials vary, and what their relativestrengths and weaknesses are in terms of sustainable urban form. Strategies could bemodified in order to retain and strengthen whatever sustainable urban form qualitieseach type of node possesses. One objective might be to find locations that are alreadyexhibiting key aspects of density and diversity, and to find ways to support develop-ment that strengthens the other dimensions of sustainable urban form (connectivityand accessibility). Planners will have to decide whether it makes more sense to promotenodes that are highly deficientöie areas dominated by parking lotsöor, if they shouldlook for places that are already sustainable along at least a few dimensions. For thelater category, it could be argued that places with the most potential for achievingsustainable urban form are those that already have the highest level of sustainablequalities along all dimensions. These areas might respond better to strategic inter-vention because they already possess the basic outlines of sustainable urban form,and therefore strengthening these qualities will not seem jarring or unprecedented.Such places might make the most sense as targets of retrofitting opportunity becausethey already possess aspects of sustainable urban form that can be leveraged.

Knowing what places score higher than others in terms of sustainable urban formis only the first task. The next requirement is to propose mechanisms for implementingsustainable urban form in a way that recognizes how different kinds of areas measureup using a range of sustainability criteria.


A

B

C

Population density of blockgroup � 13 308 per square mileConnectivity: lowScale: 1:5000

Population density of blockgroup � 20 122 per square mileConnectivity: lowDiversity: highScale: 1:5000

Population density of blockgroup � 36 667 per square mileConnectivity: lowScale: 1:3200

Figure 8. [In color online.] Areas scoring high on density. Area A is a shopping center node;area B is a Light Rail Transit (LRT) node; area C is a parking-lot node.

968 E Talen

An example retrofitRetrofitting involves three strategies: rule changes (code reform), targetted publicinvestment to strengthen public spaces, and incentives (tax breaks or small grants) tostimulate private development. These strategies are in line with recent approaches to theplanning and project management side of sustainable urban development (Piedmont-Palladino and Mennel, 2009; Porter, 2009), although the focus on existing as opposedto entirely new neighborhoods makes the strategies necessarily modest. As comparedwith sustainable development practices geared to regional planning, for example,

General Plan core

Elementary school

Park

0 2 4 miles

Figure 9. [In color online.] The Phoenix General Plan does not offer explicit support for strategicintervention in area 1.


sprawl retrofit requires making relatively small requests of governments or propertyowners. And yet, because the interventions are tied to a larger assessment of sustain-able urban form and its potential in a larger, citywide planning context, the small,strategically placed interventions could have a more widespread impact.

For example, area 1 (figure 4 and 7) might be a good location to pursue the goal ofstrengthening sustainable urban form in Phoenix. The area had definite node charac-teristics, including an LRT, a designated core, a mall, parking areas, a school, and apark.What it lacks is sustainable urban form along the other four dimensions: scoring

General Plan core

Park

Elementary school

0 2 4 miles

Figure 10. [In color online.] Zoning does not offer explicit support for strategic intervention inarea 1.

970 E Talen

average or low on every measure. Planning support for the area could consist of, forexample, station-area build-out scenarios, and visualization, specific plans, investmentin public space, business improvement districts, or some other geographically basedinvestment strategy, and codes that ensure a more coherent public frontage for theblocks surrounding the station, parks, and other public areas.

Planners could work to ensure that there is planning, design, and regulatorysupport for this kind of targetted intervention. Figures 9 and 10 show how the rulesand plans currently in place for area 1 do not suggest any particular strategic approachfor focused investment (despite the fact that this area is a designated core in thePhoenix General Plan). Because no assessment has been made regarding the sustain-able qualities that already exist, there is no correspondence between those qualities andthe rules guiding future development. Without such an assessment, neither GeneralPlan designations, nor zoning are likely to have any particular relevance to the goalof promoting sustainable urban form in targetted locations.

