University of Cincinnati

Home , Allegheny Plateau, Cleveland Arcade, Dayton metropolitan area, History of Ohio

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

SMART GROWTH IN THE STATE OF OHIO: CONFLICTS AND CONSTRAINTS An analysis and evaluation of the evolution of smart growth in the Cleveland and Cincinnati metropolitan regions

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING

in the School of Planning of the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning

2004

Surachita Bose

B.Arch., Bangalore University, India, 2001

Committee Members: Chair: Dr. Carla Chifos, PhD Reader: Ms. Elizabeth Blume

ABSTRACT

Urban sprawl’ is a term used to define the patterns of uncontrolled and haphazard development that characterizes the American landscape as of today. Economically, socially and environmentally, sprawl is creating some of the costliest problems that the United States now faces. The ‘Smart Growth’ movement has emerged out of the realization that we need to rethink the way we grow. This thesis is an outcome of the need for documented evidence of the current status of smart growth in the state of Ohio. The research attempts to establish the conflicts and constraints in the context of smart growth in Ohio as well as in its two key sub-regions – Cleveland metropolitan area in Northeast and Cincinnati metropolitan area in Southwest Ohio. The methodology uses a case study analysis approach to document and analyze the macro and micro level dynamics of the two regions and the state of Ohio as a whole. The critical components of the study were the establishment of a smart growth prescription with nine overarching principles and their sub elements followed by a chronological evolution of smart growth in the state and in its two sub-regions and finally a matrix composition and analysis framework that was used to establish the relative status of smart growth in the two respective central cities, suburbs and metropolitan regions.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Prof Carla Chifos for her valuable suggestions and constant guidance without which this thesis would not have been possible. Her ideas and expertise in the field of smart growth contributed greatly to the shaping of this project.

I would like to acknowledge the support, guidance and valuable time provided to me by my reader, Liz Blume despite her demanding schedule. Her extensive experience in the field of planning, critical insights and constant words of encouragement were extremely helpful during different stages of the study.

I would like to thank all the experts who participated in my research providing me with valuable information and responding to my interviews. Dr. Tom Bier, Dr. Wendy Kellogg, Prof. Robert Manley and Janet Keller of OKI have been especially helpful and I’m indeed very thankful for their time and cooperation.

Last but not the least I’d like to express my gratitude to the most important people in my life - my parents, my grandparents, my brother and close friends who always heard me out and stood by me. I really appreciate their patience, understanding and constant encouragement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 6 1.1 Background 1.2 Problem Statement 1.3 Methodology 1.4 Thesis Structure

2. Overview of Urban Sprawl 16 2.1 Urban Sprawl in United States 2.1.1 Urban Growth and Transitions in the United States: Post World WarII 2.1.2 Problems Arising Due To Dispersed Development Patterns 2.1.3 Need for Change

3. Smart Growth: A Policy Tool to Combat Sprawl 21 3.1 What is Smart Growth? 3.2 Main principles of smart growth 3.2.1 Mixing Land Uses 3.2.2 Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices 3.2.3 Providing Transportation Options 3.2.4 Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment 3.2.5 Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas 3.2.6 Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective 3.2.7 Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place 3.2.8 Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques 3.2.9 Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration

4. The State of Ohio and Smart growth Policy 36 4.1 The State of Ohio – An Overview 4.1.1 Location and size 4.1.2 Physical characteristics 4.1.3 Transportation Networks 4.2 Lack of innovative planning in Ohio 4.3 Ohio and Smart Growth: One of the worst cases 4.4 Cincinnati and Cleveland – Two Key Representative Cities Of Ohio 4.4.1 Why choose Cincinnati and Cleveland? 4.4.2 The city of Cleveland and its Landscape Characteristics: A profile 4.4.2.1 Location and Size 4.4.2.2 Physical characteristics 4.4.2.3 Transportation Networks 4.4.2.4 Identification of High Growth area in the vicinity of Cleveland: City of Avon 4.4.2.4.1 Location and Characteristics 4.4.2.4.2 Background 4.4.2.4.3 Selection of the city of Avon as ‘high growth area’ for study 4.4.3 City of Cincinnati and its Landscape Characteristics: A profile 4.4.3.1 Location and size 4.4.3.2 Physical characteristics v

4.4.3.3 Transportation Networks 4.4.3.4 Identification of High Growth area in the vicinity of Cincinnati: West Chester Township 4.4.3.4.1 Location and Characteristics 4.4.3.4.2 Background 4.4.3.4.3 Selection of the West Chester Township as ‘high growth area’ for study

5. Evolution of Smart Growth in Cleveland 59 5.1 Background 5.2 Identification of panel of experts 5.3 Interview Sessions 5.4 Chronological evolution of Smart Growth and key players/organizations 5.4.1 Events preceding the Smart Growth related discussions 5.4.2 Beginning of the Smart Growth Movement 5.4.3 Key Projects/Organizations and Individuals in the Cleveland Metropolitan Region 5.4.4 Debate surrounding Smart Growth in the Cleveland Region

6. Evolution of Smart Growth in Cincinnati 78 6.1 Background 6.2 Identification of panel of experts 6.3 Interview Sessions 6.4 Chronological evolution of Smart Growth and key players/organizations 6.4.1 Events preceding the Smart Growth related discussions 6.4.2 Beginning of the Smart Growth Movement 6.4.3 Key Projects/Organizations and Individuals in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Region 6.4.4 Events that hampered the smart growth movement in eth Cincinnati Region

7. Smart Growth Responses in the state of Ohio 98 7.1 Background 7.2 Before 1980 7.3 During the 1990’s 7.4 Since 2000

8. Matrix Composition and Evaluation 105 8.1 Current status of Smart Growth in Cleveland 8.1.1 Matrix Series for Cleveland and City of Avon 8.1.1.1 Matrix A1: Mixing Land Uses 8.1.1.2 Matrix A2: Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices 8.1.1.3 Matrix A3: Providing Transportation Options 8.1.1.4 Matrix A4: Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment 8.1.1.5 Matrix A5: Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas 8.1.1.6 Matrix A6: Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective 8.1.1.7 Matrix A7: Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place

8.1.1.8 Matrix A8: Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques 8.1.1.9 Matrix A9: Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration 8.2 Current status of Smart Growth in Cincinnati 8.2.1 Matrix Series for Cincinnati and West Chester Township 8.2.1.1 Matrix B1: Mixing Land Uses 8.2.1.2 Matrix B2: Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices 8.2.1.3 Matrix B3: Providing Transportation Options 8.2.1.4 Matrix B4: Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment 8.2.1.5 Matrix B5: Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas 8.2.1.6 Matrix B6: Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective 8.2.1.7 Matrix B7: Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place 8.2.1.8 Matrix B8: Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques 8.2.1.9 Matrix B9: Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration 8.3 Summary of Matrix Results 8.3.1 Summary of sub-elements ‘present’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and West Chester Township 8.3.2 Summary of sub-elements ‘absent’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and West Chester Township 8.3.3 Summary of sub-elements ‘under consideration’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and West Chester Township 8.3.4 Overall Summary of Matrix Results

9. Findings and Comparative Analyses 151 9.1 Comparison of central cities: Cleveland and Cincinnati 9.2 Comparison of suburbs: City of Avon and West Chester Township 9.2.1 Avon’s perspective on smart growth 9.2.2 West Chester Township’s perspective on smart growth 9.3 Comparison of metropolitan regions: Cleveland metropolitan region and Cincinnati metropolitan region 9.3.1 Regional Constraints in the Cleveland metropolitan region 9.3.2 Regional Constraints in the Cincinnati metropolitan region

10. Conclusions: Conflicts and constraints within the state of Ohio 167 10.1 Conflicts and constraints in Ohio 10.2 Recommendations 10.3 Limitations of the study

Bibliography 173

Appendices A. Questionnaire 178 B. List of Experts Interviewed 181

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Flowchart showing structure of Thesis 15 Figure 4.1: Location of Ohio in the United States 36 Figure 4.2 The State of Ohio 37 Figure 4.3: Ohio: Major Interstate Routes 39 Figure 4.4: Land Cover in Ohio 40 Figure 4.5: Location of Cleveland in the state of Ohio 43 Figure 4.6: The City of Cleveland 44 Figure 4.7: Interstate, US and State highways in the vicinity of Cleveland 45 Figure 4.8: Location of the City of Avon, Ohio 46 Figure 4.9: City of Avon Map 47 Figure 4.10: Location of Cincinnati in the state of Ohio 50 Figure 4.11: The city of Cincinnati 51 Figure 4.12: Major Interstate Routes in the city of Cincinnati 54 Figure 4.13: Location of West Chester (Union) Township 55 Figure 4.14: Transportation networks of West Chester Township 56

List of Tables

Table 8.3.1 A: Comparative Analysis showing number of sub elements present in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and Westchester 126 Table 8.3.2 B: Comparative Analysis showing number of sub elements absent in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and Westchester 127 Table 8.3.3 C: Comparative Analysis showing number of sub elements ‘under consideration’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and Westchester 127 Table 8.3.4 D: showing the summary of the matrix results expressed as percentage (%) 128 Table 9.1 Changes in Population in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Avon and West Chester Township 130

1. Introduction 1.1 Background:

‘Urban sprawl’ is a term that is used widely to define the patterns of uncontrolled and

haphazard development that characterizes the American landscape as of today. Economically,

socially and environmentally, sprawl is creating some of the costliest problems that the United

States now faces. The dispersed form of development outside the urban centers of the past has

led to the massive destruction of green space, degeneration of older cities, destruction of

wetlands, increasing infrastructure costs, loss of community values, increases in traffic and air

pollution, erosion of current or potential tax bases in urban centers and the decline of

environmental quality.

The statistics that confirm the sprawling nature of American cities are staggering. As

classified by the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1960 to 1990, the amount of developed land in metro

areas more than doubled whereas the population grew by less than half. Between 1982 and 1992,

the United States lost an average of 400,000 acres of ‘prime’ farmland (land with the best soils

and climate for growing crops) to development every year.1 Peter Calthorpe, author of The Next

American Metropolis states the problem in precise terms.

“The current round of suburban growth is generating a crisis of many dimensions: mounting traffic congestion, increasingly unaffordable housing, receding open space, and stressful social patterns. The truth is, we are using planning strategies that are 40 years old and no longer relevant to today's culture. Our household make-up has changed dramatically, the work place and work force have been transformed, real wealth has shrunk, and serious environmental concerns have surfaced. But we are still building World War II suburbs as if families were large and had only one breadwinner, as if jobs were all downtown, as if land and energy were endless, and as if another lane on the freeway would end congestion.”

1 Benfield, F. Kaid, Raimi Matthew et al. 1999.Once There Were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl Is Undermining America’s Environment, Economy And Social Fabric. New York Natural Resources Defense Council

Finally, the realization has dawned that we need to rethink the way we grow. The

‘Smart Growth’ movement has emerged out of this realization. Smart Growth is not about

stopping or curbing growth; it is about growing in a ‘smarter’ and environmentally benign way

while ensuring that we continue to thrive economically and socially. ‘Good Growth’ signposts have replaced those saying ‘No Growth’.2 It is a concept that emerged during the 1990’s and is being used as an approach to guide the current and future growth and development of our cities, suburbs and metropolitan regions. Smart growth advocates have realized that development will occur somewhere as long as the population is growing; instead of allowing growth to occur in a haphazard and inefficient fashion, we can encourage it to take place in or adjacent to existing communities. 3

Various states across America have adopted the principles of Smart Growth, the more

talked about ones being New Jersey, Maryland and Florida. New Jersey's ‘State Development

and Redevelopment Plan’ integrates some of the key principles of smart growth and has drawn

national attention for its potential. Maryland’s Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation

Program was enacted in April 2000,and is among the first in the nation consisting of a two-part strategy of protecting their best remaining open spaces while simultaneously reinvesting in existing communities.4The state of Florida first adopted a Growth Management Act in 1975; this

was further strengthened in 1985 and was aimed at managing the uncontrolled sprawl and its

negative impacts on the environment and the local communities therein.

The state of Ohio, on the other hand, has been lagging behind considerably with respect

to such planning initiatives to address the issue of sprawl and its impacts. Smart growth policies

2 Porter, Douglas. 2002.Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C. ULI: Urban Land Institute. p3 3 Benfield F. Kaid, Terris Jutka et al. 2001. Solving Sprawl: Models of Smart Growth in Communities Across America. Natural Resources Defense Council: New York. p2 4 Ibid

have significant supporters and significant opponents in Ohio and there is limited understanding

of the topic of smart growth within the state. 5 A recent survey of state planning reforms and

smart growth measures by the American Planning Association (APA) found that Ohio was one

of only 12 states not pursuing statewide reforms.6 According to the APA, “Ohio has no overall vision regarding growth and development, and state agencies tend to pursue their missions narrowly. Other states provide promising models for how state government can do a better job managing growth".7

Isolated attempts at adopting smart growth principles has been seen in a few cities in

northeastern Ohio namely Cleveland, Akron but there seems to be a severe lack of regional

commitment that can be seen in other states where smart growth is on the road to success. The

fragmentation of the state into many physiographic regions, the presence of an unusually large

number of metropolitan areas, the political split between northern and southern Ohio, and the

lack of a strong environmental ethos in the state may all be responsible for the sorry state of affairs in the region.8

1.2 Problem Statement

This thesis is an attempt to study the current situation within the state of Ohio with

respect to the concept of smart growth. This has been done by taking the case of two key cities

within the state, namely Cleveland and Cincinnati and their respective metropolitan regions and

tracing the development of the smart growth movement in each of them. Much has been said and

heard about Ohio being one of the worst examples of visionary planning initiatives; more

5 Minutes of the Smart Growth Committee Meeting. Ohio State University Land Use Team. January 7,2003. Available from http://landuse.osu.edu/PDF%20files/sgcreport.pdf, accessed on 11/06/03 6 Ecocity Cleveland – The Ohio Character of Smart Growth. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/ohio_character.html, accessed on 11/06/03 7 Ohio Smart Growth Agenda Unveiled. October 9, 1998. APA News Release. Available from http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/1998/ftp21098.htm, accessed on 11/06/03 8 Ecocity Cleveland – The Ohio Character of Smart Growth. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/ohio_character.html, accessed on 12/03/03

specifically smart growth. But there is little documented evidence of the evolution of the smart

growth movement, as it exists within the state. This study revealed the conflicts and constraints

that exist in the attitude towards planning in Ohio and helped in bringing to light, the steps that need to be taken in bringing about a positive change in the region. This study also helped in tracing the elements of smart growth that are currently in place in the metropolitan regions of

Cleveland and Cincinnati region thus establishing the relative degree of achievement of smart growth principles in the two areas.

