Ashwani Vasishth <ashwani@csun.edu> [Last update: April 13, 2004]
Alminana, Robert & Paul Crawford & Andres
Duany & Laura Hall & Steve Lawton & David Sargent. 2003. White Paper On Smart Growth
Policy In California.
Prepared for the State of California, GovernorÕs Office of Planning and
Research, 10 February 2003. <http://fisherandhall.com/OPR/WhitePaper.pdf>
Baldasarre, Mark. 2002. Special Survey On Land
Use. San Francisco: Public
Policy Institute of California.
<http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_1102MBS.pdf> [Californians recognize the challenges facing this
fastgrowing state Ð from too much traffic congestion to too little affordable
housing Ð but most do not experience these troubles in their everyday lives,
according to a new survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of
California (PPIC) and the Hewlett, Irvine, and Packard Foundations. The result?
Residents are deeply ambivalent about their own part Ð as well as their
governmentÕs role Ð in creating solutions.]
Bertaud, Alain.
2002. "Clearing
the Air In Atlanta: Transit and Smart Growth Or Conventional Economics?" Accessed March 24, 2004. http://alain-bertaud.com/images/AB_Clearing_The_Air_in%20Atlanta_1.pdf. [ARC Regional Transportation Plan addresses the
problem of pollution and congestion in Atlanta by proposing to expand the
existing transit network and to reform land use to promote a more intensive use
of the existing built-up area. This paper argues that, first, the current
spatial structure of Atlanta is incompatible with a sizable transit market
share; and second, AtlantaÕs spatial structure is so resilient that it cannot
change significantly in the next 20 years, even if draconian land use
regulations were adopted. The paper concludes that technology and congestion
pricing is the only way to solve the problem of congestion and pollution in the
long term. However while voters still believe that federally subsidized transit
and smart growth will solve the congestion and pollution problem they are
unlikely to support a solution which would increase their direct transport
costs even if it decreases congestion and shorten commuting trips.]
Berube, Alan & Benjamin Forman. 2002. Living
on the Edge: Decentralization Within Cities in the 1990s. Washington DC: Center on Urban &
Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings
Institution. <http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/berubeformanedge.pdf> ["Our analysis of population changes within cities
reveals that decentralization is occurring even inside city borders." * Large
cities exhibited uneven growth patterns in the 1990s; * While growing cities were primarily made up of growing
neighborhoods, nine such cities
actually saw a majority of their neighborhoods decline in population; * Over 60 percent of central city
population growth occurred in
"outer-ring" neighborhoods,
compared to just 11 percent in "inner-core" neighborhoods; * About two-thirds of all "downtown"
census tracts gained population, including many in cities that lost population
overall.]
Center for Transportation Studies. 2003. Market
Choices And Fair Prices: Research Suggests Surprising Answers to Regional
Growth Dilemmas. Report #17 in the Series: Transportation and Regional
Growth Study, University of Minnesota.
CTS 03-02. Accessed March
24, 2004. <http://www.cts.umn.edu/trg/publications/pdfreport/TRGrpt17.pdf>
Cohen, James R.
2002. "Maryland's
"Smart Growth": Using Incentives to Combat Sprawl," in G. Squires (ed). 2002. Urban
Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses. Washington, D.C:
Urban Institute Press.
Accessed March 24, 2004.
<http://www.arch.umd.edu/URSP/People/faculty/jcohensgchapter.pdf>
Crane, Randall & Daniel Chatman. 2002. "Traffic
and Sprawl: Evidence from U.S. Commuting, 1985 To 1997," Planning and Markets, v6n1 (Sep
2003): <http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume6/v6i1a3s1.html>
David Suzuki Foundation. 2003. Understanding
Sprawl: A CitizenÕs Guide.
Vancouver, BC: David Suzuki Foundation. <http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Climate/Ontario/Understanding_Sprawl.pdf>
David Suzuki Foundation. 2003. Driven To Action:
Stopping Sprawl In Your Community. Vancouver, BC: David Suzuki Foundation. <http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Sprawl.asp>
De Cerreno, Allison L.C. & Isabella Pierson. 2004. Context
Sensitive Solutions in Large Central Cities. Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management, NY
University. Accessed March 24,
2004. <http://www.nyu.edu/wagner/transportation/research/research_docs/CSS%20report%20FINAL%202-9-04.pdf>
Downs, Anthony.
"What Does
'Smart Growth' Really Mean?"
Reprinted from Planning magazine, American Planning
Association. Accessed on March 26,
2004, <http://www.planning.org/PUBS/plng01/april012.htm>. [Can groups as different as homebuilders and transit
advocates be using the term in the same way? The answer is noÑprompting one
expert to offer advice about how to resolve deep conflicts.]