Intervention could consist of public investment and private regulation aimed atincreasing the area's connectivity, density, diversity, and accessibilityöall dimensionsarea 1 is currently lacking. This intervention could occur at two scales: the neighbor-hood (blocks around the node, for example, within a quarter-mile radius around thesite), and the site itself (including lots immediately adjacent). At the neighborhoodscale, rezoning or code reform can be used to promote sustainable urban form intarget areas. Figure 11 shows an example rezoning where just four land-use intensitiesare proposed around the node (area 1), instead of the current tangle of zoning cate-gories shown in figure 10. More intensive zones toward the center encourage density,

Figure 11. [In color online.] One strategy for suburban retrofit involves code reform. In thisexample, area 1 is rezoned to include just four levels of intensity, greatly simplifying the existingzoning shown in figure 10, and giving it a spatial logic whereby more intensive development isencouraged toward the center.


land-use mix, and other reforms of intensification, which could help establish the areaas a viable node. Increasing density, mixed use, and the number of people withinwalking distance of the site helps increase accessibility, a key component of sustainableurban form. Away from the blocks immediately adjacent to the site, a new residentialzoning category could promote diversity and density at a level that respects theneighborhood, allowing a gradual transition toward greater complexity and intensityof use. Suburban lots in this transitional area could be allowed to densify in ways thatwould not disrupt the neighborhood, for example by allowing additions to existingsingle-family lots as shown in figure 12.

A variety of design and investment strategies could elevate the role of a node as anadditional nucleus of sustainable growth. Figure 13 shows a design proposal for area 1.First, a public plaza is inserted at a strategic location between the park, LRT, andmall. The space is framed by new liner buildings that frame the sidewalk, bufferpedestrians from the parking lot, and create an òutdoor room'. Investment in thispublic space could stimulate private investment in support of this function. The civic

Figure 12. [In color online.] One proposal for increasing density in a suburban tract home area(source: Tahchieva, 2010).

972 E Talen

importance of the space could be emphasized by adding a `build-to' line in thesurrounding blocks, perhaps as part of a revised zoning code. Form-based codes couldbe used to reinforce these spatial definitions and create a more pedestrian-orientedurban realm. In between the public space and the LRT, a reconfigured street couldpromote walkability, including traffic-calming measures like road narrowing, pedestriancrossing points, the insertion of islands and medians, and tree planting. Sustainableurban form would be further promoted by increasing connectivity within and aroundthe site. Road and path linkages could be added by cutting through underutilizedspaceöparking lots, vacant land, and unoccupied municipal-owned lots, aimed atincreasing connectivity for pedestrians and providing routes with direct access to thepublic spaces.

In addition to these kinds of design interventions, support for sustainable urbanform requires creative policy. For the site design envisioned here, planners could pushfor tax incentives that support retrofit-supporting development at strategic locations.While unusual, it is not unprecedented. Promotion of retail in targetted areas hasrecently been tried in New York City, where tax incentives and zoning changes havebeen proposed in an effort to support grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods.In the private sector, incentives like free rent in the commercial sections of newplanned communities have been used successfully by developers who view local retail

Figure 13. [In color online.] Conceptual design for suburban retrofit. The image shows wherepublic investments could be strategically located, between the school, park, and existing LightRail Transit station (LRT). The design shows a plaza, liner buildings, and modest improvementslinking the LRT station to existing and new public spaces.


as an essential part of sustainable urbanism. These kinds of private sector incentivesare the basis of an incremental approach to sprawl repair (Steil et al, 2008).

Planners could also provide `permitting by right' for property owners who buildaround a proposed node in a targetted location. Or they may propose a number offinancial mechanisms to incentivize retrofitting at these locations. It would also beimportant to coordinate the investment priorities of public agencies in a way that ismore place-based and directs funds toward strategic retrofit. Currently, each citydepartment in Phoenix has its own capital-improvement program: streets, parks,and neighborhood services operate independently, with no consolidation program.It planning's goal is to promote sustainable urban form, planners may be able to useretrofitting analysis to help channel public investment toward specific locations.

