EVALUATION OF PLAN BASED UPON NEO-TRADITIONAL OBJECTIVES |
Criteria |
Objective |
Case |
Rating |
Walkable
Community |
Stores within walking
distance (1/4 mile) of all
residences. |
Some houses within walking distance of stores. |
2 |
Transit Oriented
Development |
Automobile competitive transit service
providing service to
entire urban area |
Transit competitive service not provided |
1 |
Housing Prices |
Mix of housing prices,
including affordable
housing.
|
Generally high priced single family dwellings, with large rental units under construction.
|
2 |
Density |
7 housing units per acre
minimum (12,000 per
square mile) |
Unknown |
--- |
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 |
Employees in community establishments are not likely
to have the income to live within the community.
|
1 |
Market oriented
development |
No subsidies or tax breaks |
Unknown |
--- |
Composite Rating |
1.40 |
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.