Downs, Anthony.
2003. "Growth
Management, Smart Growth, and Affordable Housing." Keynote speech given at Brookings
Symposium on the Relationship Between Affordable Housing and Growth Management,
May 29, 2003. Accessed March 26,
2004, <http://www.brookings.edu/views/speeches/downs/20030529_downs.htm>
El Nasser, Haya & Paul Overberg. 2001. "Wide
Open Spaces: The USA Today Sprawl Index," USA Today, (Feb 22, 2001). <http://www.usatoday.com/news/sprawl/main.htm> [The USA Today looks at changes in population density
between 1990 and 1999, and uses these as a proxy for "sprawl". By this definition, Los Angeles is less
"sprawled" than Portland, and Nashville is worse than both.]
English, Mary R. 1999. "A
Guide for Smart Growth. " Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 14.3 (1999): 35-39. ProQuest. Los Angeles Public Library, Los Angeles, CA.. 11 Mar. 2004
<http://www.proquest.com/> [Sprawl sucks the life out of older downtowns and neighborhoods, and it
destroys community character and the countryside. Smart growth is about finding
ways to manage sprawl and improve the total quality of life.]
Ewing, Reid & Rolf Pendall & Don Chen. 2002. Measuring
Sprawl and Its Impact.
Smart Growth America.
Accessed on March 25, 2004, <http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/sprawlreport.html>. [It represents a rigorous effort to measure the
characteristics of sprawl and their impacts on quality of life. In this study,
sprawl is defined as low-density development with residential, shopping and office areas that are
rigidly segregated; a lack of thriving activity centers; and limited choices in
travel routes. These features constitute four factors that can then be measured
and analyzed: 1) Residential density; 2) Neighborhood mix of homes, jobs, and
services; 3) Strength of centers,
such as business districts; and 4) Accessibility via the street network. All of
these are well-established descriptors of urban sprawl in the relevant academic
literature, but this study represents the first effort to attempt to measure
sprawl in all of these dimensions.]
Ewing, Reid & Tom Schmid & Richard
Killingsworth & Amy Zlot & Stephen Raudenbush. "Building the
EvidenceÑU.S. Approaches: Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical
Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity," American Journal of Health Promotion, v18n1 (Sep/Oct 2003): 47-57. <http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/pdf/JournalArticle.pdf> [This ecologic study reveals that urban form could be
significantly associated with some forms of physical activity and some health
outcomes. More research is needed to refine measures of urban form, improve
measures of physical activity, and control for other individual and
environmental influences on physical activity, obesity, and related health
outcomes.]
Fishman, Robert. 2000. "The Death and
Life of American Regional Planning,"
107-126 in Bruce Katz (ed.), 2000, Reflections on
Regionalism. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
<http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/reflections/essay4.pdf>
Fulton, William
& Rolf Pendall & Mai Nguyen & Alicia Harrison. 2001. Who
Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. Brookings Institution Survey Series,
Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy. July 2001.
Accessed on March 25, 2004, <http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/fulton.pdf>. [An analysis of the
density trends in every metropolitan area in the United States between 1982 and
1997 reveals: Most metropolitan areas in the United States
are adding urbanized land at a much faster rate than they are adding
population; The West is home to some of the densest
metropolitan areas in the nation; Metropolitan
areas tend to consume less land for urbanization-relative to population
growth-when they are growing rapidly in population, rely heavily on public
water and sewer systems, and have high levels of immigrant residents; Metropolitan
areas tend to consume more land for urbanization-again, relative to population
growth-if they are already high-density metro areas and if they have fragmented
local governments.]
Galster, George
& Royce Hanson & Michael R. Ratcliffe & Harold Wolman & Stephen
Coleman & Jason Freihage.
2001. "Wrestling
Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept," Housing Policy Debate, v12n4
(2001): 681-717. <http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/HPD_1204_galster.pdf> [The literature on
urban sprawl confuses causes, consequences, and conditions. This article presents a conceptual
definition of sprawl based on eight distinct dimensions of land use patterns:
density, continuity, concentration, clustering, centrality, nuclearity, mixed
uses, and proximity. Sprawl is
defined as a condition of land use that is represented by low values on one of
more of these dimensions. The
approach is tested by its application to 13 urbanized areas.]
Geller, Alyson L. 2003.
"Smart Growth: A Prescription for Livable Cities," American Journal of Public Health 93.9 (2003): 1410-1415. ProQuest. Los Angeles Public Library, Los Angeles, CA.. 11 Mar. 2004
<http://www.proquest.com/> [In the US, public health and urban planning professionals have blamed a
phenomenon called sprawl for a host of problems, from obesity and traffic
injuries to environmental destruction. Geller highlights the movement called
Smart Growth, which challenges the way the people build, work, and live; and
also encourages the people to look at communities not only as places to live
but as vehicles to promote health and well-being.]