All of these interventionsödesign for strategic nodes, code reform, traffic calm-ing, tax incentives, and other public investmentsöare part of an overall strategy ofincreasing the sustainability of a place, investing in the potential of one strategicallylocated area at a time, with clear knowledge of each area's strength and limitations insustainability terms.

ConclusionPlanners in contemporary American cities are confronted with two competing realities:a professional emphasis on sustainable urban formöwalkable, compact, diverseöand apublic attitude that is often supportive oföor at least indifferent towardöprivateproperty rights, limited government intervention, homogenous land-use patterns, andautomobile-based development. This contrast is particularly pronounced in parts of theSouthwest, where planning intervention does not have a strong tradition.

The result is that planners are often challenged to pursue the goal of sustainableurban form in places that are largely unsustainable. Phoenix is a prime example, acity famous for its sprawling development pattern, car dependency, and inefficientuse of resources. But it is important to recognize that cities like Phoenix are theresult of particular ideas and choices, not the workings of some invisible hand. Suchideas and choices can be changedöeven in the face of markets and politicsöandplanners are in a position to influence the direction of that change via their stock intrade: urban plans. While it may be impossible to transform Phoenix into a moresustainable urban place in the near term, it may not be unreasonable to channelsupport toward strategically located pockets of sustainable urbanism. If planners cangarner support, they can help seemingly unsustainable places grow in more sustainableways, one neighborhood at a time.

In keeping with that modest objective, the method I demonstrate looks at therelationship between different kinds of retrofitting nodes and how they measure upin terms of sustainable urban form. With this knowledge, planners can propose strate-gically located interventions that focus on promoting sustainability in informed ways,addressing explicit deficiencies. If the goal is to coerce future development into a moresustainable urban form, it would be important to understand how a particular areameasures up on different sustainable urban form criteria. Different kinds of nodeswill have different strengths and weaknesses, and therefore different requirements forretrofitting. For example, nodes could be defined by a cluster of public and retail space,or perhaps a neighborhood corridor or section of street could be identified as a poten-tial node type. Planners can work with constituents to develop a range of alternativeretrofitting nodes to evaluate.

Beyond this, the quantification of sustainable urban form accomplishes two impor-tant tasks. First, it provides a degree of objectivity in determining investment priorities.

974 E Talen

The measurement of urban form has lately become a familiar task, commonly used tomodel and evaluate alternative development scenarios. The method I propose uses theevaluation of urban form in a slightly different context, but the goal is similar: assistingplanners with tools for more effective policy intervention. Second, because the methodinvolves a layered, GIS-based analysis, it is geared to presenting alternatives ratherthan end-states. A variety of alternatives can be generated by using different measuresof sustainable urban form.

Planners devoted to the idea of sustainable urban form will need to work withinexisting parameters to advance their goals. Sustainable neighborhood form cannot beforced on anyone, least of all in places that have been historically resistant to land-useplanning. The goal of sprawl retrofit is not to force sustainable urban form, but to lookfor sustainable urban potential and strengthen it wherever feasible. In a city dominatedby sprawl, this can be legitimately cast as a way of providing more choice.

ReferencesAlexander C, 1965, À city is not a tree''Architectural Forum 122(April) 58 ^ 62; (May) 58 ^ 61Beatley T, 1999 Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities (Island Press,Washington, DC)Breheny M (Ed.), 1992 Sustainable Development and Urban Form (Pion, London)Burchell RW, Lowenstein G, DolphinW R, Galley C, Downs A, Seskin S, Still K G, Moore T,

1998 Costs of Sprawlö2000 (National Academy Press,Washington, DC)Burchell RW,Downs A,McCann B,Mukherji S, 2005 Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked

Development (Island Press,Washington, DC)Burton E, 2002, ` Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities''Environment and Planning

B: Planning and Design 29 219 ^ 250Carmona M, HeathT, OcT,Tiesdell S, 2003 Public Places, Urban Spaces:The Dimensions of Urban

Design (Architectural Press, Oxford)Cervero R, 2009, ` Public transport and sustainable urbanism: global lessons'', in Transit Oriented

