There is widespread agreement that metropolitan growth should be channeled into compact, walkable developments. New growth should include diverse housing types and mixed land uses and support pedestrian access and public transit. This article investigates how local government regulation has responded to this trend. Local development regulation is empirically examined by analyzing how much “smart growth” policies are implemented at the local level and investigating how much regulatory cultures prevent compact, pedestrian-oriented development. A typology of the kinds of local regulation used to promote smart growth is first established. Interregulatory consistency is also investigated—to what degree are cities and counties adopting frameworks consistent with smart growth? The types of developments implemented by local zoning regulations are then quantified. Results from a large-scale sample show that local jurisdictions in Illinois employ relatively low levels of smart growth-related prescriptive policies, and regulations generally run counter to smart growth development ideals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Planning Association. 1998. The principles of smart development. PAS report no. 479. Chicago: American Planning Association .
Berke, Philip R., and Maria Manta Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans . Journal of the American Planning Association66 (1): 21-33 .
4.
Bohl, Charles C. 1999. Traditional urbanism reconsidered: Traditional urbanism, new urbanism, and urban livability at the fin de siécle . Introduction to the Spring 1999 Charles and Shirley Weiss Urban Livability Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.planning.unc.edu/events/weiss.htm.
5.
Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press .
6.
Calthorpe, Peter. 2000. The region: Metropolis, city, and town. In Charter of the new urbanism, edited by Congress for the New Urbanism, 15-21. New York: McGraw-Hill .
7.
Campaign for Sensible Growth. 1999. Sensible growth in Illinois: Tools for local communities. Chicago: Chicago Metropolitan Planning Council .
8.
Center for Urban Policy Research. 1992. Impact assessment of the New Jersey interim state development plan. Trenton: New Jersey Office of State Planning .
9.
Chicago Metropolitan Planning Council. 1999. Campaign for Sensible Growth. Chicago: Chicago Metropolitan Planning Council .
10.
Congress for the New Urbanism, ed. 2000. Charter of the new urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill .
11.
Deakin, Elizabeth. 1989. Growth controls and growth management: A summary and review of empirical research. In Understanding growth management: Critical issues and a research agenda, edited by David J. Brower, David R. Godschalk, and Douglas R. Porter, 3-21. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute .
12.
Downs, Anthony. 1994. New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
13.
Downs, Anthony. 2001. What does “smart growth” really mean? Planning67 (4): 20-25 .
Dunphy, Robert T., and Kimberly M. Fisher. 1994. Transportation, congestion, and density: New insights . Paper presented at the 73rd annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
16.
Ewing, Reid. 1996. Best development practices—Doing the right thing and making money at the same time. Chicago: American Planning Association .
17.
Ewing, Reid. 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association63 (1): 107-126 .
18.
Glickfeld, Madelyn, and Ned Levine. 1992. Regional growth...local reaction: The enactment and effects of local growth control and management measures in California. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy .
19.
Godschalk, David R., et al. 1976. Defining the constitutional issues of growth management. Chapel Hill: The Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina .
20.
Goode, Ann Eberhart, Elizabeth Collaton, and Charles Bartsch. 1999. Smart growth. Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute . Retrieved from http://www.nemw.org/Ersmartgrowth.htm.
21.
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association63 (1): 95-106 .
22.
Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of California. 2000. The California planners' 2000 book of lists. Sacramento: Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of California .
23.
Haines, Valerie A. 1986. Energy and urban form: A human ecological critique . Urban Affairs Quarterly21 (3): 337-353 .
24.
Holtzclaw, John. 1994. Using residential patterns and transit to decrease auto dependence and cost. San Francisco: National Resources Defense Council .
25.
LDR International, Inc. 1999. A smart growth audit for Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. New York: LDR International, Inc .
26.
Meck, Stuart. 1999. Executive summary, status of state planning reform. In Planning communities for the 21st century, edited by the American Planning Association, 1-4. Chicago: American Planning Association .
27.
Newman, Peter W. G., and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1989. Cities and automobile dependence: A sourcebook. Aldershot, UK: Gower Technical .
28.
Pendall, R. 1999. Do land use controls cause sprawl? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26 (4): 555-571 .
29.
Pivo, Gary, Norman Abbott, and Kit Perkins. 1992. Local government planning tools. Seattle, WA: Growth Management Planning and Research Clearinghouse .
30.
Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The costs of sprawl, detailed cost analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office .
31.
Salkin, Patricia E. 1999. Reform proposals by the thousand. In Planning communities for the 21st century, edited by the American Planning Association, 85-100. Chicago: American Planning Association .
32.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1996. County and city databook. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office .