General Accounting Office. 2000. Community Development:
Local Growth Issues Ð Federal Opportunities and Challenges. Washington, DC: United States General
Accounting Office. [Across the nation, local communities
are pursuing a variety of growth-related strategies in response to a range of
challenges and concerns. For example, Columbus, Ohio, is encouraging growth and
economic development and is concerned about providing sufficient water and
wastewater infrastructure to support this growth. In Atlanta, Georgia, where
rapid population growth has led to serious traffic congestion and air quality
problems, state and local decision-makers are considering higher density
development around established business and population centers and are planning
for greater use of public transportation. Yet despite their concerns about
growth-related challenges, local communities are placing a high value on
economic development when planning for the future. Overall, infrastructure
needs, traffic congestion, and the adequacy of their local tax base for
supporting schools and services were the growth-related concerns most
frequently cited by the cities and counties responding to our survey. When
asked about their priorities in planning for the future, the greatest number of
counties cited increasing their local tax base, attracting businesses, and
enhancing transportation systemsÑmirroring their areas of highest concern.
Cities cited similar planning priorities, but for them, revitalizing their
downtown areas was more often a high or very high priority than enhancing
transportation systems.]
Gordon, Peter & Harry W. Richardson. 2000. "Critiquing
SprawlÕs Critics," Policy
Analysis, n365 (Jan 2000): 1-18.
Accessed on March 25, 2004, <http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/pa365.pdf>. [The argument that urban sprawl gives
rise to excessively costly infrastructure, excessive transportation costs, and
environmental damage is wrong. The facts point directly to the opposite
conclusion. Finally, the belief that urban sprawl leads to social pathologies
is without foundation. No one knows the recipe for good or bad community
formations or the best spatial mix of housing that would accommodate myriad
personal preferences. The American migration to the suburbs and exurbs can, in
part, be seen as attempts by homeowners to move out of harmÕs way and protect
their property rights. The controls proposed by sprawlÕs critics would add to
the "push" forces, resulting ironically in more sprawl rather than less.]
Haughey, Richard. 2001. Urban
Infill Housing: Myth and Fact. Washington, DC: ULIÐthe Urban Land
Institute. <http://research.uli.org/content/Reports/PolicyPapers/PUB_U22.pdf> [A wide variety of housing is being constructed or
renovated in response to emerging market demand from people moving back to the
city. Urban infill housing, including small-, medium-, and large- scale
projects with single- family houses, townhouses, apartment buildings and
condominiums, lofts and co- ops, is being constructed and quickly absorbed.
This booklet is intended to dispel misperceptions about urban infill housing.]
International City/County Management
Association. Why Smart
Growth: A Primer.
Washington, DC: ICMA; Smart Grwoth America. <http://www.epa.gov/livability/pdf/WhySmartGrowth_bk.pdf> [In communities across the nation, there is a growing
concern that current development patternsÑdominated by what some call
"sprawl"Ñare no longer in the long-term interest of our cities, existing
suburbs, small towns, rural communities, or wilderness areas. Though supportive
of growth, communities are questioning the economic costs of abandoning
infrastructure in the city, only to rebuild it further out. They are questioning
the social costs of the mismatch between new employment locations in the
suburbs and the available work-force in the city. They are questioning the
wisdom of abandoning "brownfields" in older communities, eating up the open
space and prime agricultural lands at the suburban fringe, and polluting the
air of an entire region by driving farther to get places. Spurring the smart
growth movement are demographic shifts, a strong environmental ethic, increased
fiscal concerns, and more nuanced views of growth. The result is both a new
demand and a new opportunity for smart growth.]
Katz, Bruce.
2002. "Smart Growth: The
Future of the American Metropolis?"
CASE Paper 58, July 2002.
Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of
Economics. <http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper58.pdf> [In the past few years, widespread frustration with
sprawling development patterns has precipitated an explosion in innovative
thinking and action across the United States. This new thinking Ð generally
labeled as "smart growth" Ð contends that the shape and quality of metropolitan
growth in America are no longer desirable or sustainable. It argues that
metropolitan areas could grow in radically different ways if major government
policies on land use, infrastructure and taxation were overhauled. This essay
discusses the current state of smart growth and metropolitan thinking in the
United States. It outlines the demographic, market and development trends that
are affecting metropolitan areas and the consequences of these trends for
central cities, older suburbs, newer communities and low-income and minority
families. It describes how current government policies facilitate the excessive
decentralization of people and jobs and how smart growth reforms are being
enacted, particularly at the state level, to shape new, more urban-friendly,
growth patterns. It concludes by identifying the major challenges that smart
growth needs to address if it is going to succeed in shaping new, sustainable
metropolitan communities.]