Development:Making ItHappenEds CCurtis, J Renne, L Bertolini (Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey)pp 22 ^ 35

Cervero R, Kockelman K, 1997, ` Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity and design''Transportation Research Part D 2 199 ^ 219

Cervero R,Wu K-L, 1998, ` Sub-centring and commuting: evidence from the San Francisco BayArea, 1980 ^ 90 Urban Studies 35 1059 ^ 1076

Chiras D,Wann D, 2003 Superbia! 31Ways to Create Sustainable Neighborhoods (New SocietyPublishers, Gabriola Island, BC)

Christensen J, 2008 Big Box Reuse (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)Clemente O, Ewing R, Handy S, Brownson R,Winson E, 2005 Measuring Urban Design Qualities:

An Illustrated Field Manual (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ)http://www.activelivingresearch.org/index.php/Tools and Measures/312

CNU, 2000 Charter of the New Urbanism Congress for the New Urbanism, Eds M Leccese,K McCormick (McGraw-Hill, NewYork)

CNU, 2005Malls IntoMainstreets: An In-depthGuide toTransformingDeadMalls IntoCommunitiesin cooperationwith theUSEnvironmental ProtectionAgency, Congress for the NewUrbanism,Chicago, IL

Collins W S, 2005 The Emerging Metropolis: Phoenix, 1944 ^ 1973 Arizona State Parks Board,Phoenix, AZ

Colquhoun I, 2004 Design Out Crime: Creating Safe and Sustainable Communities (ArchitecturalPress, London)

Condon P M, Cavens D, Miller N, 2009 Urban Planning Tools for Climate Change Mitigation(Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA)

Davis J A, 1996, ` Interjurisdictional transport conflict in the Phoenix Metropolitan area: a studyof the local state'' Cities 13(3) 175 ^ 185

Dittmar H, Ohland G, 2003 The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-oriented Development(Island Press,Washington, DC)

Dunham-Jones E,Williamson J, 2008Retrofitting Suburbia: UrbanDesign Solutions for RedesigningSuburbs (JohnWiley, Hoboken, NJ)

Ellin N, 2006 Integral Urbanism (Routledge, NewYork)


Ewing R, Bartholomew K,Winkelman S,Walters J, Chen D, 2008a Growing Cooler: The Evidenceon Urban Development and Climate Change (Urban Land Institute,Washington, DC)

Ewing R, Bartholomew K,Winkelman S,Walters J, Anderson G, 2008b, ` Urban development andclimate change'' Journal of Urbanism 1 201 ^ 216

Farr D, 2008 Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature (JohnWiley, Hoboken, NJ)Forsyth A, HearstM, Oakes JM, SchmitzMK, 2008, ` Design and destinations: factors influencing

walking and total physical activity'' Urban Studies 45 1973 ^ 1996Frey H, 1999 Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form (Taylor and Francis,

London)GammageG Jr, 2003Phoenix in Perspective: ReflectionsonDeveloping theDesert (Herberger Center

for Design Excellence, Tempe, AZ)Giles-Corti B, Donovan R J, 2003, ` Relative influences on individual, social environmental and

physical environmental correlates of walking''American Journal of Public Health 931583 ^ 1589

Gober P, 2006 Metropolitan Phoenix: Placemaking and Community Building in the Desert(University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA)

Goodchild B, 1994, ` Housing design, urban form and sustainable development'' Town PlanningReview 65 143 ^ 158

Grannis R, 2009 From the Ground Up: Translating Geography into Community through NeighborNetworks (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)

Greenwald M J, Boarnet M G, 2001, ` Built environment as a determinant of walking behaviour:analyzing non-work pedestrian travel in Portland, Oregon'' Transportation Research Recordnumber 1780, 33 ^ 42

Hall J S, Karnig A K, 1984 UrbanVillages/Council Districts: The FutureöOr Frustration? (Centerfor Public Affairs, Tempe, AZ)