This thesis has attempted to answer the following questions:

What is Smart Growth and what are the key elements that comprehensively define a

smart growth policy?

What is the story of the evolution of smart growth in the Cincinnati and Cleveland

regions in Ohio?

Which of the elements of smart growth exist in the Cincinnati and Cleveland region?

Where do the two regions stand with respect to each other in the context of the smart

growth movement? What is the level of relative success or failure?

What are the conflicts and constraints in the state of Ohio that prevent the success of

smart growth as revealed through this evolutionary study?

1.3 Methodology

The methodology that has been adopted for the evolutionary study and analysis is a case-study analysis approach. The story of the evolution of smart growth in each of the metropolitan regions of Cincinnati and Cleveland has been documented through a series of interviews of experts in the field who have been active proponents and been involved in furthering smart growth initiatives in both these cities. Experts interviewed included

academicians, local government officials, environmental activists, legal advisors, members of

nonprofit groups and people who are familiar with and/or have been involved in the development

choices made in the two regions over a period of time in the context of smart growth. Some of

the experts interviewed were individuals who have been active in promoting statewide smart

growth efforts. This helped to gain an understanding of what is being done at the state level since

both, the local and regional smart growth initiatives are important for a comprehensive study.

The interviews were conducted via email, phone, personal interviews or a combination

of the above depending on the availability of the experts being interviewed. A draft of the

questionnaire that was used for the interviews has been attached in Appendix A. The information regarding smart growth initiatives obtained from the interviews of experts was substantiated through field visits, observational studies and additional data available in the form of journals and newspaper articles .The technique adopted was a snowball approach for identifying the key players, organizations, policy initiatives and innovative programs that have been proposed or are in place in the regions of Cincinnati and Cleveland.

The information regarding the evolution of smart growth was documented through a profile study of the two regions. This profile study is structured by organizing the data into two

sections. The first part is a discussion of the chronological series of events that have taken place

in the two regions related to smart growth and the key players and organizations that have

spearheaded or opposed the smart growth movement. The second part is one where the existing

smart growth tools, that reflect the principles and sub-elements outlined in the framework, have

been consolidated in the form of a matrix to compare the status of smart growth in the two

regions.

An analysis and evaluation of the documented evolution of smart growth in Cincinnati

and Cleveland was done using the qualitative matrix described above. This detailed analysis

revealed which principles and their sub-elements, established in the smart growth definition

outlined in part one, were present, absent or under consideration in each of the two cities and

their adjoining high growth regions. The matrix analysis took into consideration the initiatives in

the cities of Cleveland and Cincinnati as well as in one ‘high growth area’ in the respective

metropolitan regions of the two cities. This helped to establish the regional context of smart

growth initiatives or the lack of them. The two respective high growth areas in the vicinity of

Cleveland and Cincinnati were rapidly growing planning jurisdictions that could serve as typical

examples for comparison with the key city. The City of Avon in Lorain County was identified for comparison with Cleveland and West Chester Township in Butler County was identified for comparison with Cincinnati. These two areas were identified by looking at the demographics of

population growth, land cover change and through information obtained from experts

interviewed in the two regions.

The matrix compared the smart growth initiatives or the lack of them, within each city

to those in one high growth area in the vicinity of Cleveland and Cincinnati respectively. Those

sub elements that were present were further substantiated with examples of projects that were in turn identified through observations, interview data and literature studies. This helped to qualitatively establish and lend credence to the smart growth efforts in the two regions. There were thus two sets of nine matrices - one for each principle – Matrix Set A for Cleveland and

Matrix Set B for Cincinnati.

Thus, the methodology was structured as under:

• Establish a framework of smart growth principles and their sub-elements

• Document the evolution of smart growth movement in Cleveland and Cincinnati

i. Identify panel of experts using snowball technique

ii. Develop interview questionnaire

iii. Pilot test questionnaire

iv. Conduct interviews using the questionnaire

v. Undertake field visits, observational studies, data searches in newspaper articles,

periodicals etc

vi. Analyze and systematize information with respect to

a. Chronological evolution and key players/organizations

b. Smart growth tools that reflect principles and sub-elements outlined in the

framework for both, the cities and the metropolitan regions of Cleveland

and Cincinnati

• Organize data into matrices including two sections: city and adjoining ‘high growth’ area

• Through observations, field visits and interviews of experts, identify whether the elements

are present/absent/under consideration and substantiate with examples in the two

metropolitan regions

• Analyze the matrices to compare the cases of Cincinnati and Cleveland with their respective

high growth areas

• Determine the conflicts and constraints within the state of Ohio

1.4 Thesis Structure

The first section of the thesis is a brief account of the problems of haphazard and

unplanned growth in Ohio and the lack of innovative planning strategies in the region to combat

these issues.

The second section deals with establishing a ‘comprehensive working definition’ of smart growth and lays out the main, overarching principles and their respective sub-elements that should constitute a smart growth policy agenda. Third is a section that outlines the characteristics and patterns of development in the cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland, their adjoining areas and

the overall physical characteristics of the state of Ohio.

The fourth section is a documentation of the evolution of smart growth in the cities of

Cleveland and Cincinnati as well as in Avon and West Chester Township. This was done through

a series of interviews, which were conducted via telephone or email, of experts in the field of

smart growth in the region who have been active participants over the past decade or more. The

experts included academicians, government officials, planners, environmentalists and social

activists. The interview questionnaire was developed after thorough research and pilot tested on

experts to determine if the questions asked, effectively aided in giving pertinent answers that

would help in tracing the story of the evolution of smart growth in the Cleveland and Cincinnati

metropolitan regions. The information regarding smart growth initiatives obtained from the

interviews of experts was further substantiated through field visits, literature and observational

studies of the Cleveland and Cincinnati metropolitan regions.

The fifth section is an analysis and evaluation section wherein the documented

evolution of smart growth in Cincinnati and Cleveland was examined in detail to reveal which

principles and their sub-elements established in the smart growth definition outlined in part one

existed in each of the two cities and their adjoining regions. A series of matrices have been used

to compare the presence of smart growth initiatives or the lack of them, in each city with the high

growth areas in their vicinity. Using such a qualitative matrix helped to visually represent the

current scenario in each city and their counterparts, thus helping to determine whether the

principles and their sub-elements are present, absent or under consideration. Those sub elements

that were present or under consideration have been further detailed out with specific examples of

projects and/or initiatives that have utilized that particular smart growth strategy. Such a

‘comparative approach’ where the initiatives within the city and those in its respective high

growth area were observed and studied, helped to gain a thorough understanding of the

differences in the nature of smart growth efforts and related debates in urban and suburban settings.

The findings highlight the strengths and drawbacks of these cities, suburbs and metropolitan regions as a whole in the context of smart growth and also give an indication of how they are faring with respect to each other. Such a microanalysis helped to finally establish the overall situation in the state of Ohio with respect to the smart growth movement and the conflicts and constraints observed at a more macro level.

The recommendations lay out strategies that could be implemented at a statewide level and at the local level to alter the current trends of haphazard growth and mitigate its multidimensional impacts. The following flowchart in Figure 1.1 lays out the structure of the thesis in detail:

Overview of Urban Sprawl: A critical problem across the United States

Smart Growth Policy as a tool to combat sprawl

Comprehensive working definition of Smart Growth: Principles and Sub-elements

Problems of sprawl and unplanned growth in Ohio

Evolution of smart growth Evolution of smart growth in Cincinnati in Cleveland

Develop a questionnaire

Pilot test questionnaire on experts in the region

Identify key players of Smart Growth using snowball technique

Conduct interviews

Undertake field visits, research newspaper articles/ periodicals etc.

Document evolution of Smart Growth with respect to each principle

Organization of documented evolution using qualitative matrix: comparison of each city with one high growth area in its vicinity

Analysis of Qualitative Matrix and Findings

Conflicts and constraints in the state of Ohio wrt Smart Growth movement

2. Overview of Urban Sprawl

2.1 Urban Sprawl in United States

In order to understand the need for altering the dispersed development patterns that

characterize the American landscape, it is first necessary to understand the problems of ‘sprawl’

and how it has diminished the quality of life of citizens across the country. Urban sprawl’ is a

term that is widely used to define the patterns of uncontrolled and haphazard development that

characterizes the American landscape as of today. Economically, socially and environmentally,

sprawl is creating some of the costliest problems that the United States now faces.

A study of the structure and dynamics of the cities of the United States at the start of the

twenty first century reveals that, cities are still undergoing fundamental physical, economic and

demographic transformations.9 The haphazard and unplanned growth of urban areas and the

impacts of these growth patterns are a cause of growing concern. In the past two decades or so, the decline in the fortunes of many American cities has led to urgent discussions about the ‘urban problem’.10

2.1.1 Urban Growth and Transitions in the United States: Post World War II

The critical problems that cities face today have resulted from the development patterns

and policy practices that have been followed over the past fifty years or so. The Second World

War in 1942 and the era that followed brought about major changes in the nation’s urban structure. With the availability of mortgage loans through the Federal Housing Administration

(FHA) and other government guarantees for housing, there was an unprecedented boom in the housing industry in the late 1940’s and 1950’s. Millions of urban apartment dwellers, with new

9 Flanagan, William G.2001. Urban Sociology: Images and Structure. Fourth Edition. Boston : Massachusetts. p211 10 Ibid

families and a modest degree of affluence and security, took to the suburbs. 11 Cities lost

population as well as businesses in the period after the War. The central business district started to decline as business centers started flourishing on the edges of cities. Large commuting distances led to an increase in the dependence on the automobile that was now the affordable and convenient choice of the American populace. The Federal Highway Act of 1956 set aside $100 billion over a period of thirteen years for the expansion and revision of the interstate highway system.12 This led to the further decentralization of cities by increasing the suburban commuter

radius.13 People could live farther from their workplaces as superhighways reduced the commuting time. The development of zoning regulations that called for separation of different types of land uses led to development along urban fringes and the deterioration of downtowns

2.1.2 Problems Arising Due To Dispersed Development Patterns

This pattern of haphazard development farther and farther away from previous centers of population and employment has had severe environmental, social and economic and health implications. Low-density suburbs are characterized by separated and isolated land uses on freestanding parcels of land with no direct connections with each other. Walking and biking are severely limited and such low-density development has increased the dependence on the automobile for meeting even simple needs like groceries or recreation.

New development along the transportation corridors has led to the destruction of farmlands, open spaces and natural systems, which includes air, water, wildlife, plant life and land. Land is being eaten up at alarming rates, as greenfield development is both an economical and profitable alternative for developers. There is an inherent relationship between automobile travel and impacts on air quality. According to a study undertaken in 1999 by the Bureau of

11 Flanagan, William G.2001. Urban Sociology: Images and Structure. Fourth Edition. Boston: Massachusetts. p231 12 Flanagan, William G.2001. Urban Sociology: Images and Structure. Fourth Edition. Boston: Massachusetts. p232 13 Ibid

Transportation Statistics, the total vehicle miles traveled per year in the United States has grown

by 250% between 1960 and 1997.14 The increase in vehicle miles traveled is related to aspects of

urban form and this fact has been revealed by numerous studies.15 More automobile trips imply greater congestion and worsened air pollution.

Urban development patterns can affect both surface and ground water quality. Low density development requires more investment in infrastructure for automobiles, such as roads, highways and parking lots – all made with impervious surfaces. 16 Impervious surfaces prevent

storm water absorption and increase flooding. Ground water can be affected by wastewater

disposal. At low development densities, residents often dispose off wastewater via septic systems, which can damage ground water quality when densities rise.17

The effect of urban sprawl on the wild life habitat and natural ecosystems is another

major issue. There is no published literature that addresses directly the relationship between

outward development and ecosystems.18 Although data is lacking there is ample evidence that

urban sprawl is having an impact on native plant and animal species. As of 1997, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service reported that over 1000 species of plants and animals have been listed as

threatened and endangered with more than 100 yet to be listed.19

Low densities tend to increase the per-unit cost of providing pubic facilities and services

including roads, water and sewer facilities. The initial cost of providing water, sewer and roads

14 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 1999. U.S. Department of Transportation, The National Transportation Statistics Report, available from http://www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS99/data/Chapter4/4/-11.html. , accessed on 11/26/03 15 Knaap, Gerrit.2002.Talking Smart in the United States. International Meeting For Multiple Intensive Land use. Habiform, Netherlands. p6 16 Knapp, Gerrit.2002.Talking Smart in the United States. International Meeting For Multiple Intensive Land use. Habiform, Netherlands. p5 17 Ibid 18 Benfield, F. Kaid, Raimi Matthew et al. 1999.Once There Were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl Is Undermining America’s Environment, Economy And Social Fabric. New York Natural Resources Defense Council.p69 19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998.Office of Management Authority, Appendices I, II, III to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Washington D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

to new development is higher in low-density areas and so are the operating costs. This is turn

increases the taxes or user fees.