Katz, Bruce & Amy Liu. "Moving Beyond
Sprawl," The Brookings Review 18.2 (2000): 31-34.
<http://www.brookings.edu/press/review/spring2000/katz.htm> [In the past few years, widespread frustration with
sprawling development patterns has precipitated an explosion in metropolitan
thinking and action across the US. A new policy language - smart growth,
livable communities, metropolitanism, sustainable development - has emerged to
describe efforts to curb sprawl, preserve open space, and balance growth and is
now common not only among political, civic, and corporate leaders, but also
among developers and others in the real estate industry. Sprawl, in the end, is
not just about too much growth. It is also about too little growth in many
parts of metropolitan America. Understanding that linkage and bridging that
divide is the key to resolving some major social and economic challenges.]
Litman, Todd.
2003. Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy
Institute. <http://www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf>. [This paper evaluates various criticisms of Smart
Growth. It defines the concept of Smart Growth, contrasts it with sprawl, and
describes common Smart Growth strategies. It examines various criticisms of
Smart Growth, including the claim that it does not reflect consumer
preferences, infringes on freedom, increases traffic congestion and air
pollution, reduces housing affordability, results in socially undesirable
levels of density, increases public service costs, requires wasteful transit
subsidies and is unjustified. Some specific criticsÕ papers are examined. This
analysis indicates that many claims by critics reflect an incomplete
understanding of Smart Growth, and inaccurate analysis. Critics identify some
legitimate problems which must be addressed to optimize Smart Growth, but present
no convincing evidence to diminish the overall justification of Smart Growth.]
Major, Mark D.
2000. "Designing
for Context: The Use of `Space Syntax` as an Interactive Design Tool in Urban
Development," Planning
Forum, (Spring 2000):
40-56. <http://www.ar.utexas.edu/planning/forum/vol6pdfs/v6major.pdf> [Computer modeling has come a long way in the past
decade, and planners throughout the world are working on different strategies
to harness the latest technological advances.]
McCann, Barbara & Reid Ewing. 2003. Measuring the
Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Physical Activity, Obesity and
Chronic Disease.
Washington, DC: Smart Growth America; Surface Transportation Policy
Project. September 2003. <http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/pdf/HealthSprawl8.03.pdf> [This report presents the first national study to show
a clear association between the type of place people live and their activity
levels, weight, and health. The study, Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and
Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity, found that people living in counties
marked by sprawling development are likely to walk less and weigh more than
people who live in less sprawling counties. In addition, people in more
sprawling counties are more likely to suffer from hypertension (high blood
pressure). These results hold true after controlling for factors such as age,
education, gender, and race and ethnicity.]
McElfish Jr., James & Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. 2001. Smart
Growth and the Clean Water Act.
Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute. <http://www.nemw.org/SGCleanWater.pdf> [The Clean Water Act influences land use patterns and
land use patterns influence the implementation of the Clean Water Act. The
ActÕs programs have the potential to promote revitalization and development of
areas with existing infrastructure. This study investigates the relationship
between three Clean Water Act programs and "smart growth," an approach to
development that emphasizes greater density, mixed uses, redevelopment of
underused areas, transportation choices, and open space protection. These
programs can promote smart growth when federal, state, and local governments
grasp opportunities to integrate water quality and smart growth goals. Some
jurisdictions already have done so, resulting in efficiencies and environmental
benefits.]
Miller, Ansje & Brian Parkinson. 2001. Market-based
Policies for Reducing Sprawl: A Critical Overview. <http://www.redefiningprogress.org/publications/pdf/Policy_Options_Report.pdf> [The problem of unchecked growth is gaining popular
attention, as evidenced by a recent survey that found that 78% of Americans
favor policies to combat sprawl. To help policymakers achieve this public
mandate, this report presents three recent market-based policy innovations.2
These policiesÑlocation-efficient mortgages, space-based impact fees, and
split-rate property taxesÑharness the market's power to encourage denser
development close to existing infrastructure. (See center spread for a
description of why market-based policies are important.) We hope that this
report broadens understanding of these exciting policy innovations and
illustrate the unique advantages of market-based incentives in combating
sprawl.]
Mills, Edwin S. 1999.
