In discussions about alternative modes of residential development, such as those proposed under the New Urbanist, Smart Growth, or sustainable cities movements, a common assumption is that planning is capable of implementing these visions. In this study I seek to ascertain the ability of planning to guide residential development. In contrast to much of the existing research into planning capability, which evaluates individual implementations, this study uses municipality-wide built-form data. Before and after comparisons are carried out for the primary study site, the town of Markham, Ontario (Canada), where a New-Urbanist-inspired development philosophy has been in place since the early 1990s. Results are compared with those from the city of Vaughan, an adjacent municipality that has maintained a market-led development approach. Findings are that planning is capable of moderately accelerating positive trends and moderately retarding negative trends.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderDTomaltyR, 2002, “Smart growth and sustainable development: challenges, solutions and policy directions”Local Environment7397–409
2.
BartlettR, 2003, “Testing the ‘Popsicle test’: realities of retail shopping in new ‘traditional neighbourhood developments’”Urban Studies401471–1485
3.
BrodyS DHighfieldW E, 2005, “Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida”Journal of the American Planning Association71159–175
4.
BrownB BCropperV L, 2001, “New urban and standard subdivisions: evaluating psychological and social goals”Journal of the American Planning Association67402–419
DodsonM EGarrettT A, 2004, “Inefficient education spending in public school districts: a case study for consolidation?”Contemporary Economic Policy22270–280
9.
DownsA, 2005, “Smart Growth: why we discuss it more than we do it”Journal of the American Planning Association71367–378
10.
DunkleyBHellingASawickiD S, 2004, “Accessibility versus scale: examining the tradeoffs in grocery stores”Journal of Planning Education and Research23387–401
11.
FerrisJ SWestE G, 2004, “Economies of scale, school violence and the optimal size of schools”Applied Economics361677–1684
12.
FilionP, 2003, “Towards Smart Growth? The difficult implementation of alternatives to urban dispersion”Canadian Journal of Urban Research12(1) 48–70
13.
FilionPMcSpurrenK, 2007, “Smart Growth and development reality: the difficult coordination of land use and transport objectives”Urban Studies44501–523
14.
FordL R, 2001, “Alleys and urban form: testing the tenets of New Urbanism”Urban Geography22268–286
15.
GordonDTammingaK, 2002, “Large-scale traditional neighbourhood development and preemptive ecosystem planning: the Markham experience, 1989–2001”Journal of Urban Design7321–340
16.
GordonDVipondS, 2005, “Gross density and New Urbanism: comparing conventional and New Urbanist suburbs in Markham, Ontario”Journal of the American Planning Association7141–54
17.
GrantJ, 2002, “Mixed use in theory and practice”Journal of the American Planning Association6871–84
18.
GrantJ, 2003, “Exploring the influence of New Urbanism in community planning practice”Journal of Architectural and Planning Research20234–253
19.
GrantJ, 2006Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice (Routledge, New York)
20.
GrantJ, 2009, “Theory and practice in planning the suburbs: challenges to implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and sustainability principles”Planning Theory and Practice1011–33
KashefM, 2007, “Architects and planners approaches to urban form and design in the Toronto region: a comparative analysis”Geoforum39414–437
23.
KeilRGrahamJ, 1998, “Reasserting nature: constructing urban environments after Fordism”, in Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium Eds BraunBCastreeN (Routledge, London)
24.
KonishiH, 2005, “Concentration of competing retail stores”Journal of Urbanism Economics58488–512
25.
KrizekK J, 2003, “Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land-use — travel behavior research and regional modeling”Journal of Planning Education and Research22207–287
26.
LeeC MAhnK H, 2003, “Is Kentlands better than Radburn? The American Garden City and New Urbanist paradigms”Journal of the American Planning Association6950–71
27.
LorchB, 2005, “Auto-dependent induced shopping: exploring the relationship between power centre morphology and consumer spatial behaviour”Canadian Journal of Urban Research14364–383
28.
LundH, 2003, “Testing the claims of New Urbanism”Journal of the American Planning Association69414–429
29.
MarkovichJHendlerS, 2006, “Beyond ‘soccer moms’”Journal of Planning Education and Research25410–427
30.
SchlossbergMPhillipsP PJohnsonBParkerB, 2005, “How do they get there? A spatial analysis of a ‘sprawl school’ in Oregon”Planning, Practice and Research20147–162
31.
SkaburskisA, 2006, “New urbanism and sprawl: a Toronto case study”Journal of Planning Education and Research25233–248
32.
SongY, 2005, “Smart Growth and urban development pattern: a comparative study”International Regional Science Review28239–265
33.
SongYKnaapG J, 2004, “Measuring urban form: is Portland winning the war on sprawl?”Journal of the American Planning Association70210–225
SteutevilleR, 2000New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Development: Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide (New Urban News, Ithaca, NY)
36.
TalenE, 1996, “After the plans: methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans”Journal of Planning Education and Research1679–91
37.
Thompson-FawcettMBondS, 2003, “Urbanist intentions for the built landscape: examples of concept and practice in England, Canada and New Zealand”Progress in Planning60147–234
38.
Vaughan Planning Department, 1991Vaughan Policy Review Phase 1: Planning Matters Shaping Vaughan's FutureCity of Vaughan, Vaughan, ON
39.
WheelerS M, 2003, “The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: implications for sustainability planning”Local Environment8317–336