Urban form can impact human health in many ways but the primary relationships are

thought to involve air and water quality, physical activity and traffic safety.20 Vehicle related air

pollutants are responsible for 20-40 thousand annual cases of chronic respiratory illnesses and 50

– 70 million respiratory related restricted activity days per year.21 Water quality degeneration is

also known to have negative health impacts. The problem of obesity has reached epidemic

proportions in the United States. From 1976 to 1994, the incidence of adult obesity rose from 47

to 56% and by 1999 had reached 61%.22 Sprawl decreases exercise by increasing the use of the

automobile as the primary mode of travel thus reducing walking and biking. The number of

accidents on the roads has also increased significantly. According to a report by Surface

Transportation Policy Project (STPP) in 1997, approximately 6000 U.S. residents die every year

after being hit by cars and more than 110,000 are injured.23 Automobile oriented transportation

systems and the nature of urban form are responsible to a great extent for such fatalities.

Critics of sprawl claim that sprawl leads to racial polarization and social injustice.24

There is considerable evidence of social inequity in the United States that is manifest in the spatial pattern of urban development.25 The rich neighborhoods that have high quality services, good schools, cultural facilities and safe environments are primarily occupied by whites whereas

20 Knaap, Gerrit. 2002.Talking Smart in the United States. International Meeting For Multiple Intensive Land use. Habiform, Netherlands 21 Delucchi, M.A. 1995. Summary of Non-Monetary Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Report No 9: Union of Concerned Scientists, Institute of Transportation Studies 22 Jackson, Richard and Chris Kochtitzky. 2002. Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Washington DC: Sprawl Watch Clearing House 23 Environmental Working Group and Surface Transportation Policy Project Paper. 1997. Washington DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project 24 Bollier, David. 1988. How Smart Growth can Stop Sprawl: A Fledgling Citizen Movement Expands. Washington DC: Sprawl Watch Clearing House 25 Knaap, Gerrit. 2002.Talking Smart in the United States. International Meeting For Multiple Intensive Land use. Habiform, Netherlands

the poorer families and minorities inhabit high density and degenerating inner city

neighborhoods. Homes in the suburbs are more expensive and the poorer families cannot afford

them thus resulting in this form of income and racial disparities in land use.

2.1.3 Need for Change:

The discussion above highlights the wide range of problems that have resulted from haphazard and dispersed forms of development. Growing concerns among citizens, planners,

government officials, academicians, environmentalists and social activists have led to sprawl

becoming a major issue in the United States. It has been felt that the critical state of urban

development needs to be addressed through policy reforms and a basic alteration in the mindset

of the people. We cannot continue to grow forever without taking into consideration the negative

impacts of development on our environment, economy, and society as a whole. It is this

realization that has led to the emergence of ‘smart growth’ as an alternative to combat the

undesirable effects of unplanned development. A discussion about smart growth in the context of

the United States has been undertaken in the following chapter.

3. Smart Growth: A Policy Tool to Combat Sprawl 3.1 What is Smart Growth?

In communities across the nation there is a growing concern that current patterns of

development-dominated by what some call ‘sprawl’-are no longer in the long term interests of

our cities, existing suburbs, small towns, rural communities or wilderness areas.26 A strong need

has been felt to alter the way we ‘grow’ by making balanced choices that would strengthen our

communities, economy and the environment in the long run. The realization is slowly setting in

that development and an improved quality of life is desirable but not at the cost of degrading the

environment, depleting our natural resources, raising local taxes, increasing traffic congestion

and creating isolated neighborhoods.

Communities are questioning the economic costs of abandoning infrastructure in the city

and rebuilding it farther out.27 The necessity of spending hours locked in traffic and traveling miles to get to the nearest store is being debated. Concerns are being raised about the practice of abandoning older structures in existing communities within central cities and the need for developing prime agricultural land and open space thus degrading the environment. The conflicting interests of adjoining jurisdictions and stakeholders involved in community development and the impacts of counterproductive development decisions are being seriously considered. All these questions and concerns have led local and state governments, planners,

environmentalists, social activists, policymakers, developers and communities to rethink the way

they function and look for ‘smarter’, collaborative and more balanced alternatives to further

26 Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1998. Why Smart Growth: A Primer. p1 27 Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 2002. Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation. p3

growth and development. The concept of smart growth emerged during the 1990’s as one of the

solutions to the challenges posed by traditional planning policies and zoning techniques.28

Growth means development. Smart growth means development that accommodates growth in smart ways, which is to say in economically viable, environmentally responsible, and collaboratively determined ways.29 To achieve that objective, many smart growth strategies

encourage development in areas with existing or planned infrastructure.30 Within those areas,

they also encourage mixed use, pedestrian and transit oriented development; establish incentives

to enhance investment; lower regulatory barriers to development; and use both state and local

funding to improve infrastructure.31

3.2 Main principles of smart growth

A comprehensive understanding of smart growth can be arrived at by taking into account

a set of underlying principles that are key to any smart growth initiative. These principles are an

inter-related set of widely acceptable ideas about the desirable form and character of

communities.32 These principles form the framework of the overarching vision for the

community and are the broad themes that give direction to the process of community

development. Each community can have its own specific smart growth program fashioned to

meet the specific needs and address the unique conditions of that particular region. The distinct

elements of these programs may vary with place but the overarching principles remain intact. In

essence, the principles lay down the theory of smart growth. Thus, smart growth envisions each

community fashioning its own version of smart growth through a shared decision making

28 Porter, Douglas. 2002. Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C. ULI: Urban Land Institute.p5 29 Porter, Douglas. 2002. Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C. ULI: Urban Land Institute.p1 30 O’ Neill, David. 2000. The Smart Growth Tool Kit. Community Profiles and Case Studies To Advance Smart Growth Practices. Washington D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute.p2 31 Ibid 32 Porter, Douglas. 2002. Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C. ULI: Urban Land Institute. p1

process, a vision that accords with community interests and reasonably balances the various principles that make up smart growth in theory.33

A study of the literature on smart growth in the United States reveals the set of broad

principles that need to be followed to bring about favorable changes in our existing and

undesirable development patterns. Different studies word these principles differently and often

times two or three principles are grouped together but the basic ideas that all these studies

encompass remain the same. Studies looked at in detail include The Smart Growth Tool Kit by

David O’ Neill (2000), Making Smart Growth Work by Douglas Porter (2002), both publications

of the Urban Land Institute, Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation (2002),

a handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management

Association (ICMA) and the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook of the American Planning

Association (APA).

Based on these sources of literature, this study classifies the underlying principles of

smart growth into nine sections. These are outlined as follows:

1. Mixing Land Uses

2. Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices

3. Providing Transportation Options

4. Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and

redevelopment

5. Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas

6. Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost

effective

7. Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place

33 Porter, Douglas. 2002.Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C. ULI: Urban Land Institute. p7

8. Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques

9. Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration

The following section describes each of these principles in detail. The actual achievement

of the goals outlined by each principle is made possible through a set of specific policies that

communities can adopt as part of their smart growth program. Different communities may modify these policies and create ‘place specific’ strategies for smart growth that would suit their

unique contexts.

In the following section, each principle is first discussed in detail to establish its objective and

meaning. This is followed by a list of specific policies that can serve as tools for the achievement of that principle.

3.2.1.Mixing Land Uses

One of the main approaches to creating vibrant and diverse communities with a sense of place is the mixing of a variety of land uses, namely commercial, residential, recreational,

educational and others. Mix of land uses has several advantages. It reduces the distances between where people live and where they go to work, shop or study. It increases the options of using different transit modes like walking, biking and even mass transit. People can satisfy several needs in one location without having to travel. Mixed-use development also gives neighborhoods a sense of place by creating opportunities for social interaction where people can meet in leisure thus strengthening the spirit of the community.

Conventional suburban development patterns mandate a separation of land uses. Current zoning restrictions in many communities across America promote low density, single use development to prevent residential uses from industrial fumes, hustle and bustle of commercial centers and other nuisances that may accompany mixed land use patterns. Such a practice has led

to a pattern of development wherein stores, schools, housing are so far away from each other that they can only be accessed by car in the absence of extensive public transit options.

Smart growth supports the integration of mixed land uses into communities as a critical component of achieving better places to live.34 In addition to improving the quality of life in communities, this key principle of smart growth has substantial economic and fiscal benefits.

Businesses that are located in close proximity to residential areas often have higher property values as they can attract people at all times of the day. A study by the Lend Lease Real Estate – a leading resource for real estate lenders, financers and builders – has revealed that over the past five years the nation’s best commercial real estate markets are cities with vibrant downtowns or with twenty-four hour suburbs.35 The following policies have been identified as specific tools that can be used to implement this principle of smart growth in a community:

• Adopt smart growth codes in addition to innovative zoning tools to parallel existing

conventional development codes

• Provide incentives through state funds to encourage residents to live near their places of

work

• Facilitate financing of mixed use properties through incentives to developers, financiers

and local communities

• Convert declining shopping malls and/or retrofit single use office and retail structures

into mixed use developments

34 Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 2002. Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation. p2 35 Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Inc. 2001.Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2002 .New York: PricewaterhouseCoopers and Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Inc.

3.2.2. Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices

The changing demographics of the American household have created a need for

expanding the currently available housing forms. The single family detached dwelling that was

intended for a typical family of parents and two children cannot accommodate the needs of

single adults, dual income adults without kids, single parents and aging citizens who are emerging as important segments of housing markets.36 Moreover, there are limited housing

opportunities available to people belonging to low-income groups who end up living in isolated

neighborhoods with limited or minimal resources.

A communities’ smart growth strategy must include as an integral component the

provision of quality housing for all income groups and for different family requirements at

affordable prices. Integrating single and multi family structures in existing neighborhoods can

help reduce the concentration of poverty, increase density, create a better job-housing balance

and aid the setting up of neighborhood transit stops, commercial centers and other services to

address the diverse needs of a heterogeneous population. More importantly, a range of housing

choices allows all households to find their niche in a smart growth community- whether it is a

garden apartment, a row house or a traditional suburban home – and accommodate growth at the

same time.37 The following policies have been identified as specific tools that can be used to

implement this principle of smart growth in a community:

• Revise existing zoning and building codes to permit a variety of housing types and enact

an inclusionary zoning ordinance for new housing developments

• Prioritize smart growth projects and programs by allocating federal funds, community

development block grants and other funding sources ???

36 Porter, Douglas. 2002.Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C. ULI: Urban Land Institute. p68 37 Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 2002.Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation. p18

• Educate realtors, lenders and home buyers on the use of resource efficient mortgages38

and provide financial assistance through home ownership subsidies

• Require new developments to have a percentage of affordable housing in their plans for

residential development

3.2.3. Providing Transportation Options

Achieving smart growth requires smart transportation, the goals of which are to widen travel choices and improve the capacity of transportation systems to meet the mobility demands of a growing population and economy.39 One of the main complaints of the urban populace

pertaining to the quality of life is the increasing traffic congestion on the roads and the resulting

delays, deteriorated air quality and long automobile trips arising from separated land uses. A

study by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) of congestion in 68 urban areas shows that the

share of total travel occurring in congested conditions increased from 32 percent (about five

hours a day) in 1982 to 45 percent (about seven hours a day) in 1997.40 The challenge of

increasing transportation options goes beyond just improving public transit, providing walking

and biking paths, carpooling and promoting high occupancy vehicle lanes. It is about altering the

current land development patterns of low density, single use projects that increase automobile

dependency to compact, mixed use developments that would foster walkability/biking, shorten travel times and create a need for pubic transit.

38 Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 2002. Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation. p21 “Resource Efficient Mortgages allow home buyers to factor the cost savings associated with homes that are near transit or are energy efficient into their mortgage calculation, and can help put a wider range of housing options within reach for people. Initial pilots of the Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM) by Fannie Mae and the center for neighborhood technology have helped to expand the range of housing that is affordable near transit, where the total household savings accrued by lower transportation costs are factored into the mortgage qualifying calculations.” 39 Porter, Douglas. 2002.Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C. ULI: Urban Land Institute. p43 40 Shrank, David and Tim Lomax. 2001.Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute: College Station, Texas. p17

Policies to expand transportation choices suited to the specific needs of a community have been made available to help communities expand their transportation networks in coordination with their land use. Such a coordinated and comprehensive approach is one of the key principles of a smart growth strategy and the tools for the same have been highlighted as follows:

• Finance and provide incentives for interconnected multimodal transportation

systems

• Foster pedestrian supportive land use development patterns. Create effective

pedestrian environments through the use of sidewalks, easy street crossings, and

local street connectivity

• Address parking needs and opportunities in an innovative fashion (avoid large

parking lots)

• Zone for concentrated activity centers around transit service within communities

3.2.4. Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment

The post World War II era saw a trend of declining urban cores and the first ring of suburbs as dispersed and low density development was redirected towards urban fringes. This led to the deterioration and degeneration of older buildings and existing infrastructure in central cities in addition significant impacts on the natural environment that resulted from greenfield development, destruction of flora and fauna, degraded water quality and air quality.

Smart growth addresses this critical issue of central city degeneration by redirecting development towards older communities thus utilizing the existing infrastructure, creating a stronger tax base, reducing development pressure in fringe areas, bringing jobs and services in close proximity and preserving valuable farmland and critical environmental resources. This

strategy involves the use of infill development, brownfield redevelopment and the rehabilitation of existing buildings. A number of barriers in the form of our current planning and zoning strategies discourage this form of ‘smart growth’. Greenfield development is more economical and less constrained than infill development. Outlying areas have low land prices, less stringent zoning restrictions, new infrastructure in place and large areas available for mega development projects.