"Truly
"Smart Growth","
The Illinois Real Estate Letter, v13n3 (Summer 1999): 1-7. <http://www.cba.uiuc.edu/orer/V13-3-1.pdf> [Much of their literature and rhetoric has been provocative;
the very use of the term "sprawl" casts the idea of growing suburbs
in an unfavorable light. (The non-pejorative term "suburbanization"
is used in this discussion.) Academic economists have weighed in on issues
relating to suburbanization. Their most important contributions have been in
the areas of metropolitan location and spatial analysis, local government tax
and expenditure analysis, and the analysis of interactions between metropolitan
transportation and spatial issues. Yet, remarkably, academic economists have
written almost nothing on the general government policy issue of allegedly
excessive metropolitan suburbanization. This article presents the case for
suburbanization from an academic redoubt.]
Moore, Curtis.
2001. Smart Growth and the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: Northeast-Midwest
Institute. <http://www.nemw.org/SGCleanAir.pdf> [The federal Clean Air Act has been both criticized as
a cause of sprawl and praised as a useful tool to curb it. Critics contend that
by barring increases in air pollution in cities where the air is unhealthy, the
law drives businesses development to outlying areas, thus increasing sprawl and
the air pollution from its attendant motor vehicle travel. This is the basis
for claims that the Act can have the perverse and unintended effect of
increasing air pollution rather than reducing it. However, the ActÕs defenders
argue that it actually can deter sprawl by providing an incentive for
transit-oriented, compact development, and urban revitalization. This argument
credits the CAA, and the conformity provisions in particular, as a factor in
spurring new types of urban development that facilitate transit use and
pedestrian traffic and reduce automobile dependence. This study attempts to
reconcile the contrasting views of the law by examining its application in
several major metropolitan areas. The results suggest that the Act does not
necessarily divert growth from urban centers and indeed can complement efforts
to promote growth in areas with existing infrastructure.]
Muro, Mark & Robert Puentes. 2004. Investing In
A Better Future: A Review of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter
Growth Development Patterns.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. <http://www.brookings.edu/urban/pubs/200403_smartgrowth.pdf> [This paper makes the case that more compact
development patterns and investing in projects to improve urban cores could
save taxpayers money and improve overall regional economic performance. To that
end, it relies on a review of the best academic empirical literature to weigh
the extent to which a new way of thinking about growth and development can
benefit governments, businesses, and regions during these fiscally stressed
times.]
Myers, Dowell.
2000. "Building the
Future as a Process in Time,"
Metropolitan Development Patterns, Annual Roundtable 2000,
Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, 2000. <http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~dowell/pdf/buildingthefuture.pdf>
National Association of Local Government
Environmental Professionals. 2003.
Smart
Growth For Clean Water: Helping Communities Address the Water Quality Impacts
of Sprawl. Washington, DC:
National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals; Trust for
Public Land; ERG. <http://www.nalgep.org/publications/PublicationsDetail.cfm?LinkAdvID=42157> [Smart growth is emerging as a key strategy for clean
water. Across America, examples are emerging where communities are utilizing
"smart growth" tools like land conservation, greenway buff ers, the creation of
park and recreational areas, natural and constructed wetlands, urban and
community forestry, waterfront brownfi elds revitalization, low impact
development, watershed-based management, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping,
and other tools to reduce nonpoint source pollution, control stormwater, and
improve water quality. These smart growth for clean water approaches are oð en
more cost-eff ective than traditional structural solutions like building new
wastewater plants or stormwater collection facilities. Moreover, these smart
growth tools not only enable localities to achieve clean water goals, but they
also help að ain other community objectives such as preservation of open space
and parks, cleanup of environmental contamination and community eyesores,
creation of sustainable economic development, saving tax dollars through effi
cient use of infrastructure, and the improvement of overall quality of life.]
National Center for Public Policy Research. 2002. Smart
Growth and Its Effects on Housing Markets: The New Segregation. (A econometric report by QuantEcon for
the Center for Environmental Justice of The National Center for Public Policy
Research) Washington, DC: National
Center for Public Policy Research.
<http://www.nationalcenter.org/NewSegregation.pdf> [Concerned that simple supply and demand market
principles dictate that a reduction in the availability of housing will push up
housing prices, and aware that minorities in the U.S., on the average, have
lower incomes than other Americans, The National Center for Public Policy
Research's Center for Environmental Justice set out to determine if restricted
growth policies are reducing homeownership opportunities for minority
Americans.]
National Governors Association. 2002. Growing With Less Greenhouse
Gases: State Growth Management Policies That Reduce GHG Emissions. Washington, DC: Center for Best
Practices, national Governors Association. <http://www.nga.org/cda/files/112002GHG.pdf> [Communities are grappling with the good and bad of
growth. Growth is the engine of prosperity, but maintaining a good quality of
life in a growing community can be challenging. Growth increasingly produces
traffic congestion, greater demand on resources, loss of greenspace, and other
undesirable consequences. By properly managing growth, communities can reduce
the negative effects of expansion while still reaping its benefits.]
