IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/inrsre/v28y2005i2p239-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smart Growth and Urban Development Pattern: A Comparative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Song

    (Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, ys@email.unc.edu)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Song, 2005. "Smart Growth and Urban Development Pattern: A Comparative Study," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 239-265, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:inrsre:v:28:y:2005:i:2:p:239-265
    DOI: 10.1177/0160017604273854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160017604273854
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0160017604273854?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Matthews & Geoffrey Turnbull, 2007. "Neighborhood Street Layout and Property Value: The Interaction of Accessibility and Land Use Mix," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 111-141, August.
    2. Jie Lan Xu, 2017. "Is New Urbanism changing the suburban development pattern? A case study of the Toronto region," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(6), pages 812-832, November.
    3. Foster, Sarah & Hooper, Paula & Knuiman, Matthew & Bull, Fiona & Giles-Corti, Billie, 2016. "Are liveable neighbourhoods safer neighbourhoods? Testing the rhetoric on new urbanism and safety from crime in Perth, Western Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 150-157.
    4. Xiaofeng Zhao & Lin Zhang & Xianjin Huang & Yuntai Zhao & Yunpeng Zhang, 2018. "Evolution of the Spatiotemporal Pattern of Urban Industrial Land Use Efficiency in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Pierre Filion, 2010. "Reorienting Urban Development? Structural Obstruction to New Urban Forms," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Sánchez Rodríguez, Roberto, 2011. "Development of eco-efficient and sustainable urban infrastructure in Asia and Latin America: eco-efficiency and sustainable infrastructure in the United States and Canada," Documentos de Proyectos 3879, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    7. Mark D. Partridge & Dan S. Rickman, 2012. "Integrating Regional Economic Development Analysis and Land Use Economics," Economics Working Paper Series 1203, Oklahoma State University, Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business.
    8. Dhanani, Ashley & Tarkhanyan, Lusine & Vaughan, Laura, 2017. "Estimating pedestrian demand for active transport evaluation and planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 54-69.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:inrsre:v:28:y:2005:i:2:p:239-265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.