In recent years several efforts have been made to reverse this trend by providing incentives to strengthen existing neighborhoods. With growing awareness of the economic, social and environmental benefits of developing core areas, the private market can be encouraged to redirect their resources to restoring and reusing older communities. Some of the key policy tools that state and local government officials can use to further this principle of smart growth have been outlined as follows:

• Strengthen state or local Brownfield programs and locate civic buildings in

existing communities rather than greenfield areas

• Institute a regional tax base sharing to reduce intra jurisdictional competition and

promote development of the region as a whole

• Create economic incentives for businesses and home owners to locate in areas

with existing infrastructure

• Modify average cost-pricing practices in utilities thus accounting for the higher

costs of providing infrastructure in outlying areas

3.2.5. Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas

The urgent need to conserve critical environmental areas, farmlands and open spaces is being recognized across the United States. Open space conservation is closely related to several

other principles of smart growth and is one of the key components of any smart growth initiative.

Preservation of land in fringe areas and ecologically sensitive regions can bolster the local economies, strengthen existing communities, prevent environmental and cultural degradation, preserve recreational opportunities in open spaces, limit sprawl and thus improve the overall quality of life. It can prevent flooding, protect surface and ground water resources and combat air pollution while protecting the flora and fauna of the region. Therefore, protection of open spaces has several economic, environmental, cultural and health benefits.

Local governments, private developers, community groups and citizens need to work together to achieve this objective in the face of mounting growth pressures. Cooperation, coordinate, political will and a regional vision are key to the success of this principle.

Communities can use following policy tools and approaches in their efforts to conserve open space that is a valuable national resource:

• Use transfer of development rights (TDR’s), purchase of development rights (PDR’s) and

other market oriented tools to conserve privately owned land and to facilitate open space

acquisition and its preservation

• Identify critical ecological sites at a regional level and create an inventory prior to

development to direct future growth in a planned manner

• Create a continuous network of green ways and walking/ biking trails

• Partner with non governmental organizations and other public entities to acquire and

protect land and also increase public awareness

3.2.6. Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective

For a community to be successful in implementing smart growth, its vision, objectives

and actions need to be embraced by key players in the private sector.41 The active involvement and investments by the private sector is crucial in determining the success or failure of any new development strategy. Developers, bankers, builders, investors, need to be convinced that their profit motives would be met with by subscribing to the alternative proposals for growth. Local governments can ensure such a buy in by private agencies through the provision of financial incentives and regulation that would aid smart growth development practices. Barriers to smart growth initiatives in the regulatory mechanism often tend to prevent the use of innovative techniques as the uncertainty, additional effort and the time consuming procedures involved make it a costly affair in the long run.

To ensure that smart growth initiatives flourish and find a stronghold in the private sector, local governments must create a supportive regulatory environment that provides for a timely, cost effective and predictable alternative to developers. This would encourage developers to work towards creating compact, transit oriented, mixed-use communities as the roadblocks that currently dissuade them from doing so would be out of the way. The policy tools that would foster this principle have been outlined as under:

• Provide financial incentives to encourage smart growth projects

• Expedite the plan and permit approval process for smart growth projects (policy

incentives)

• Identify practices in existing regulatory framework that prohibit smart growth (smart

growth audit)

41 Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 2002.Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation. p70

3.2.7. Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place

The enormous tracts of strip malls and suburban single-family dwelling units that dot the

American landscape have torn away from it the very essence of community that lends character to a ‘place’. Each developed sector seems indistinguishable from the other barring a few superficial elements. Communities have become individualistic in nature with austere physical environments that seldom if at all promote civic sense and pride in the neighborhoods. Smart

Growth espouses the principle that communities need to reflect in their structure and dynamics a strong sense of place that expresses the cultural, historical, economic and geographical significance of the area. The creation and preservation of distinctive and attractive communities would involve the construction of civic spaces for community gatherings, intelligent use of landscaping elements, vibrant signage and natural/ man made landmarks to enhance the unique character of each neighborhood. The residential, commercial and recreational spaces created should be able to make a distinctive statement and stand apart from every other region thus serving as assets to the community at large. The policy tools than could be used for achieving this objective have been outlined as under:

• Create civic anchors at a community level like neighborhood schools, community

centers, health centers etc

• Encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures through financial incentives

• Create special improvement districts for focused investment

3.2.8. Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques

The consumption of land for residential, commercial and recreational uses has increased exponentially in the past fifty years. Regions across America are feeling the pressure of haphazard and unplanned growth patterns as urban areas struggle to accommodate future growth

requirements. Smart growth encourages communities to follow compact development that uses

land in an efficient manner. This reduces the building footprint thus leaving the land open to absorb rainwater, reduce flooding and reduce runoff pollution.

Locating houses close to each other reduces infrastructure costs, increases density, creates a sense of community and supports public transit. Communities that have adopted compact design strategies are reaping the aforementioned benefits but such examples are not too

many. The conventional planning and zoning laws do not foster compact development patterns

and people perceive ‘high density’ residential areas to be substandard. The ‘American Dream’

that promotes single-family detached dwellings has arisen from a lack of understanding and

familiarity with compact building design ad the benefits associated with it. The following

policies can be used to incorporate compact design techniques into the American streetscape:

• Increase awareness amongst community members and offer incentives regarding compact

building options through workshops and public meetings

• Create appropriate design guidelines to balance efficiency, privacy and accessibility thus

creating attractive homes and yards

• Support regional efforts to support compact development

3.2.9. Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration

The vision of a community’s future needs to integrate the wide range of needs of various stakeholders and community members. The range of these stakeholders include developers,

urban planners, transportation engineers, social and environmental activists, historic

preservationists, community development advocates, civic bodies, environmental justice

advocates, scholars, academicians, senior citizens’ organizations and many others. The

perspective of each of these groups needs to be accommodated in community development plans, programs and designs.

Smart growth solutions offer an opportunity to depart from traditional and familiar

concepts of urban design. Mixed use, compact, walkable and cohesive communities that smart

growth aims to create can be made possible through the integration of creative ideas that these

different groups can offer. This can be done by increasing awareness through public meetings,

conducting surveys and creating a platform for dialogue in a multi stakeholder environment. The

process may seem overwhelming owing to the magnitude, cost and time required to bring about

this kind of broad community involvement but is key to the success of any novel initiative in the

long run as it can reduce conflicts, expedite development decisions, and lead to creative and cost

effective solutions in a predictable manner.

The following policies are some tools that can be used to achieve the principle of

community involvement in an effective manner:

• Develop a public participation process

• Use different methods (media, mail, pamphlets, charrettes, 3D computer simulations) as

well as forums to educate and disseminate information to all segments of the population

regarding the development and decision making processes on a consistent basis

• Incorporate stakeholder opinions at different stages of the development process

The range of policies mentioned above is an attempt to enumerate as far as possible in a

feasible manner the tools that communities can use to achieve the objective of vibrant, dynamic

and healthy neighborhoods. Communities may adopt other tools as well to achieve their specific

objectives not limited to the ones outlined above. The actual policies used by the communities

may be variations of the ones discussed above as well. The nine principles given above give a

comprehensive overview of the broad vision and overarching objectives that a community should

keep in mind while undertaking any smart growth initiative. The specific tools mentioned herein

can be the first steps that communities may take towards the actual implementation of such a

program. The entire process may be spread over a long period of time. The principles of smart

growth and the desired effects cannot be achieved overnight. The process requires careful planning and a meticulous outline of the short and long term goals of a region.

The actual road to smart growth would be different for different communities as there is

no ‘one size fits all’ solution but what would be common to all are the overall environmental,

social and economic benefits that every region can reap over a period of time. Overarching

vision, regional cooperation and a strong commitment from all sectors of the society can go a

long way in ensuring the health and well being of our communities today as well as in the distant

future.

4. The State of Ohio and Smart growth Policy 4.1 The State of Ohio – An Overview

The state of Ohio rolls down from the mountains of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, flows into soft hills and fertile valleys, and flattens out in broad lands which reach to Indiana. It spans across an area of 44,824.90 square miles, which includes about 400 square miles of rivers and lakes, ranking 35th in terms of land area in the United States of America42. Ohio, nick named

‘the buckeye state’, is one of the five Midwestern states that were carved out of the Northern

Territory in the late 18th Century when the British acceded the territory to the American union.

4.1.1 Location and Size

The state of Ohio (highlighted by the black box in Figure 4.1) is located on the southern shores of Lake Erie with the Ohio River forming a sweeping boundary in the east and the south.

It forms a part of the Midwest, comprising of the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and

Wisconsin.

Figure 4.1: Location of Ohio in the United States

Source: United States Political Map. Available from www.maps.com

42 Ohio Almanac: State Facts and Figures. 2000. Your Guide to the US states. Available from http://www.statehousegirls.net/oh/almanac/, accessed on 11/12/03

Ohio shares common boundaries with five other states, Michigan in the north, Indiana in

the west, Pennsylvania in the east, and Kentucky & West Virginia in the South, as shown in

Figure 4.2. The state consists of 88 counties that are crisscrossed by a number of Interstate, US and State highways. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Akron form the biggest urban centers other than the state capital, Columbus43.

Figure 4.2 The State of Ohio

Source: Map of Ohio. Available from www.maps.com

4.1.2 Physical Characteristics

Ohio comprises of varied landforms, including plains, plateaus, rivers and hilly regions.

A concise description of the topography of the state is given in the Ohio Guide developed by the

workers of the Ohio Writers’ Project44.

“The rough hilly terrain in eastern Ohio eases down momentarily and then rolls, as the Central Plains, to the Mississippi River and beyond. The surface in the western part of the state is characterized by dunes in the north, a level plain in the

43 Ohio Almanac: State Facts and Figures. 2000. Your Guide to the US states. Available from http://www.statehousegirls.net/oh/almanac/, accessed on 11/12/03 44 Ohio Writers’ Project. 1946. The Ohio Guide. Oxford University Press, New York, p3

center, and undulating hills farther south, becoming more disturbed in the southwest, then sinking, on the banks of the Ohio River, to a level of 400 to 500 feet. The plateau of eastern Ohio, everywhere broken into gorges, averages 600 to 700 feet along the Ohio River.” The State can be broadly divided into four topographical regions45:

The Allegheny Plateau – This is the westward extension of the Appalachian foothills in the

state of Ohio.

The Lake Plains – These are the plains bordering lake Erie, extending inland about five to ten

miles, westward from Pennsylvania to Erie County

The Till Plains – These plains lie in the South of the Lake Plains and west of the Allegheny

Plateau.

The Bluegrass Region – A Small, northward-pointing triangle of land in Adams, Brown and

Highland counties forms the Bluegrass Region.

The Lake plains propelled the growth in Northern Ohio, leading to the evolution of the cities of Cleveland and Toledo, while the Ohio River provided the adequate

resources for the development in the south, resulting in the progress of Cincinnati.

4.1.3 Transportation Networks

The biggest contributor to the development of any state other than natural resources is the

transportation network. It breaks the barrier created by lack of resources at a certain place by

providing access to supplies from other places. The transportation network of Ohio, especially

the Interstate highways I-75, I-71 and I-80 (see Figure 4.3), boosted development in the state.

These highways are amongst the top ten routes in the state with respect to freight ton-miles46.

The high volume of traffic on these routes is the consequence of efficient connectivity provided by these routes between major urban centers.

45 Knepper, George W. 1997. Ohio and its People. The Kent State University Press, p 3-5 46 Freight Impacts on Ohio’s Roadway System: Final Report. 2002. Ohio Department of Transportation, FHWA/0H- 2002/026, p A99

The interstate I-75 connects Cincinnati with Detroit, Michigan in the north (via Dayton and Toledo) and Atlanta, Georgia in the South. This has steered trade links between Ohio and other states.

Figure 4.3: Major Interstate Routes in the state of Ohio

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation, Available from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/map1/IMAP.HTM

Similarly, interstate I-71 linking the three biggest cities in the state, namely, Cincinnati,

Columbus and Cleveland abetted industrial development and promoted intra-state trade.

Interstate I-80, linking major cities like Chicago and New York, provided transfer points in the state of Ohio that benefited from the movement of freight and passenger traffic on this route.

4.2 Lack of innovative planning in Ohio

A study undertaken in the early 1990s showed that the land cover in the state of Ohio comprised of mainly row crops, forests and pasture that accounted for 34%, 31% and 22% of the total land cover respectively (see Figure 4.4). The remaining 13% of land comprised of urban land, wetlands, water and barren land. A closer look at the land cover in the cities and villages of

Ohio presents a different pattern altogether. The city and village land cover consists of 45% urban land, 22% forest cover, 12% of pasture and 17% of row crops. If the current trend of uncontrolled and haphazard growth continues, more and more farmland will get converted into residential and commercial sectors, thus creating a plethora of social and environmental problems that have been discussed earlier.