OÕNeill, David J. 2002. Environment
and Development: Myth and Fact.
Washington, DC: ULIÐthe Urban Land Institute. <http://research.uli.org/Content/Reports/PolicyPapers/PUB_E14.pdf> [By debunking some of the prevailing myths about the
environment and development, this booklet aims to make public and private
sector decision makers more aware of the barriers to and opportunities for
environmentally sensitive developmentÑand perhaps to inspire them to undertake
and support sensitive projects.]
Proscio, Tony.
2002. Smart
Communities: Curbing Sprawl at Its Core. Accessed March 24, 2004. Published by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, New
York. <http://www.liscnet.org/resources/2002/11/communities_976.shtml?Planning+%26+Land+Use>. [Can community development and Smart Growth find
common cause, share a common agenda, and serve mutual interests? Or are the
aims of individual neighborhoods, resident-led development organizations, and
central-city reinvestment necessarily at odds with those of regional planning
and reduced sprawl? "A few
prominent skeptics have even suggested that community development, by focusing
on individual neighborhoods and enfranchising lower-income residents, has
little to offer those whose concern is with the broad distribution of wealth,
population, and public resources.
Recent experience in a wide variety of metropolitan areas suggests that
the skeptics are wrong. Community developers have, in fact, increasingly found
themselves at the Smart Growth table, and metropolitanists have more and more
come to regard community development projects as helpful, even necessary, for
their own success."]
Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The Costs of Sprawl:
Executive Summary.
Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality; the Office of Policy
Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development; the
Office of Planning and Management, Environmental Protection Agency. <http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/costs_of_sprawl.pdf>
Richardson, Harry W. & Peter Gordon. 2000. Compactness
Or Sprawl: AmericaÕs Future vs. the Present. Working Paper # 2000-1008. Los Angeles: Lusk Center for Real Estate. <http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/papers/pdf/wp_2000_1008.pdf> [Challenges the smart growth movement.]
Richardson, Harry W. & Peter Gordon. 2001. "Sustainable
Portland? A Critique, And The Los Angeles Counterpoint." Working Paper # 2001-1003. Los Angeles: Lusk Center for Real
Estate Development. <http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/papers/pdf/wp_2001-1003.pdf> [This paper examines the Portland experience as
AmericaÕs most widely regarded example of urban sustainability. It suggests
that appearances are deceptive. It compares some characteristics of development
in Portland with similar trends in Los Angeles, not known as an exemplar of
sustainability. The data suggest that Portland and Los Angeles are much more
alike than different. In fact, from some points of view, Portland is less
sustainable. It sprawls more (with densities about one-half of Los Angeles),
its housing is less affordable, it consumes more land for urban development, it
has more roads, and its minimal reliance on transit is similar.]
Gordon, Peter & Harry W. Richardson. 2000. Transportation
and Land Use. Working
Paper # 2000-1005. Los Angeles:
Lusk Center for Real Estate. <http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/papers/pdf/wp_2000_1005.pdf> [Argues that sprawl (suburbanization) is the way to
go.]
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2003. Promoting
Active Living Communities: A Guide To Marketing And Communication. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation. <http://www.activelivingbydesign.org/resources/rwjf_toolkit.pdf> [This guide is designed to help you use communication
tools to sell your community on the value of active living. It presents an
approach that can be applied as you encourage individuals to adopt an active
lifestyle and facilitate changes in the social environment or policy by
changing attitudes on a community-wide basis. More specifically, itÕs about
getting the right message to the right people at the right time, then working
to ensure that if they are persuaded to become more active (adopt an active
lifestyle), they are supported by community infrastructure. Because no two
communities are alike, you should tailor and adapt the ideas here for your own
needs, budgets, and funding mandates.]
Romano, Ellen.
2000. "Living Smarter:
Better Communities for the New Millennium," Journal of Property Management, (Jan/Feb 2000): 30-35. [A summary review of smart growth factors as they
pertain to property management.]
Semandel, Allison & Michael R. Kinde. 2001. Smart
Growth: Creating Communities for People. Milwaukee, WI: Citizens for a Better Environment. <http://www.cbemw.org/smartgrowth/sg_gbook.html> [A guidebook, including zoning language, to creating
places where people can live and work, interact with their neighbors and
participate meaning-fully in the life of their community. This guidebook
presents local development policies that result in walkable and transit
supportive neighborhoods, which encourage safe environments, healthy people,
and strong communities. The zoning language promotes future developments that
support the local tax base, use public infrastructure efficiently, maintain the
social fabric of our communities, and create places where residents are free to
move without needing a car.]
