 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
The value Americans place on having open space near them is indicated by a national survey conducted in 2000 by the nonprofit Smart Growth America. The survey showed that 83 percent of those polled supported the establishment of zones for green space, farming, and forests outside existing cities and suburbs that would be off limits to developers. Popular sentiment is also shown by the fact that in the November 1998 elections, voters nationwide faced 240 state and local ballot measures concerning land conservation, parks and smarter growth – and approved 72 percent of them. The Public Policy Institute of California in 2001 conducted a special survey on growth. Results showed that for Californians, the most negative consequences of the state's population growth were traffic congestion (29 percent) high housing costs (27 percent) and urban sprawl and the loss of open space (24 percent). There are an array of tools to conserve land, including urban growth boundaries, municipal caps on annual population increases, measures requiring voter approval for annexation of new lands, agricultural zoning, and conservation easements. However none of them is truly effective in preserving open space as long as development continues to be low-density. Studies have also shown the economic benefits open space offers to nearby homes and communities, and to the economy of a region. Reports by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Trust for Public Land, and the National Park Service, have quantified how agriculture and tourism are tied to open space in many states, while trails and parks in communities can boost property values. For instance, studies cited in the Trust for Public Land's 1999 report Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space show that homes bordering the 12-mile Burke Gilman trail in Seattle, WA sold for 6 percent more than other houses of comparable size, while the percentage of Denver residents who said they would pay more to live near a greenbelt or park rose from 16 percent to 48 percent between 1980 and 1990. Similarly, a three-mile greenbelt around Lake Merritt, near Oakland’s city center, was found to add $41 million to the surrounding property values. Open space is also factored into any assessment of the quality of life in a community – which in turn influences corporate location and other decisions that affect a community's long-term viability and health. Low-density, sprawling development uses up raw land at a faster rate than any other form of urban growth. According to the American Farmland Trust, increasing the gross residential density from three to six dwellings per acre would preserve 1.5 million acres of agricultural land and open space in California's Central Valley alone by the year 2040. Infill development – using vacant or underused lots in existing urban areas – is another opportunity to use land more efficiently. Density brings many other bonuses. As density increases above six units per acre, it becomes more cost-effective to provide bus and other transit service to a community. When mixed-use zoning is coupled with this more compact development, suddenly destinations such as schools, stores, restaurants, jobs and services are within easy range to walk or bicycle. Compact, mixed-use neighborhoods are often more vibrant and interesting, with people out on the street, and mobility for the young and old, and those who do not drive. Consumer demand is a major influence on what developers build, and what city councils approve for development. While the trend over the last 50 years has been toward, low-density, automobile-oriented suburban growth, a survey in the January 2000 issue of Urban Land reported that despite the prospect of smaller dwelling units with little or no yard, more than 30 percent of respondents in sprawling Atlanta and Albuquerque expressed preference for urban housing and the opportunity to walk to work, shops and eateries. Similarly, more than eight in 10 people taking part in a 1997 Fannie Mae national housing survey said they would consider living in a small or mid-sized city rather than a suburb, if they had a choice. Clearly, dense communities must be well-designed if they are to be attractive to consumers. This means good pedestrian infrastructure, including shaded sidewalks, narrower streets to conserve land and slow traffic, retail buildings with windows and doors – not parking lots – on the street frontage, and a street and trail system that connects neighborhoods to schools and mixed-use commercial districts. More compact communities also require provision of open space in the form of neighborhood parks close to where people live. ResourcesBuilding Livable Communities: A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development. This document, published in 1995 and updated in 2001, discusses the importance of revitalizing older parts of our communities and preserving open space and agricultural land. (Go to Guidebook) The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development: An Implementation Guidebook. This document, based on 15 principles for smart economic development assembled by the LGC in 1997, addresses the importance of compact development and open space preservation. (Go to Guidebook) Designs and Codes that Reduce Crime around Multifamily Housing. Web Links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