Figure 4.4: Land Cover in Ohio

Source: Reece and Irwin, 200247 4.3 Ohio and Smart Growth: One of the worst cases

Smart growth policies and initiatives have been used across the United States as one of

the solutions to combat sprawl. The state of Ohio has been lagging behind in the use of such

innovative solutions to curb its current trend of haphazard growth and uncontrolled leapfrogging

development. A recent survey of state planning reforms and smart growth measures by the

47 Reece, Jason and Irwin Elena. 2002. Land Cover in Ohio's Townships: An Analysis of Township Land Cover and Population Change. Available from http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/programs/exurbs/EX3/fig1.pdf accessed on November 12, 2003

American Planning Association found that Ohio was one of only 12 states not pursuing statewide reforms.48 According to the APA, “Ohio has no overall vision regarding growth and development, and state agencies tend to pursue their missions narrowly. Other states provide promising models for how state government can do a better job managing growth".49

There are several conflicts and constraints within the state with respect to the smart growth movement. Numerous debates surround the idea of whether smart growth principles should be integrated into the future policy initiatives that are intended to shape the pattern of growth and development. The opposing points of view strongly rival each other, thus, preventing isolated smart growth initiatives from making any substantial progress.

4.4 Cincinnati and Cleveland – Two Key Representative Cities Of Ohio

In order to evaluate the status of smart growth in Ohio, two primary cities within the state, namely Cleveland and Cincinnati and one high growth area in their surrounding metropolitan regions of these cities were studied. The thesis attempts to trace the story of the evolution of the smart growth movement in each city and its respective suburb and compares the projects and/or initiatives undertaken therein with the nine key principles and their sub elements outlined in the smart growth prescription. An assessment and detailed analysis of the smart growth movement as it exists in the cities and their surrounding high growth areas, is done to establish as to which of the elements are being used if at all, in achieving the overall vision of smart growth within these regions.

48 Ecocity Cleveland – The Ohio Character of Smart Growth. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/ohio_character.html, accessed on 11/06/03 49 Ohio Smart Growth Agenda Unveiled. October 9, 1998. APA News Release. Available from http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/1998/ftp21098.htm, accessed on 11/06/03

4.4.1 Why choose Cincinnati and Cleveland?

The reason why the two cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland were chosen for such a study

is that these are the two primary cities in Ohio. The structure and dynamics of these cities is

different and so is the culture of planning that is followed. The comparison between the smart

growth initiatives in each city and one high growth area in its vicinity is crucial in determining

the efficacy of smart growth in the regional context. Such a study and analysis of different

scenarios helps in understanding the broad range of initiatives that are being followed within the

context of a single state and reveals the more successful initiatives and the reasons for the same.

The overall scenario of smart growth movement in Ohio can thus be understood through such a

study and analysis. This thesis outlines the characteristics of the landscape of Cleveland and

Cincinnati metropolitan regions with respect to their location and size, physical characteristics

and transportation networks.

4.4.2 The city of Cleveland and its Landscape Characteristics: A profile

Cleveland, Ohio’s second-largest city has grown fan-wise outwards from the Lake Erie

shore, radiating from the twisting Cuyahoga River to the east, south, and the west50. The largest

urban region in Northeastern Ohio, also referred to as the “New American City”, lies exactly in

the middle of the Western Reserve shoreline. It was founded at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River

by General Moses Cleaveland, who came to plat a town site for the Connecticut Land Company in 1796. The presence of Lake Erie accelerated the growth of the city over the next few decades.

In fact, today the port of Cleveland is the largest overseas general cargo port on Lake Erie51.

50 Ohio Writers’ Project. 1946. The Ohio Guide. Oxford University Press, New York, p: 217 51 Cleveland Ohio. 2003. Profile of 50 largest cities of the United States. Available from http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0108498.html, accessed on 11/19/03

Cleveland extends across an area of 77.6 square miles, which includes about 4.8 square miles of surface water52.

4.4.2.1 Location and Size

Figure 4.5: Location of Cleveland in the state of Ohio

Source: Map of Ohio. Available from www.maps.com

The city of Cleveland (highlighted by the black box in Figure 4.5) is located on the southern shores of Lake Erie, in the North Eastern part of the state of Ohio. The lakefront is on the edge of the downtown core and provides a scenic backdrop to the city's skyline. In addition to the 1.5 million population of the Cleveland metropolitan region, its market area includes counties of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit, making

52 Cleveland Ohio Resource Guide. Available from http://www.usacitiesonline.com/ohcountycleveland.htm, accessed on 11/19/03

it the 15th largest market in the United States. Although it comprises only 9% of the land area of

Ohio it supports about 26% if the states population53.

Figure 4.6: The City of Cleveland

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation. Available from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/availpro/gis_mapping/mrsid/sids/otm2001a.sid 4.4.2.2 Physical Characteristics

Cleveland’s topography varies from plains to plateaus giving an indication of the

influence of the lake and other tectonic activities in the past. The eastern part of the Cleveland

metropolitan area lies on the Appalachian Plateau at an elevation of about 330 m (about 1,100

ft), while the western part sits upon the Lake Plain and associated terraces at about 180 m (about

600 ft). Most of the northern and downtown sections of Cleveland lie on terraces between 18 and

24 m (60 and 80 ft) above Lake Erie. These terraces are divided by the valley of the Cuyahoga

53 Facts at a Glance. 2003. Welcome to Greater Cleveland. Available from http://www.clevelandgrowth.com/market_data/Publications/Facts_at_a_glance.asp, accessed on November 19, 2003.

River, which flows northward through Cleveland. The valley, called the Flats, was once the

city’s main industrial section but has since been converted into an entertainment district, with

numerous restaurants and nightclubs in renovated warehouses on both banks of the river. High

bridges across the Flats link the commercial and residential areas to its east and west.

4.4.2.3 Transportation Networks

The east-west interstate I-90 and the North-south interstate I-71 form the main corridors through Cleveland as shown in Figure 4.7. Situated enroute Chicago and New York on I-90,

Cleveland had advantages of being a major transfer point and also the ready access to the interstate leading to major urban centers helped the local industry. This fostered the development of the Cleveland as an industrial town resulting in it becoming one of the largest metropolitan regions in the state.

Figure 4.7: Interstates, US and State highways in the Cleveland metropolitan region

Source: Microsoft Corporation, available from http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/cities/cleveland/maps/map_clev_region.htm

4.4.2.4 Identification of High Growth area in the vicinity of Cleveland

The city of Avon, located to the west of Cleveland has been chosen as the typical example high growth area in the vicinity of Cleveland. The following section discusses the location, transportation networks, and characteristics of the city to establish the context within which the analysis of smart growth principles will be done. The last section lays out the reasons why this particular city has been chosen for this study.

4.4.2.4.1 Location and Characteristics

The City of Avon is located in Lorain County in Northeastern Ohio. It is approximately

22 miles west of Cleveland (highlighted in Figure 4.8 by a box) and about 113 miles from the state capital of Ohio, Columbus. It spans across 21 square miles with a population of about

11,500 people. Figure 4.8 shows the townships within the counties of Cuyahoga and Lorain along with the boundaries of the two counties and the location of the city of Avon.

Figure 4.8: Location of the City of Avon, Ohio

Source: State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey; available from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/pdf/cotwpmap.pdf

The City of Avon lies along the Interstate I-90 connecting Cleveland and Toledo/Detroit

(see Fig 4.9). It is well connected by various highway links and important roadways like the

Interstate I-80 and I-480 that run south of the city thus providing an important access to the

transportation network. Ease of access to the city and its location on the banks of lake Erie are

two key factors that have been responsible to a great extent for the fast paced development that

this city has seen in last ten years.

Figure 4.9: Location and Transportation Networks in the City of Avon

Source: US Census Bureau; available from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ReferenceMapDrawServlet) 4.4.2.4.2 Background

Like a lot of other cities and townships in Ohio, the city of Avon started settling in the

early 1800s. The end of the American Revolution and safer atmosphere outside the major cities prompted people to venture into the suburbs. By the mid 1800’s, Avon was a town of modest population and a lot of German settlers established several extremely prosperous farms in the

area. As Avon’s popularity grew steadily, there were many developmental changes giving Avon

the reputation of an uncut diamond.54 The first road was cut in 1840 and, by 1882, the railroad

connected Avon with other flourishing markets of America. By 1911,the northern portion of

Avon petitioned to become Avon Lake. The year 1925, brought electricity and the introduction

of gravel roads, in 1950 the city water lines were laid and 1960 gave way to official city status

for Avon. During the same year, a new interstate highway I –90 was built, enabling Avon to gain

even greater access to the world’s markets. By 1990, the population of Avon had reached to

7,500 residents and it was quickly becoming a bedroom community of Cleveland. During the last

years, the population of the city has more than doubled with trends of out-migration from the city

of Cleveland and its first ring suburbs. The city boasts of real estate along the lake Erie, and is

extremely well connected with the surrounding areas through an extensive network of roads and

highways. This makes the city of Avon, a very desirable place to live.

While Avon has long been known for its many greenhouses and farms, the City in recent

years has also become a major center for antiques. There are several antiques shops located

throughout Avon, and also many century homes within the French Creek Historic District. Four

times a year festivals and special sales draw thousands of visitors.

Avon's Enterprise Zone is located near I-90 and other state routes, which makes it ideal for

developing for industrial use. Its proximity to Cleveland and an ideal location in between

Toledo/Detroit and Cleveland has helped the economic growth of the city of Avon.

4.4.2.4.3 Selection of the city of Avon as the ‘high growth’ area for study

The character of Avon and its history of urban development make it ideal to be chosen as

a typical high growth area in the vicinity of Cleveland. While the city and the older suburbs were

54The City of Avon Community Guide: 2004-2005 Edition. Sponsored by the City of Avon and Avon Local Schools. Available from http://www.boomware.com/cityofavon/index.htm, accessed on 04/29/04

losing population, Avon was absorbing people and growing as a popular, new suburb. The need

for providing services and infrastructure has grown in the city with the increase of population.

Recently, the I-90 was widened to make it a three- lane highway making it even easier to get to

Avon and also avoid congestion during peak hours. The mayors of Cuyahoga County resented this move, as it could further aggravate the existing problems being faced by Cleveland.

This stark contrast between Cleveland and the city of Avon make it ideal for the purpose of comparison and analysis of the use of smart growth principles in both places. This would also help to establish the regional context of smart growth, which is a key pat of this study. The matrix created for analysis compares the status of each smart growth principle in the major city and its adjoining high growth area. It would interesting to see what kind of results are obtained in this case as the patterns of growth and development in Cleveland and Avon are opposite in nature.

4.4.3 City of Cincinnati and its Landscape Characteristics: A profile

The city of Cincinnati, the third largest in Ohio, is a metropolis of the southern part of the state, spreading back from the Ohio River over a disarray of rugged hills. It rises from the riverbank in a series of terraces that lead to a broad valley shelf known as the ‘basin’. The growth of the city from its nucleus in the basin has been much like the rise of the flood waters that have periodically have swept into the lower sections of Cincinnati55. Homes and streets sweep into the adjoining valleys, curve around the hills, and then creep higher on the hillsides.

Cincinnati, also called as the “Queen City” extends across an area of 78.82 square miles, which includes about 1.6 square miles of rivers and lakes56.

4.4.3.1 Location and Size

Figure 4.10: Location of Cincinnati in the state of Ohio

Source: Map of Ohio. Available from www.maps.com

55 Ohio Writers’ Project. 1946. The Ohio Guide. Oxford University Press, New York, p: 196 56 Cincinnati: City Information - Maps/Directions. 2003. Available from http://www.placesnamed.com/c/i/cincinnati.asp, accessed on 04/29/04

The city of Cincinnati (highlighted by the black box in Figure 4.10) is located on the southwestern part of the state of Ohio. It curves for thirty miles along a great bend of the Ohio

River (see figure 4.11) and shares common boundaries with the states of Indiana in the west, and

Kentucky in the South. In addition to the two million population of the Cincinnati metropolitan region, its orbit of influence takes in thousands of people from as far east as the Kanawha River, in West Virginia; as far north as Chillicothe, Ohio; as far south as Lexington, Kentucky; and as far west as Aurora, Indiana57.

Figure 4.11: The city of Cincinnati

Source: Ohio Department of Transportation. Available from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/availpro/gis_mapping/mrsid/sids/otm2001a.sid

57 Ohio Writers’ Project. 1943. The Cincinnati Guide. The Wiesen-Hart Press, Cincinnati, OH, p: XIX.

4.4.3.2 Physical Characteristics

The area within the confines of the city of Cincinnati as well as the greater Cincinnati

metro regions’ topography and ecological zones provide it with an unusually varied and

picturesque environment. This ecological diversity is due to its location at the point of

convergence of three of North America's regions58. The rolling uplands of the Greater Cincinnati

area, its hills and valleys, its rivers and streams, all give evidence that the landforms of the region have been recycled not once, but several times in the last couple of million years59. This was a

result of the impact of the three glaciers, the Kansan, the Illinoisan and the Wisconsinian that

reached the edge of what is today Cincinnati before melting and transforming the land. The

series of ice advances during the Pleistocene epoch, in North America were referred to as the

Nebraskan or Kansan stages, and also called the pre-Illinoisan glaciations60.

The chronological description of the topographical evolution of the Cincinnati region is

described below61:

• The Kansan glacier stopped in Northern Kentucky about 2 million years ago, when the

region was nearly flat, with a meandering river flowing north. This glacier blocked the river

and created a giant lake in the area. After the glacier retreated, an ancestor of the Ohio River

was born. It began to flow west, looping through what is today Norwood before flowing

north to the Mill Creek. Subsequently, it headed south down a channel that became the Great

Miami River. The river and water runoff cut deep ruts in the area's landscape, and

58 Gallis, Michael. 2000. Greater Cincinnati Metro Region Resource book. Published by Metropolitan Growth Alliance 59 Durrell, Richard. 1977. A Recycled Landscape. Quarterly of the Cincinnati museum of Natural History, vol. 14, no. 2, p 1 60 Hansen, Michael. 1997. The Ice Age in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. Available from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/pdf/el07.pdf, accessed on 11/29/04 61 Mcwhirter, Cameron. 1997. Ice made cities safe from water. The Cincinnati Enquirer. Available from http://www.enquirer.com/flood_of_97/science1.html, accessed on 12/29/04

transformed the land into a series of plateaus. Eventually, these plateaus, through the erosion

many feet above the flowing waters, became the ''hills of Cincinnati.''