Sheehan, Molly OÕMeara. 2002. What Will It Take To
Halt Sprawl? Washington,
DC: World Watch Institute. <http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/download/EP151A/> [Urban sprawl may pose greater dangers to the
sustainability of civilization than even many anti-sprawl activists realize.
But in three of the worldÕs most prominent cities, citizen actions have begun
to raise awareness of the problemÑ and to show just how attractive the
alternatives to sprawl can be.]
Sierra Club.
2000. Sprawl Cost Us All: How Your
Taxes Fuel Suburban Growth.
San Francisco: Sierra Club.
<http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/> [Characterizes and quantifies the ways in which local,
regional and federal governments subsidizes sprawl: road building to make
fringe areas more accessible, tax breaks encouraging businesses and
corporations to locate in fringe areas, encouraging floodplain construction,
and providing "public" services to developments outside of urbanized areas.]
Smart Growth Network. 2003. Getting to Smart Growth: 100
Policies for Implementation.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the Smart
Growth Network. Accessed on March
25, 2004, <http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf>. [Proposes 10 principles for smart growth: Mix land
use; Take advantage of compact building design; Create a range of housing
opportunities and choices; Create walkable neighborhoods; Foster distinctive,
attractive communities with a strong sense of place; Preserve open space,
farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; Strengthen and
direct development towards existing communities; Provide a variety of transportation
choices; Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective;
Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.]
Smart Growth Network. 2003. Getting to Smart Growth II:
100 More Policies for Implementation. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and
the Smart Growth Network. Accessed
on March 25, 2004, <http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg2.pdf>.
Song, Yan & Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2002. Measuring
Urban Form: Is Portland Winning the War on Sprawl? National Center for Smart Growth
Research and Education, University of Maryland (Forthcoming in Journal of the
American Planning Association, Spring 2004). <http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/events/pdf/Song_Paper2.pdf> [In this paper we present several quantitative
measures of urban form and compute these for neighborhoods of varying age in
the Portland metropolitan area. Our results suggest: (1) neighborhoods in
Washington County have increased in single-family dwelling unit density since
the 1960s; (2) internal street connectivity, pedestrian accessibility to
commercial areas and bus stops have improved since the early 1990s; (3)
external connectivity continues to decline; and (4) the mixing of land uses
remains limited. We conclude that PortlandÕs battle with sprawl is not yet
won.]
Southern California Studies Center. 2001. Sprawl Hits the
Wall: Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles. With The Brookings Institution. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California. <http://www.usc.edu/dept/geography/SC2/sg/atlas3.html>
[The Los Angeles region is still
spatially organized around the assumptions of the suburban era: that it serves
a middle-class suburban population engaged in a middle-class suburban economy;
that the supply of buildable land is practically unlimited; and, following from
the first two assumptions, that the regionÕs middle-class and wealthy residents
can simply move awayÑalways outwardÑfrom "urban-style" problems. But this is no
longer the reality of the region. This report is an attempt to take a clear-eyed
look at metropolitan Los AngelesÕs new reality. It seeks not to portray the Los
Angeles of history or the Los Angeles of popular perception, but the
five-county region today as it really existsÑa rapidly changing and immensely
complicated metropolitan region with an emerging set of challenges that must be
dealt with now if the region is to maintain both livability and prosperity in
the future.]
Surface Transportation Policy Project. 1999. Why
Are The Roads So Congested? A Companion Analysis of the Texas Transportation
InstituteÕs Data On Metropolitan Congestion. <http://www.transact.org/report.asp?id=63> [The report analyses the effects of increases in
population, vehicle miles traveled, and sprawl on congestion, and presents a
depiction of perceived congestion due to these factors.]
US EPA.
2003. EPAÕs Smart Growth
INDEX In 20 Pilot Communities: Using GIS Sketch Modeling to Advance Smart
Growth. Accessed March 25,
2004, <http://www.epa.gov/livability/pdf/Final_screen.pdf>. [The Smart Growth
INDEX (SGI) model is a software tool that allows the user to benchmark existing
environmental and community conditions, compare the impacts of multiple
development and transportation scenarios, and monitor changes over time. The
program provides clear graphics so that the public can understand comparable
impacts. It allows the public visioning process to be integrated into the
development planning and environmental protection process.]
US EPA.
2000. Low Impact Development: A
Literature Review.
