|EVALUATION OF PLAN BASED UPON NEO-TRADITIONAL OBJECTIVES|
||Stores within walking
distance (1/4 mile) of all
||Few houses within walking distance of stores.
||Automobile competitive transit service
providing service to
entire urban area
||Transit competitive service provided only to downtown Sacramento (9 percent of metropolitan job
||Mix of housing prices,
No low income housing.
||7 housing units per acre
minimum (12,000 per
||Population density estimated at under 5,600 per square mile
percent of the 12,000 objective).
||Infill -- does not
||Greenfield --- contributes to
|Balance of jobs and
||Community provides a
balance of jobs and
residences, reducing the necessity to commute by automobile
Little employment in the community. Employees in these establishments are not likely
to have the income to live within the community.
||No subsidies or tax breaks
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.