We pretty well covered this material earlier in the Platt text, but it is briefly raised again here within the context of "sprawl."

Growth management vs. "Smart growth"

Is Growth management equal to growth limits?

Is Smart Growth equal to UGBs and density?

People and communities around the country are demanding some form of "growth management." Of course, it is easier for citizens to call for this than for them to define what they really want, and many are not prepared for the results of growth management (e.g., they hate traffic but they don’t wan to use mass transit either).

Growth management vs. "Smart growth": does smart growth have any real planning and land use meaning?

Be sure to examine the various definitions and principles of "Smart" growth and be ready to criticize them.

Is Open space acquisition a tool to fight sprawl?

This chapter gives lots of good reasons why communities might want to protect open space: e.g., retain agricultural economy and culture, views, recreation, habitat, etc.

But how much of a role can open space play in shaping/limiting the geographical footprint of development? I’m skeptical, especially when the example most cited is Boulder’s open space, probably the largest per capita in the nation, and one of jut a few I can think of that have shape-altering effects on the net urban footprint.

Still, open space is an important tool and goal in contemporary land use, so be sure to be familiar with the tools for open space: Table 11.1. They range from more regulatory to more incentive and fee-simple acquisition approaches. Even if you agree with me that OS programs are generally too small to limit the net footprint of dev., this is still a very important land use issue outside of the debate over sprawl.

Compact/mixed use development

Neo-traditional neighborhoods, transit-oriented design

TND’s

TODs

Revitalizing old downtowns, inner-ring suburbs, new suburban towns

Village main streets

Brownfield sites

Greyfield sites

The density issue!!!!

First, let’s review the link b/w/ transportation and land use:

Land Use Driving and Shaping forces:

Issues: "trip generation"

Local: neighborhood density

Regional: patterns of residential, commercial, retail, offices, etc.

Important point: most commutes no long suburban to core, now cross-commuting.

80% of trips not about work!

The road and highway infrastructure built up over decades, even centuries.

This is sunk investment and a "structuring" force.

Mode issues:

Car

Bus

Fixed guideway (train, trolley, etc.)

Regionally-balanced transport systems: road, rail, buses. Basiclaly a problem of network, ridership, and funding (fares, fiscal, capital, etc.).

Innovations: Spur-Bus; O-Bahn

Needs link to regional to handle other transport needs, like airport, recreational, etc..

Inter-city

Other:

EG: the I-25 ski area problem !!!!!!!!

The over-riding LOGIC of cars on road network in modern, suburban metro geography

The self-reinforcing demands of automobiles (fix roads before spending in mass transit—the catch 22)(

The personal appeal of cars, and the involution of autos into household necessity (same as food, shelter, education).

Types of trips and life