• The Illinoian Glacier came about 400,000 or 500,000 years ago and created lakes in

Norwood and downtown Cincinnati, making much of the soil in those areas thick with clay.

• The Wisconsinan Glacier, the most recent glacier, about 50,000 to 80,000 years ago, created

the modern landscape of the region. The glacier backed up the lakes and forced water

through the Anderson Ferry gap, which until then had been dry. It also deposited tons of sand

and gravel on the former lakebed of what was to become downtown Cincinnati, the Mill

Creek and the Covington-Newport area. But this ''Wisconsinan Terrace,'' as it is called,

remained in the downtown Cincinnati zone, adding about 70 feet to its elevation.

4.4.3.3 Transportation Networks The major radial interstate corridors, especially the I-71 and I-75, with the beltway (I-275) form the basic structure of the primary transportation network in Cincinnati, as shown in figure

4.12. The Ohio River was the first transportation corridor in the city ever since the human settlement took place in the 17th century and it still remains a vital part of the transportation pattern. The Cincinnati/Covington airport, accessible from the beltway, connects the city to the global and continental network with direct international service. The heavy rail pattern follows I-

75 in the North-South direction and the river in the East-West direction.

Figure 4.12: Major Interstate Routes in the city of Cincinnati

Source: Cincinnati Interstates, Available from http://www.smartraveler.com/scripts/cinmap.asp?city=cin&cityname=Cincinnati

The Cincinnati region occupies an important zone in the North American transportation grid. It is located strategically along several of the principal north/south and east/west interstate and rail corridors, like the I-75 connecting to Detroit and Atlanta, I-74 connecting to Indianapolis and I-71 to Cleveland.

4.4.3.4 Identification of High Growth area in the vicinity of Cincinnati:

West Chester Township, located to the north of Cincinnati has been chosen as the typical example high growth area in the vicinity of Cincinnati. The following section discusses the location, transportation networks, and characteristics of the township to establish the context within which the analysis of smart growth principles will be done. The last section lays out the reasons why this particular city has been chosen for this study.

4.4.3.4.1 Location and Characteristics:

West Chester Township, earlier known as the Union township, is one of twelve townships in Butler County in southwestern Ohio. This township, the third largest in the state of

Ohio, is located approximately 25 miles from Cincinnati as shown by the box in figure 4.13. It spans across 36 square miles with a population of about 55,000 people.

Figure 4.13: Location of West Chester (Union) Township

WEST CHESTER

Source: State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey; Available from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/pdf/cotwpmap.pdf

West Chester Township lies along the Interstate I-75, just north of the I-75/I-275 interchange, connecting Cincinnati and Dayton (see Fig 4.14). It is well connected by various highway links like the SR-42 and SR747 that criss-cross the township. Interstate I-275 runs just south of the township providing an important access to the Interstate network.

4.4.3.4.2 Background:

Union township started to settle in the early 1800s, as people relocated to the state of

Ohio from other places due to the land grants after the American Revolution. Moreover, the end of the civil war provided a safer atmosphere for people to move out of the cities. The township was incorporated in 1823 and renamed as West Chester in the year 2000. Growth in the township started about 30 years ago, first slowly and then gradually picked up pace and today West

Chester is the third largest township in Ohio.

Figure 4.14: Transportation networks of West Chester Township

Source: West Chester Township; available from http://www.West Chesteroh.org/guide/wcmapdirections.pdf

The Township's premier location and multiple access points to the interstate system have

led to significant growth, elevating West Chester into Greater Cincinnati's 5th largest

community, based on population. The biggest economic advantage for the township is its

location between two major cites in Ohio, namely, Cincinnati and Dayton. West Chester is

located 18 miles north of Downtown Cincinnati and 30 miles south of Downtown Dayton. The

Cincinnati region boasts of advanced manufacturing companies, information technology

providers, life-science companies, telecommunications systems and research facilities. Cashing

on the economy of the region, West Chester has been developing as the epicenter for business

development in the Cincinnati-Dayton Metroplex, an emerging corridor for office and technology businesses within a thriving light industrial and distribution market. It is also one of the most popular residential areas in southwest Ohio. Therefore, during the past 30 years, West

Chester has grown from a small farming community to a large, culturally diverse and economically strong region.

Some critical points can be identified in the history of the evolution this township. The first among these was the adoption of a zoning code by the township of West Chester in 1989.

This was done by the residents of the township who felt that that the county was not doing a good job of addressing specific needs of the area and as a result an independent jurisdiction was established. The next key event was the adoption of the 2012 Vision Plan by the township to guide the future growth. This plan aimed at identifying ways in which the area could be developed not only as a desirable residential area but also as a commercial and industrial hub that

could capitalize on the resources and opportunities available in the Cincinnati metropolitan region. Another advantage of the region is the excellent school system that makes it a desirable

place to live for young couples and new families. The well-funded Lakota School District has opened more than a dozen new schools since the 1980s.

The last and perhaps most important event in the history of the township was the opening of the Union Center Boulevard in 1997. Union Center Boulevard has driven the diversification of

West Chester's economy that was once dominated by agriculture manufacturing and distributing.

Companies that have emerged in Union Centre include Procter & Gamble, Liz Claiborne,

Frontgate/Cornerstone Consolidated Services/Cinmar, J.P. Flooring Systems Inc., Duke Realty

Corporation, Marriott Hotel and Peoples Community Bank. West Chester businesses now employ about 40,000 people and generate millions in revenue.

West Chester has experienced a significant growth in its office, commercial and industrial base. This growth in the business sector has propelled West Chester to become the first

Township within the State of Ohio to surpass the one billion dollar mark in total real property valuation. This occurred in 1994 when the township's total valuation was an estimated

$1,016,246,066.62 This figure puts West Chester second, only to the City of Cincinnati, for the highest total valuation in the Greater Cincinnati area.

The township has dramatically changed character from being a rural community to one that has to face up to the critical challenges of sprawl and traffic congestion. Some citizens, civic leaders and planners have raised concerns about the impacts of development in the region but the economic boom and high revenues that the township is generating is strong enough to drown any such voices.

62West Chester Development Council, About West Chester Township. Available from www.West Chesteric.com, accessed on 05/04/04

5. Evolution of Smart Growth in Cleveland

5.1 Background:

Within a hundred years of its founding in 1796 at the swampy, disease ridden mouth of the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland had become one of the great commercial and industrial centers of the United States.63 The favorable location of the city at the northern frontier of Ohio on the

banks of Lake Erie coupled with critical events in the history of the nation like the Civil War and

the two world wars triggered the growth of the city as it capitalized on its opportunities.

Hundreds of people migrated to the city with hopes of cashing in on the economic boom. By the

year 1930, more than nine hundred thousand people inhabited the city. Such an unprecedented and rapid growth pattern was also highly unplanned and thoughtless in nature.

While on one hand Cleveland emerged as a major industrial and commercial center, it

started to shows signs of decline during the early 1930’s as the rich residents began to move to

the suburbs to free themselves from the problems that came with the increasing number of

people that lived in the city. A large number of suburbs began to emerge along the periphery of

Cleveland. Tax policies, new highways and real estate investments for new development

supported the growth of these suburbs. By 1932, the city was surrounded by suburbs and could

no longer grow by annexing land. By 1965, there were more people in the suburbs of Cuyahoga

County than in the city of Cleveland.64 This mass exodus of residents peaked in the 1970’s and the early 1980’s as the city struggled with a diminishing tax base, underutilized public facilities, high cost of providing services to fewer people and an overall decline in the image of the place.

Thus, during the second century of the history of Cleveland, the city transformed from being a

63 Sweet, David C., Hexter Kathryn Werthem and Beach, David.1999.The New American City Faces its Regional Future: A Cleveland Perspective. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio. p11. 64 Ibid

multi ethnic, central, dominant force to a sprawling, multicounty, metropolitan area increasingly

divided by race and class.65

The 1980’s and 1990’s were the decades of rebuilding in Cleveland through public private partnerships.66 Efforts were made by city, county, state governments, foundations and business leaders through joint collaborations to slow down or revert the existing trend of outmigration in the region. These efforts were successful to a great extent and by 1988, Cleveland had cultivated an image of being the ‘comeback city’. A case study was conducted of U.S cities that had a population of 150,000 or more in 1970 but had lost population during the 1970’s and

1980. This study revealed that Cleveland’s rate of population loss had slowed dramatically from

23.6%(1970 and 1980) to 11.8%(1980-90) and finally to a 1.6%(1990-96).67

A great deal was accomplished by these partnerships but the critical challenges of

blighted neighborhoods, loss of jobs, racial segregation, interjurisdictional competition and political fragmentation continue to characterize the region. Ongoing efforts in the Cleveland

metropolitan region are geared towards bringing communities together with a shared regional

vision of growth. Cleveland has entered its third century, and like many other metropolitan

regions across the United States its future depends on how well the city and its suburbs forge

bonds and initiate collaborative efforts to create a regional identity.

Various non-profit groups, academicians, environmentalists, local government

representatives and other individuals have been active proponents of smart growth initiatives in

the Cleveland region with the common aim of creating this regional vision. To trace the chronological series of specific events that led to the evolution of smart growth in the Cleveland

65 Ibid 66 Ibid 67 Porter, Paul R. and Sweet, David C. 1984. Rebuilding America’s Cities: Roads to Recovery. Center for Urban Policy Research. New Brunswick, NJ

metropolitan region, a series of interviews were conducted with experts from Cleveland and a high growth area in its vicinity, namely the city of Avon in Lorain County.

5.2 Identification of panel of experts:

Experts in the field of smart growth in Cleveland region were identified using a snowball technique. These individuals were chosen based on their contribution to furthering smart growth related initiatives in the region or promoting awareness for the need of a regional vision or for any kind of involvement in development issues that have had an impact on growth patterns in the

Cleveland region. The interviewees included key players within the city as well as people from a high growth region in the vicinity of Cleveland, namely the City of Avon in Lorain County.

The panel of experts included academicians mostly from Levin College of Public Affairs at the Cleveland State University (CSU), key executives from non-profit groups, legal advisors and local government officials. An effort was made to gain an understanding of the different perspectives that surround the smart growth debate so that a balanced appraisal of the current status of smart growth in the region could be done during the analysis phase.

5.3 Interview Sessions:

The interviews of experts were conducted via phone or in person depending on the availability of the experts. The questionnaire that was used for the interviews has been attached as Appendix A. Each interview was an hour-long session where the focus was on gaining an understanding of smart growth related efforts not only in the city but also in the greater metropolitan area. This helped to understand the regional context of the issue, which was highly critical to this study. The information obtained through the interview sessions was further substantiated with literature studies of available journal articles, essays, books, newsletters,

newspaper articles and other publications. These sources helped to detail out the critical events thus filling the gaps in the profile study of the Cleveland region in the context of smart growth.

5.4 Chronological Evolution of Smart Growth and key players/organizations:

5.4.1 Events preceding the Smart Growth related discussions:68

Certain key events took place in Cleveland prior to the beginning of the smart growth related

initiatives. It is important to look at these events as they set the stage for future initiatives and

increased public awareness regarding the negative impacts of isolated development patterns.

These events continued along with smart growth efforts and were based on the recognition that

the future of Cleveland depends on the strength of the region as a whole.

1. Establishment of the Levin College of Public Affairs in 1979: The Levin College at the

Cleveland University was founded in 1979 and has since then been a leading convener

for discussion of issues facing the city and the region. The Levin College has been a

forerunner in providing academic and professional input, expertise and research

opportunities for improving the quality of life of communities in the greater Cleveland

region. The College makes every effort to establish strong linkages between the

university and the surrounding communities.

2. Ohio Urban University Program (UUP), a statewide program founded by the Levin

College in 1979: More than $50 million had been made available under this program to

fund collaborative research projects in the field of urban outreach and community

development at eight urban universities in Ohio. The money for this program came from

state funds.

68 Sweet, David C., Hexter Kathryn, Werthem and Beach, David. 1999. The New American City faces its Regional Future: A Cleveland Perspective. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio. p15

3. First conference held by the Levin College in 1980 to explore issues of Cleveland and its

future69: This was one of the first events that brought to light the need for public-private

partnerships as an instrument for altering the pattern of decline in the urban areas in

Cleveland.

4. First nationwide congress of cities titled ‘ Cities Congress on Roads to Recovery’ held in

1982 at the Levin College: This event was held in conjunction with George V.

Voinovich, then Cleveland mayor, and Tom Vail, then publisher and editor of the

Cleveland Plain Dealer and chaired by Paul Porter, the author of the book ‘The Recovery

of American Cities’. The keynote speaker was James W. Rouse, a nationally known

developer and urban visionary of the time. This event focused on the success stories of

different cities across the United States that had used self-help programs to regain their

abilities to compete with the suburbs and created a favorable climate for investment, jobs

and economic growth. Rouse gave an inspiring presentation wherein he challenged the

cities to look beyond their everyday problems and establish a long-range vision for the

future, which he termed ‘A Civic Vision.’

5. In the mid 1980’s, the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission did several studies to

document the negative consequences of the existing urban growth patterns in Cleveland.

