|EVALUATION OF PLAN BASED UPON NEO-TRADITIONAL OBJECTIVES|
||Stores within walking
distance (1/4 mile) of all
||Automobile competitive transit service
providing service to
entire urban area
||No transit service
||Mix of housing prices,
including low cost
||House prices are generally well
above median price for the area.
||7 housing units per acre
minimum (12,000 per
||Estimated 1.9 units per acre
(3,300 per square mile, 27
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
||Few, if any commercial jobs: generally low wage retail jobs that could not support the high
costs of home ownership in this development.
||No subsidies or tax
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.