Handy S, Sallis J F,Weber D, Maibach E, Hollander M, 2008, ` Is support for traditionally designedcommunities growing? Evidence from two national surveys'' Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 74 209 ^ 221

Hayden D, 2003 Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820 ^ 2000 (Pantheon,NewYork)

Heath G W, Brownson R C, Kruger J, Miles R, Powell K E, Ramsey LT, Task Force onCommunity Preventive Services, 2006, ` The effectiveness of urban design and land use andtransport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review'' Journal ofPhysical Activity and Health 3 (supplement 1) S55 ^ S76

Hillier B, Hanson J, 1984 The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)ITE, 2005 Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares forWalkable

Communities Institute of Transportation Engineers,Washington, DCJabareen Y R, 2006, ``Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models and concepts'' Journal

of Planning Education and Review 26(1) 38 ^ 52Jacobs A, Appleyard D,1987, ` Toward an urban design manifesto''Journal of the American Planning

Association 53(1) 112 ^ 120Jacobs J, 1961The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Vintage Books, New York)Jenks M, Dempsey N (Eds), 2005 Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities (Architectural

Press, London)Jenks M, Burton E,Williams K (Eds), 1996 The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?

(E &FN Spon, London)Knaap G, Song Y, Nedovic-Budic Z, 2007, ` Measuring patterns of urban development: new

intelligence for the war on sprawl'' Local Environment 12 239 ^ 257Kunstler J H, 1994 The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-made

Landscape (Free Press, NewYork)Larsen L, Alameddin D, 2007, ` The evolution of early Phoenix: valley business elite, land

speculation, and the emergence of planning'' Journal of Planning History 6(2) 87 ^ 113Leinberger C B, 2008 The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream (Island Press,

Washington, DC)Levine J, Inam A, Tong G, 2005, À choice-based rationale for land use and transportation

alternativesöevidence from Boston and Atlanta'' Journal of Planning Education and Research24 317 ^ 330

Lukez P, 2007 Suburban Transformations (Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, NJ)Lynch K, 1981Good City Form (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)

976 E Talen

Marshall A, 2000 How CitiesWork: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads not Taken (University of TexasPress, Austin, TX)

MazmanianDA,KraftME,1999Toward SustainableCommunities:Transition andTransformationsin Environmental Policy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)

Mehaffy M, Porta S, Rofe Y, Salingaros N, 2009, ` Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets: theèmergent neighborhoods' model'' Urban Design International 15(1) 22 ^ 46

MichelsonW H, 1977 Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfaction(Oxford University Press, NewYork)

Miles R, Song Y, 2009, ` `Good' neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon: focus on both social andphysical environments'' Journal of Urban Affairs 31 491 ^ 509

Morrison Institute, 2008Megapolitan: Arizona's Sun CorridorMorrison Institute for Public Policy,Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Moudon AV, Lee C, 2003, ` Walking and bicycling: an evaluation of environmental auditinstruments''American Journal of Health Promotion 18 21 ^ 37

Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle A D, Garvin C, Johnson D, Schmid T L,Weathers R D, Lin L,2006, ` Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: theoretical and empirical insights''Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3 (supplement 1) S99 ^ S117

Murray A T, Davis R, 2001, ` Equity in regional service provision'' Journal of Regional Science41 577 ^ 600

Newman P, Jennings I, 2008Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices (Island Press,Washington, DC)

Newman P WG, Kenworthy J R, 2006, ` Urban design to reduce automobile dependence''Opolis:An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies 2(1) 35 ^ 52

Norman G J, Nutter S K, Ryan S, Sallis J F, Calfas K J, Patrick K, 2006, ` Community design andaccess to recreational facilities as correlates of adolescent physical activity and body-massindex'' Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3 (supplement 1) S118 ^ S128

Nyden P, Maly M, Lukehart J, 1997, ``The emergence of stable racially and ethnically diverse urbancommunities: a case study of nine US cities''Housing Policy Debate 8 491 ^ 533