These studies were followed up by a series of public presentations and outreach

initiatives to educate the citizens of the current development scenarios in the Cleveland

metropolitan area. This added to the body of knowledge regarding urban growth that was

building up in the region. The involvement of a public organization that recognized

sprawl as a critical problem that needed to be addressed also added teeth to the smart

growth movement that ensued later.

69 Ibid

6. In 1993, Cleveland Roman Catholic Bishop Anthony Pilla released a paper titled ‘The

Church In the City’ that challenged the nearly one million members of the Cleveland

diocese to consider the moral dimensions of urban sprawl in Northeast Ohio.70 This event

triggered a series of discussions in favor of balanced development patterns and

recognition of inter- dependence of communities.

7. Between 1982 and 1996, the city of Cleveland used the idea of public-private

partnerships in many of its initiatives and did work towards creating a ‘civic vision’ for

redeveloping its downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.

8. In 1996, during the Bicentennial celebrations of the city, a symposium titled ‘Greater

Cleveland 2046: A Bicentennial Symposium’ was conducted that encouraged the

participants to create a comprehensive vision for the next fifty years of Cleveland and its

surrounding suburbs. This event was attended by planning professionals, civic leaders,

academicians, political leaders, students and the general public. The attendees were from

central city, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, villages and surrounding counties. Bishop Pilla

was a keynote speaker at this conference.

5.4.2 Beginning of the Smart Growth Movement:

Early discussions about sprawl and the negative impacts associated with it were held around early 1980’s in the Cleveland area, as discussed above. These discussions established the need for specific initiatives to combat ‘urban sprawl’. The key people involved in such discussions were mainly academicians, environmentalists, social activists and civic leaders. The term ‘smart growth’ as one of the solutions to combating sprawl started being used during the late 1980’s or the early 1990’s.

70 Sweet, David C., Hexter Kathryn, Werthem and Beach, David. 1999. The New American City faces its Regional Future: A Cleveland Perspective. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio. p5

The interviews revealed that the context of the first smart growth related discussions

revolved around the issue of preserving farmland. The landscape character of the rural and semi

rural areas located along the fringes of development was slowly being lost as more and more

land succumbed to the pressures of growth. New subdivisions were sprawling over farmland and

the highways were growing more congested. People started to care about the loss of open space

and productive farmland.71 People began to notice the impacts of outward and inefficient growth

patterns and the manner in which the American landscape was changing.

The other key issue was that the older suburbs that bordered the city of Cleveland had

aged to a point that they had started facing similar problems of out-migration and abandonment

that the central city had faced only a few years before. Examples of these older suburbs include

the Cleveland Heights, village of Euclid and Maple Heights to name a few. The oldest suburbs of

Cuyahoga County were facing decline because of aged and obsolete real estate, deteriorating

infrastructure, and increasing poverty rates and the trend continues to this day. One-third of

Cuyahoga County's home sellers are now moving out to adjacent counties where real estate is

new and taxes are lower. For every dollar of household income that moves into Cuyahoga, $1.80

moves out.72

There were several other concerns in the region as well that included regional political fights over scarce resources, traffic gridlocks along highways and environmental deterioration to name a few. As a result of a combination of these key issues, ‘smart growth’ emerged to the forefront as one of the possible answers to the problems of unplanned growth.

71Where are we now? Ecocity Cleveland Journal. 1999. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/intro/where_now.html, accessed on 04/8/04. 72 Where are we now? Ecocity Cleveland Journal. 1999. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/intro/where_now.html, accessed on 04/8/04

5.4.3 Key Projects/ Organizations and Individuals in the Cleveland Metropolitan Region:

The smart growth related discussions were spearheaded by several key organizations and individuals who worked together or on separate projects to bring regional thinking, redevelopment of existing urban areas as well as the preservation of open space to the forefront

through their work on policies or initiatives that would promote smart growth. The work of these

key players has been documented below through the series of interviews, literature studies,

website searches, newspaper clippings and journal articles.

1. The Regional Environmental Priorities Project (REPP) was initiated in 1994 as a neutral

and nonpolitical project at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. The

project funded by the Ohio EPA was part of a statewide risk assessment study that was

being done by the Ohio EPA called the Comparative Risk Program to address the critical

environmental challenges within the state of Ohio. Dr. Norman Robbins spearheaded the

project at Case Western Reserve University. A series of committees and sub-committees

were established in the four-county area of Northeast Ohio and a lot of stakeholders and

community groups were involved in the process, which took almost a year to complete.

The results of the study led to the designation of ‘urban sprawl’ as the number one

environmental problem in the region. According to Dr. Robbins “getting government to

redirect incentives toward the central city means first making people aware and getting

them involved in making those changes”.73

2. The establishment of Ecocity Cleveland and the key role played by David Beach:

EcoCity Cleveland is a nonprofit environmental planning organization that was

established in 1993 to promote the design of cities in balance with nature in Northeast

73 Griffith, Susan. REPP looks at problems of urban sprawl. 1995. Available from http://www.cwru.edu/pubs/cnews/1997/2-13/reppclos.htm, accessed on 04/8/04

Ohio.74 The organization was first created to produce journals addressing impacts of

growth and in a period of ten years has emerged as a key organization working towards

helping citizens of Northeast Ohio and more specifically the Cleveland metropolitan area

develop regional land use plans that transcend political boundaries, providing greater

transportation planning, urban design, and influencing state policy.

Ecocity Cleveland receives financial support from a diversity of sources,

including contributions from members, foundations, and government. The organization

also generates some income by selling publications and by providing consulting services

and project management. David Beach who is presently the Executive Director and is one

of the most important and influential environmental advocates in the Cleveland

metropolitan region founded the organization.

Ecocity Cleveland has published several books, research papers, newsletters and

journals focusing on the need for a regional vision in Northeast Ohio. It has brought

together several organizations that share these common goals and objectives to work

towards creating this regional vision and promote public education and outreach.

The Citizens' Bioregional Plan developed by Ecocity Cleveland outlined the existing

trends and conditions in the seven-county Northeast Ohio region and offered alternatives

for ways to develop, in a detailed section containing recommendations for creating

sustainable patterns of settlement. The two-year process for the development of the plan

included a series of public meetings and outreach to community groups and planning

agencies. Tools were created to educate the public using the latest computer mapping

(GIS) technologies that were used to produce a full-color publication for citizens and

74 Where are we now? Ecocity Cleveland Journal. 1999. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/intro/where_now.html, accessed on 04/23/04

policy makers, a media campaign, and a Web site. The final plan was released at a

Citizens' Bioregional Congress in Cleveland on May 15, 1999.75

Another study focused on the regional open spaces and contained a

comprehensive description of efforts to preserve open space in the region, including

efforts by local organizations such as park districts, land trusts, farmland groups, and

others. This study was in part inspired by the visionary efforts of William Stinchcomb,

the father of the Cleveland Metroparks. In 1905, Stinchcomb was a young engineer of

parks for the City of Cleveland, and he began developing an amazing vision of a ring of

parks around the outskirts of the city.76 His vision ultimately led to the creation of the

Cleveland Metroparks’ Emerald Necklace, one of the major assets of the Cleveland

region.

The Ohio Smart Growth Agenda was developed by Ecocity Cleveland with the

assistance of researchers at the American Planning Association (APA) and published on

October 2, 1998. EcoCity had hosted a national meeting of proponents of smart growth

and used the occasion to assemble a statewide gathering in support of the ‘Ohio Smart

Growth Agenda’. The agenda described how the State of Ohio could support sustainable

development instead of more urban sprawl. It contained a brief history of Ohio’s

progressive land use traditions, current land use trends in the state and proposed changes

in policy that would further smart growth initiatives in Ohio.

Other publications and research documents included an overview of watershed

planning in the Northeast Ohio region, including summaries of major rivers with a

75Bioregional Plan: Ecocity Cleveland Journal. 2001. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/bioplan/bioplan.html, accessed on 04/23/04 76 Open Space: Now or Never: Ecocity Cleveland. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/openspace/openspace.html, accessed on 04/23/04

discussion of stormwater issues and an award winning reader on urban sprawl issues

titled Moving to Corn Fields that appeared in 1996.

3. Role of Thomas Bier: Prof. Tom Bier, a senior professor and Director of the Center for

Housing Research and Policy at the Levin College of Public Affairs at the Cleveland

State University has conducted housing studies for 25 years and has investigated the

influence of public policies on cities.77 He has worked closely with several local

governments and community organizations to develop and implement strategies for

improvements in housing. He documented and published evidence of outward migration

of residents from cities in the Cleveland area using housing start and housing value data

from the U.S. Census. He published a few reports in the later part of the 1990’s that

focused attention on the degree of the spread of population and disinvestments that had

implications for the urban core and the first ring of suburbs in the Cleveland metropolitan

region.

Thomas Bier’s study reveals how the pattern of out-migration of people and

investment will affect the long-term viability of Cuyahoga County. He also notes that

Cuyahoga County will be the first county in Ohio to be fully developed. Very little

undeveloped land remains in the outer suburbs, and most of it will be used within the

next 20 years. According to Bier, the economic stability of Cuyahoga County and the

region depends heavily on extensive redevelopment of obsolete real estate, reuse of

salvageable buildings, and reinvestment in Cleveland and the older suburbs.

77 Bier, Thomas. Levin College of Public Affairs: Faculty Profile. Available from http://urban.csuohio.edu/research/staff/bier_test.htm, accessed on 04/23/04

4. Role of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio: The movement called ‘The Church In

the City’ was started after Cleveland Roman Catholic Bishop Anthony Pilla, released a

paper by the same name in 1993. The key issues that this movement addressed were:78

The gap between people, rich and poor

The relationships between peoples - faith and life

Urban Development and Redevelopment

The development of suburbs and the decline of central cities

The impact of urban sprawl

This movement has been very successful as it calls upon the members of the

Cleveland diocese to follow the principles of balanced growth to prevent out-migration

and promote urban redevelopment. The diocese has come up with a plan of

implementation that is intended to provide a comprehensive framework to guide the

role of the church over the next several years in addressing critical needs within the

cities of Akron, Cleveland and Lorain/Elyria metropolitan regions.

According to one of the key principles of this program that focuses on

redevelopment, government policies, which support development of new suburbs while

neglecting the redevelopment of older cities, have contributed to the problems caused

by out-migration. In an analogous way, the Church can fall victim to this same strategy

by concentrating on the development of newer parishes in the suburbs, while older

parishes in the cities are allowed to decline.79 The program outlines what role each

stakeholder can play in the process of community development and redevelopment. For

78 The Church in the City. 1996. The Diocese of Cleveland. Available from http://www.citc.org/issues.htm, accessed on 04/29/04 79Basis for the Church in the City – Five Key Principles, Available from the official website of Church in the City http://www.citc.org/issues.htm, accessed on 04/30/04

government, banks, developers, real estate brokers and others, redevelopment means

creating and investing in certain kinds of projects such as Church Square and Central

Commons in Cleveland and Opportunity Park in Akron.80 For the Church,

redevelopment means renewing its commitment to the cities and finding ways to

provide necessary resources for ministry being done there.

The urban and suburban church together with the city has been facing heavy

losses due to out-migration. Many of the city parishes are left with large, deteriorated

buildings with few attendees and parishioners to maintain them. The loss of population

has also added to the financial burden of the churches located within the city. On the

other hand, the suburban churches face a burden on their limited resources, as they have

to cater to a greater number of people there. These interrelated problems are connected

to urban growth patterns and the church has been instrumental in addressing these

issues through its education, public outreach and advocacy programs.

5. Establishment of the First Suburbs Consortium: One of the most significant

organizational developments of the late 1990s was the formation of the First Suburbs

Consortium (FSC) of Northeast Ohio in 1997. The FSC was created by elected officials

of inner-ring suburbs of Northeast Ohio in response to the recognition that government

policies and practices were geared towards promoting the development of new

communities at the outer edges of metropolitan areas instead of focusing on the

redevelopment and maintenance of older, more mature suburbs. Their efforts were

directed towards preserving and redeveloping older communities, promoting regional

cooperation and encouraging sustainable development patterns throughout Ohio. The

80 Church in the City .1999. Available from the http://www.citc.org/five.htm, accessed on 04/30/04

First Suburbs Consortium of Ohio is overseen by the umbrella group of the Mid-Ohio

Regional Planning Commission (MORPC).81

One of the key issues that FSC focuses on is the unequal treatment meted out to

older suburbs and new ones in the state statutes. The state legislature dictates that new

suburbs can receive grants for maintaining and building new roads; parklands and schools

while older communities can only get loans. The mayor of the village of Euclid, Paul

Oyaski, played a key role in the formation of this organization by bringing the mayors of

surrounding communities in the Cleveland region together for the purpose of lobbying at

the state legislature to promote equity amongst different communities on financing issues.

The main concerns of the FSC were the high costs of infrastructure in older suburbs and

the declining tax base therein. They have been very active in the last 3-4 years in

educating the citizens and officials and have exerted some influence in Northeast Ohio.

Quoting Oyaski’s classic example, $46 million in state and federal funds were spent to

expand Interstate 90 in prosperous Lorain County, which gained nearly as many residents

in the '90s as Cleveland and its closest suburbs lost.

The FSC now is a council of governments with 14 member cities working to

revitalize mature, developed communities and raise public and political awareness of the

problems associated with urban sprawl and disinvestment.82 The FSC consists of 14

communities in the Greater Cleveland area namely: Bedford, Bedford Heights, Brook

Park, Cleveland Heights, Euclid, Fairview Park, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Maple

Heights, Parma, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, University Heights, and Warrensville

81First Ring Suburbs. Cincinnati City Beat. Volume 5, Issue 35; Jul 22-Jul 28, 1999. Available from http://www.citybeat.com/1999-07-22/printable/news5.html, accessed on 04/30/04 82Northeast Ohio First Suburbs Consortium. Available from http://www.firstsuburbs.org/neohio/index.htm, accessed on 04/30/04

Heights.83 The organization has had some modest successes. In 2000, Cuyahoga County

committed $40 million to the Housing Enhancement Loan Program (HELP), under which

any homeowner in targeted inner communities could receive loans 3 percent below

banks' normal rates to repair or remodel their houses.84 The county also has sold $50

million in bonds to help redevelop commercial sites in these older areas.