Washington, DC: US EPA, Office of Water. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html> [A literature review was conducted to determine the
availability and reliability of data to assess the effectiveness of low impact
development (LID) practices for controlling stormwater runoff volume and
reducing pollutant loadings to receiving waters. Background information
concerning the uses, ownership and associated costs for LID measures was also
compiled. In general LID measures are more cost effective and lower in
maintenance than conventional, structural stormwater controls. Not all sites are
suitable for LID. Considerations such as soil permeablility, depth of water
table and slope must be considered, in addition to other factors. Further, the
use of LID may not completely replace the need for conventional stormwater
controls.]
US GAO.
2000. Community Development: Local
Growth IssuesÑFederal Opportunities and Challenges. September 2000. US General Accounting Office. Report # RCED-00-178. Accessed on March 25, 2004, <http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00178.pdf>. [Argues that the resource consumption and
traffic-related effects of anticipated growth throughout the nation raise
concerns about the need for planning.
Suggests that although land use and growth control are vested in local
government, and, in some cases, in regional governance structures, the Federal
government can also influence growth and development nationwide through its
spending programs, regulations, taxes, and administrative actions.]
US White House Task Force on Livable
Communities. 2000. Building Livable
Communities: Sustaining Prosperity, Improving Quality of Life, Building a Sense
of Community Ð A Report from the Clinton-Gore Administration. Washington, DC: Livable Communities
Initiative. <http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/report2knew.pdf>. [Federal policies can influence patterns of growth Ð
often, inadvertently Ð and their possible contribution to sprawl is a matter of
some debate. With the Livable Communities Initiative, the Administration seeks
to ensure that the federal government works with communities to build futures
that: Sustain prosperity and
expand economic opportunity;
Enhance the quality of life; and
Build a stronger sense of community. The Livable Communities Initiative contains an array of
existing and proposed programs and policies to help communities meet these
objectives. It offers communities resources and tools they can use to
revitalize urban neighborhoods, ease traffic congestion, preserve farmland and
open spaces, become disaster resistant, address the distribution of
environmental burdens and benefits, and achieve equitable development. Through
collaboration among neighboring jurisdictions, smart growth planning, and
engagement of the private sector, these programs can help improve air and water
quality, clean up abandoned brownfields, and improve traffic safety.]
Urban Land Institute. 1999. Smart
Growth: Myth and Fact.
Washington, DC: ULI. <http://research.uli.org/Content/Reports/PolicyPapers/PUB_S50.pdf> [While many individuals and communities recognize the
value and benefits of growth, often they are troubled by its unintentional
consequences. Recognizing that conventional planning and development approaches
are not effectively addressing growing traffic congestion and greater losses of
open space, communities across the United States, often with support from their
state governments, are turning to smart growth. Smart growth, as reflected in
Smart Growth: Myth and Factª, addresses the core issue of how communities will
accommodate inevitable growth in a way that enhances livability, the
environment, and the economy.]
Urban Land Institute. 2002. Putting
the Pieces Together: State Actions to Encourage Smart Growth Practices in
California. Washington,
DC: ULIÐthe Urban Land Institute.
<http://research.uli.org/Content/Reports/PolicyPapers/PFR_672.pdf> [To accommodate projected population growth without
putting severe strain on the stateÕs resources and deteriorating the quality of
life of its residents, California needs to concentrate development more.
However, the state is moving in the opposite direction. Its most rapid growth
(measured by the rate of population growth) is occurring in largely suburban
counties characterized by low-density developmentÑsuch as Merced, Fresno,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, and Riverside.]
Urban Land Institute. 2002. Reality Check On
Growth: Lessons Learned.
Los Angeles: ULI-LA. <http://www.uli-la.org/realitycheck/postreport.pdf> [Presents a summary of the outcomes of a participatory
workshop designed to generate stakeholder-driven solutions to anticipated
growth in Southern California.]
Wassmer, Robert W. & Marlon G. Boarnet. 2001. The
Benefits of Growth.
Washington, DC: ULIÐthe Urban Land Institute. <http://research.uli.org/Content/Reports/PolicyPapers/WP_664.pdf> [Communities around the country often take a
slow-growth or, in some cases, no-growth stance toward increases in population
or development, appearing to assume that further growth is neither desirable
nor inevitable. Yet, population growth in most parts of the United States is
projected to rise steadily over the next 25 years.Why is growth important, and
what are its benefits? Growth generates new jobs, income, and tax revenue, and
raises property values, offering residents more choices and diversity.
Examining more closely the benefits of growth offers insights into how to
promote smart growth, to manage better the impacts of growth, and to respond to
local resistance. This paper focuses on the short- and long-term benefits of
growth to local communities and larger regions.]
Yaro, Robert D.
"Growing
and Governing Smart: A Case Study of the New York Region," in Bruce Katz
(ed.), Reflections On Regionalism.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. <http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/reflections/essay2.pdf>
Last update: April 13, 2004