This article evaluates the efficacy of smart growth instruments in bringing forth compact urban development and neotraditional neighborhood design. The article first sets forth a set of quantitative measures that operationalize five dimensions of compact urban development and neotraditional neighborhood design: street network connectivity, density, land use mix, accessibility, and pedestrian walkability. Using these measures, three study areas are evaluated to determine how well their urban development patterns meet smart growth principles. These study areas are Portland, Oregon; Orange County, Florida; and Montgomery County, Maryland. Findings indicate that all three areas have quite similar development patterns. Findings also suggest that smart growth instruments have altered subdivision design, which is a traditional aspect of physical urban planning. However, smart growth plans have not branched out into non-traditional aspects of planning to encourage mixed land uses and to improve regional accessibility.
Abbott, C.2002. Planning a sustainable city: The promise and performance of Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary. In Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences and policy responses, ed. G. D. Squires, 207-235. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
2.
Allen, E.2001. INDEX: Software for community indicators. In Planning supporting systems: Integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools, ed. R. K. Brail and R. E. Klosterman, 229-261. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
3.
American Planning Association. 1998. The principles of smart development. PAS report no. 479. Chicago: American Planning Association.
4.
Benfield, F. K., M. D. Raimi, and D. D. Chen. 1999. Once there were greenfields: How urban sprawl is undermining America’s environment, economy and social fabric. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council.
5.
Berke, P. R., and M. M. Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association66: 21-33.
6.
Daisa, J. M., T. Kloster, and R. Ledbetter. 1998. Does increased street connectivity improve the operation and regional streets? Case studies from the Portland Metro Regional Street Design Study. In Transportation, land use, and air quality: Making the connection, ed. S. Easa and D. Samdahl. Conference Proceedings, May 17-20, 1998, the Benson, Portland, OR. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
7.
Duany, A., and E. Plater-Zyberk. 1992. The second coming of the American small town. Plan Canada, May, pp. 6-13.
8.
Frank, L., and P. Engelke. 2001. The built environment and human activity patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on human health. Journal of Planning Literature16: 202-218.
9.
Fulton, W., R. Pendall, M. Nguyen, and A. Harrison. 2002. Who sprawls most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/fulton.pdf (accessed March 15, 2002).
10.
Galster, G., R. Hanson, M. R. Ratcliffe, H. Wolman, S. Coleman, and J. Freihage. 2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate12: 681-717.
11.
Hirschhorn, J.2001. Growth tool kit: Maintain farmland and other working lands. National Resources Policy Studies. http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/ (accessed January 3, 2003).
12.
Katz, P.1994. The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Knaap, G. 2000. The urban growth boundary in metropolitan Portland, Oregon: Research, rhetoric, and reality. Presented at the workshop on urban growth management policies in the United States, Japan, and Korea, June 23-24. Excerpts retrieved from http://www.metro.dst.or.us/growth/ugbursa/apa_article.html (accessed March 10, 2002).
14.
Maryland Citizen Group. 2001. Open space preservation: The cause for suburban sprawl?http://secondcrossing.org/news/newsfiles/builditanyway/openspacepreservation.ht (accessed January 18, 2003).
15.
Metropolitan Service District. 1992. The Metro 2040 Growth Concept. Portland, OR: Metropolitan Service District.
16.
Metropolitan Service District. 1996. 2040 Regional Framework Plan and Functional Plan. Portland, OR: Metropolitan Service District.
17.
Metropolitan Service District. 2002. Metro at a glance. Portland, OR: Metropolitan Service District.
18.
Montgomery County. 1987. Montgomery County Commission on the Future, envisioning our future. http://www.mc-mncppc.org/info/publication_list.shtm (accessed January 3, 2003).
19.
Multnomah County. 1991. Special design guidelines for the design zones. http://www.planning.ci.portland.or.us/pdf/dg_central_eastside.pdf (accessed January 3, 2003).
20.
Nelson, A. C.1994. Oregon’s urban growth boundary policy as a landmark planning tool. In Planning the Oregon way: A twenty-year evaluation, ed. C. Abbott, D. Howe, and S. Adler. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
21.
1000 Friends of Oregon. 1991. The LUTRAC alternative. http://www.friends.org/resources/lut_vol3.html (accessed May 23, 2001).
22.
Orange County. 1998. Planning development framework. http://www.orangecountyfl.net/dept/growth/planning/Dev_Framework/ (accessed January 2, 2003).
23.
O’Toole, R.1998. Ten transit myths. Reason Public Policy Study no. 245. http://www.rppi.org/ps245.html (accessed May 23, 2001).
24.
Song, Y., and G. J. Knaap. 2004. Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl?Journal of the American Planning Association70: 210-225.
25.
Southworth, M.1997. Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association63: 28-44.
26.
Staley, S. R., J. G. Edgens, and G. S. Mildner. 1999. A line in the land: Urban-growth boundaries, smart growth, and housing affordability. http://www.rppi.org/urban/ps263.html (accessed May 23, 2001).
27.
Turner, M., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O’Neill. 2001. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: Pattern and process. New York: Springer Verlag.
28.
Washington County. 1997. Community development code. http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/lut/plan01/comdev.htm (accessed May 23, 2001).
29.
Wassmer, R.2000. Urban sprawl in a U.S. metropolitan area: Ways to measure and a comparison of the Sacramento area to similar metropolitan areas in California and the U.S. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper. http://www.lincolninst.edu/workpap/wpap56.html (accessed May 23, 2001).
