| EVALUATION OF PLAN BASED UPON NEO-TRADITIONAL OBJECTIVES |
| Criteria |
Objective |
Case |
Rating |
| Walkable
Community |
Stores within walking
distance (1/4 mile) of all
residences. |
All residences appear to be within 1/4 of stores. |
3 |
| Transit Oriented
Development |
Automobile competitive transit service
providing service to
entire urban area |
No transit service |
1 |
| Housing Prices |
Mix of housing prices,
including low cost
housing. |
Most housing priced above median for the area, but some priced below. |
3 |
| Density |
7 housing units per acre
minimum (12,000 per
square mile) |
Estimated 2.3 units per acre
(3,900 per square mile, 32
percent of the 12,000 objective). |
1 |
| Impact on
Suburbanization |
Infill -- does not
contribute to
suburbanization |
Greenfield --- contributes to
suburbanization |
1 |
| Balance of jobs and
residences |
Community provides a
balance of jobs and
residences, reducing the necessity to commute by automobile |
Plan is to achieve one job for each two residences (approximately 0.2 jobs per person). This is
less than the regional balance of people to jobs, but one of the most significant goals of any such community.
Employees are not likely to be able to afford to live in the community.
|
2 |
| Market oriented
development |
No subsidies or tax
breaks |
Infrastructure subsidies received |
1 |
| Composite Rating |
1.71 |
| Rating System:
5: Substantially Exceeds Objective
4: Exceeds Objective
3: Meets Objective
2: Fails to Meet Objective
1: Substantially Fails to Meet Objective |
Nothing in this review is meant to suggest that any neo-traditional development is not a desirable community.
Most are well designed and attractive. To the extent that any such development fails to achieve
neo-traditional (new urbanist) objectives is more than likely a reflection that the objectives themselves are
impractical and largely unachievable in an environment that depends upon consumer choice in a free market.
