| EVALUATION OF PLAN BASED UPON NEO-TRADITIONAL OBJECTIVES |
| Criteria |
Objective |
Case |
Rating |
| Walkable
Community |
Stores within walking
distance (1/4 mile) of all
residences. |
No commercial development |
1 |
| Transit Oriented
Development |
Automobile competitive transit service
providing service to
entire urban area |
No |
1 |
| Housing Prices |
Mix of housing prices,
including low cost
housing. |
No indication of affordable housing |
1 |
| Density |
7 housing units per acre
minimum (12,000 per
square mile) |
Estimated 0.4 units per acre
(650 per square mile, 5
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 |
No commercial. |
1 |
| Market oriented
development |
No subsidies or tax
breaks |
Unknown |
--- |
| Composite Rating |
1.00 |
| 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.