Owen D, 2009 Green Metropolis:Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less are the Keysto Sustainability (Riverhead Hardcover, NewYork)

Peterson R D, Krivo L J, Harris M A, 2000, ` Disadvantage and neighborhood violent crime:do local institutions matter? '' Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37 31 ^ 63

Piedmont-Palladino S, Mennel T (Eds), 2009 Green Community (Planners Press, Chicago, IL)Popkin S J, Levy D K, Buron L, 2009, ` Has HOPE VI transformed residents' lives? New evidence

from the HOPE VI panel study''Housing Studies 24 477 ^ 502Porter DR (Ed.), 2009 The Practice of Sustainable Development (Urban Land Institute,Washington,

DC)Roseland M, 2005 Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and Their Governments

(New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC)Rybczynski W, 2009, ` The green case for cities'' The Atlantic October, http://www.thatlantic.com/

doc/200910/solar-panelsSalingaros N A, 1998, ` Theory of the urban web'' Journal of Urban Design 3 53 ^ 71Sallis J F, Bauman A, Pratt M, 1998, ` Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical

activity''American Journal of Preventive Medicine 15 379 ^ 397Scheer B, 2001, ` The anatomy of sprawl'' Places: A Forum of Environmental Design 14(2) 25 ^ 37Scheer B, 2010 Typology and Urban Transformation (Planners Press,Washington, DC)Schipper J, 2008 Disappearing Desert: The Growth of Phoenix and the Culture of Sprawl (University

of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK)Sobel L, Bodzin S, 2002 Greyfields Into Goldfields: Dead Malls Become Living Neighborhoods

(Congress for the New Urbanism, Chicago, IL)Song Y, Knaap G-J, 2004, ` Measuring urban form: is Portland winning the war on sprawl? ''

Journal of the American Planning Association 70 210 ^ 225Speir C, Stephenson K, 2002, ``Does sprawl cost us all? Isolating the effects of housing patterns

on public water and sewer costs'' Journal of the American Planning Association 68 56 ^ 70Steil L, Salingaros N, Mehaffy M, 2008, ` Growing sustainable suburbs: an incremental strategy

for reconstructing sprawl'', in New Urbanism and Beyond: Designing Cities for the FutureEd. T Haas (Rizzoli, New York) pp 262 ^ 274

Stone Jr B, 2008, ` Urban sprawl and air quality in large UC cities'' Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 86 688 ^ 698

Tahchieva G, 2010 Sprawl Repair Manual (Island Press,Washington, DC)


Talen E, 1998, ` Visualizing fairness: equity maps for planners'' Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 64 22 ^ 38

Talen E, 2008 Design for Diversity: Exploring Socially Mixed Neighborhoods (Architectural Press,London)

Trancik R, 1986 Finding Lost Space (Von Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork)Turner M A, Berube A, 2009 Vibrant Neighborhoods, Successful Schools:What the Federal

Government Can Do to Foster Both (The Urban Institute,Washington, DC)ULI, 2009, ` Sustainable suburbs: developers' perspectives on transportation and compact growth'',

8 October, Urban Land Institute,Washington, DC, http://www.uli.orgUS Green Building Council, 2009 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ^ Neighborhood

Development (LEED ^ ND) US Green Building Council,Washington, DC,http://www.usgbc.org/leed/nd/

van der Ryn S, Calthorpe P, 2008 Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities,Suburbs and Towns (New Society Publisher, Gabriola Island, BC)

Walsh B, 2009, ` Recycling suburbia'' Time 12 MarchWheeler S M, 2005 Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecological

Communities (Routledge, London)Williams K, Burton E, Jenks M, 2000 Achieving Sustainable Urban Form (Spon Press, London)Yang Y, 2008, À tale of two cities: physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in metropolitan

Portland and Charlotte'' Journal of the American Planning Association 74 307 ^ 323

ß 2011 Pion Ltd and its Licensors

978 E Talen

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal researchby members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or otheronline distribution system) without permission of the publisher.

Sprawl retrofit: sustainable urban form in unsustainable places

Documents