The FSC has also reached out to older suburbs in Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton

and other metro areas in Ohio and established regional consortiums, so now there exists a

statewide network of first suburbs. This was a key step that recognized the fact the most

of the older, mature suburbs face similar critical challenges and issues. This group has

received national attention as a model organization for addressing the critical needs of

first-ring suburbs, and through coordinated action and proper direction, it can be used an

effective platform for future statewide advocacy efforts.

6. Role of the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission: The Cuyahoga County Planning

Commission has been serving as a planning and decision-making resource for the public

sector of Cuyahoga County.85 The staff at the agency provides a variety of services to the

County, municipalities, regional agencies and not-for-profit corporations in the region.

The CCPC is currently working on two key projects that deserve mention. The first one is

the Cuyahoga Valley Initiative, a program that incorporates many smart growth

principles in its vision for revitalizing the Cuyahoga valley by channeling its potential

into opportunity. The Cuyahoga Valley Initiative seeks to influence development

83 Smart Growth Agenda for Northeast Ohio. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/sgagenda/first_suburbs/fsuburb.html, accessed on 04/30/04 84 Outer Belt vs. Inner Belt: Cincinnati Post Online Edition. 2000. Available from http://www.cincypost.com/news/2000/ohio101000.html, accessed on 04/30/04 85 About Cuyahoga County Planning Commission. Available from http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/about/, accessed on 04/30/04

patterns, construction practices and industrial processes for the next generation using a

sustainable development approach based on the integration of economic, social and

ecological systems.86

Their second key project is the County Greenspace Plan that is a plan aimed at

preserving the county's greenspace as well as enhancing and increasing what exists. The

Greenspace Working Group (GWG) that is assisting the county on this project comprises

of about 25 members consisting of environmentalists, academicians, social activists and

planners and is working towards creating inter-connections between existing greenspaces

and sub habitats to create a continuous network of green corridors in the region.

7. Formation and role of the Lake Erie Commission: The Lake Erie Commission is a cabinet

commission comprising of six state departments namely: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Dept of Health, Development, Dept of Transportation, Dept of Natural

Resources and the Dept of Agriculture. This commission was created to address the water

quality issues of Lake Erie and to ensure that they were in compliance with the Clean

Water Act. The project is called the Balanced Growth Initiative and has been working

towards to recommending ways in which development can occur in greater harmony with

natural systems along Lake Erie. This is one of the state's first steps towards figuring out

how to promote smart growth. The Directors of the six state agencies are a part of the

Commission. It has several subcommittees and working groups that are working towards

developing strategies and specific courses of action that could be used to promote

‘balanced growth’ within the constraints of existing state statutes and limited financial

resources.

86 Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Projects. Available from http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/, accessed on 04/30/04

8. Formation of the Northeast Ohio Regional Alliance: The Northeast Ohio Regional

Alliance (NORA) was formed with REPP's assistance as a network for information

dissemination on government policies and as a forum for regional policy initiatives.

9. In 1999, the Northeast Ohio Home Builders jumped on the smart growth bandwagon by

announcing the formation of their own Smart Growth Education Foundation.87 This

foundation outlined a set of growth related principles that were endorsed by the

homebuilders of Northeast Ohio. These included supporting smart growth planning and

related initiatives such as supply of new housing in all price ranges, infrastructure

revitalization in central cities and older suburbs and higher density developments to name

a few.

The Smart Growth Education Foundation was formed to present a unified voice

for the home builders and related industries of Northeast Ohio concerning the issues

surrounding the smart growth movement in America.88 The Foundation represents and is

funded by home builders in the counties of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Erie, Geauga, Huron,

Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Stark and Summit.89

Even though the focus of such organizations is profit driven, it is encouraging to

see that different stakeholders that were previously in disagreement are now making

efforts towards integrating the ideas of growing ‘smart’ in their development initiatives in

the Cleveland region. Although, many key players in the region have concerns about

87Introduction to Smart Growth: Where Are We Now? Ecocity Cleveland. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/intro/where_now.html, accessed on 04/30/04 88Smart Growth Education Foundation. Homebuilders Association Of Northeast Ohio. Available from Http://Www.Hbacleveland.Com/Growth.Html#4, accessed On 04/29/04 89How can Smart Growth work in Northeast Ohio? Homebuilders Association Of Northeast Ohio. Available from http://www.hbacleveland.com/growth.html#4, accessed on 04/30/04

what the developers really mean by ‘smart growth’, it is a step in the direction to planned

developments nevertheless.

5.4.4 Debate surrounding Smart growth in the Cleveland region:

The main debate in the Cleveland metropolitan region in the context of smart growth revolves around the perception that smart growth initiatives may lead to an encroachment upon private property rights. The real debate is in the suburbs, which is where growth is really happening at this point of time. People residing in the high growth areas resent the idea of there being any kind of restrictions on how they want to develop their property. In the state of Ohio, land use decisions are ultimately controlled by the municipalities i.e. cities and villages, and no entity can force these municipalities to alter their existing development patterns even if they are cookie cutter subdivisions that hamper the regional vision as a whole. The sole control of local government in land use decisions and planning/zoning policies is the biggest obstacle to promoting regional land use choices.

In recent years the Homebuilders Association of Northeast Ohio has been making efforts to understand and address the key issues of open space preservation and incorporate innovative compact design schemes in their new developments but they are not supported by their counterparts in the southern parts of Ohio. The developers are open to smart growth initiatives so

long as it does not restrict their right to develop where they want.

In the central city, urban redevelopment is the key issue and most stakeholders are in

agreement so there is not much of a conflict here. Several infill development projects are being

undertaken in the city of Cleveland and the city has regenerated itself to a great extent.

The real tension is between those who advocate planning and land use decisions and

perhaps emphasize a role for the state and those who advocate market based incentives and do

not want the state to play a role in promoting community land use planning. Environmental

groups, some mayors in the Cleveland region and public officials support the smart growth movement. Smart growth in the Cleveland region is slowly coming to the forefront but it is far

from being strong enough to be called a ‘movement’ at this point of time.

6. Evolution of Smart Growth in Cincinnati 6.1 Background:

Hamilton County, of which Cincinnati is the seat, was created by a proclamation issued

by Gen. Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory, January 4, 1790.90 The county was

the second to be created in the state and is one of the most populous and wealthy counties in

Ohio. Cincinnati, a beautiful region lying between the lower course of the rivers Little Miami

and Great Miami, and bordered on the south by the Ohio River, was famed, long before the days

of the Revolutionary war, for its rich productiveness and its lovely scenery. Cincinnati was incorporated as a town in 1802; this was also the year in which Ohio was admitted into the Union as a State. Ohio, at the time, had a population of over sixty thousand, of which number, though

Cincinnati had less than one-sixteenth part; she was by far the largest town in the State.91 During the first forty years after the founding of the city, Cincinnati experienced spectacular growth and came to be known as the ‘The Queen City’ .The Queen City, like many other American cities, was mostly farmland before the land was used up for residential and commercial purposes. The land in the city was extremely productive and fertile and farmers migrated into the city to sell their produce while taking advantage of its location along the Ohio River.

Over time, with advances in technology and the development of railroads, river and canal navigation, the city grew as a major manufacturing and commercial center. According to the census of 1890, Cincinnati had within the limits of her corporation boundaries 296,308 people as compared to 750 people in 1810.92

90Cincinnati and Hamilton County: Heritage Study. Chapter 1. Available from http://www.heritagepursuit.com/Hamilton/HamiltonChapI.htm, accessed on 04/30/04 91 Ibid 92Cincinnati and Hamilton County: Heritage Study. Chapter V. Available from http://www.heritagepursuit.com/Hamilton/HamiltonChapV.htm, accessed on 04/30/04

During the twentieth century, the city continued to grow in a similar fashion as other key

cities across the United States. Many corporations established their headquarters in the city such

as Procter and Gamble, General Electric and Kroger to name a few. The increase in population

and traffic congestion in the city led to the creation of Cincinnati's park system. "A Park System

for the City of Cincinnati" was created in the year 1907, by landscape architect George Kessler

(1862-1923) of Kansas City. Kessler’s plan promoted the use of hillsides to get distant views,

creation of boulevards and parkways connecting the major parks and stressed on the importance

of securing land before it succumbed to development pressures.

In 1925, the City Planning Commission drew up the first comprehensive plan for the city

of Cincinnati. This plan recognized the need for adequate roads, buildings, shelters and adequate

system of parks to enhance the image of the city. The era of optimistic expansions in community

development came to an abrupt end with the collapse of the stock market in October 1929.

Public priorities shifted from expansion of facilities into the suburbs and the control of suburban

private markets to unemployment relief and public housing.

Communities started to recover themselves in the years following the great Depression and the two World Wars. This was a time when people started leaving the city to occupy the suburbs in large numbers. The post war period during the 1950’s and 1960’s was one of great prosperity and the ‘baby boom’ phenomenon occurred at the time. With the development of highways and advent of the automobile people were wiling to live farther away from their places of work. Gradually, the existing communities in the urban cores of the city were abandoned in favor of suburbs that were newer, cleaner and farther out. This trend continues to this day as sprawling and inefficient development patterns characterize the landscape of Southwest Ohio.

In recent times, several discussions have taken place in Cincinnati and its surrounding

regions to address negative impacts of urban and suburban development. Hamilton County is

quickly approaching its build out scenario and growth has shifted to the adjoining counties of

Butler, Campbell, Warren and Boone. According to a University of Cincinnati report, from

1980-2000 the proportion of developed land in the Cincinnati region increased by an astounding

141%, while population increased by just 15%.93 As the region continues to grow outwards at a

rapid pace, the provision of adequate public facilities and services, preservation of critical natural

systems, conservation of limited land resources and accommodating housing needs of different

income levels have emerged as key problems in the region.

The idea of using innovative planning techniques to achieve balanced growth in the city

of Cincinnati and its surrounding communities has met with greater resistance than it has at its

Cleveland counterpart. The ''smart growth'' movement in Southwest Ohio is slowly growing up,

gaining attention, developing conflicting voices, scoring victories on some issues while taking its

lumps on others.

6.2 Identification of panel of experts:

Experts in the field of smart growth in the Cincinnati region and West Chester Township

were identified using a snowball technique. These individuals were chosen based on their

contribution to furthering smart growth related initiatives in the region or promoting awareness

for the need of a regional vision or for any kind of involvement in development issues that have

had an impact on growth patterns in the Cincinnati region. The interviewees included key players

from within the city as well as people from a high growth region in the vicinity of Cleveland,

namely the West Chester Township in Butler County, Ohio.

93 Cincinnati Challenge to Sprawl Campaign: Sierra Club. Available from http://www.sierraclub.org/epec/cincy/, accessed on 05/02/04

The panel of experts included academicians mostly from University of Cincinnati, key

executives from non-profit groups, legal advisors and local government officials. An effort was

made to gain an understanding of the different perspectives that surround the smart growth debate so that a balanced appraisal of the current status of smart growth in the region could be

done during the analysis phase.

6.3 Interview Sessions:

The interviews of experts in the Cincinnati region and West Chester Township were

conducted in person. The questionnaire that was used for the interviews has been attached as

Appendix B. Each interview was an hour-long session where the focus was on gaining an

understanding of smart growth related efforts not only in the city but also in the greater

metropolitan area. This helped to understand the regional context of the issue, which was highly

critical to this study. The information obtained through the interview sessions was further

substantiated with literature studies of available journal articles, essays, books, newsletters and

other publications. These sources helped to detail out the critical events thus filling the gaps in

the profile study of the Cincinnati region in the context of smart growth.

6.4 Chronological Evolution of Smart Growth and key players/organizations:

6.4.1 Events preceding the Smart Growth related discussions:

Certain key events took place in Cincinnati prior to the to the beginning of the smart growth

related efforts. It is important to look at these events as they were instrumental in giving shape to

the planning culture of the city and they set the stage for future initiatives.

The first amongst these key events was the creation of the first master plan for the city of

Cincinnati in 1925 by Ladislas Segoe. It was the first comprehensive plan ever to be adopted by

a planning commission of any major American city. The plan gave direction to the future of

planning in the city. This was a visionary plan whose approach of centered on development of a phased and prioritized budget for public capital expenditures based on a long-range physical development plan that included controlled private land uses and associated public works.94

The other key event was the creation of a revised Metropolitan Master Plan for the city in

1948 again by Ladislas Segoe. In this updated plan, Ladislas tried to anticipate what he thought the city should be like in the future.95 He focused on the Ohio River and stressed on the fact that

the image of the city is tied to the river. He proposed a promenade style downtown business

district for pedestrians, parks, museums, apartments and hotels with the parking facilities located

along the perimeter of these buildings. He advised against the creation of large parking lots

downtown and the location of expressways close to the river but the city officials wanted it

otherwise. The warnings of this visionary planner have come true and the impacts of decisions

made so many years ago can be felt to this day. Most urban retailers of downtown Cincinnati

have left the urban core in favor of the suburbs; small private businesses have been displaced and

the large stadiums located along the riverfront have blocked off the organic connection between

the city and the Ohio River. Ladislas had even predicted the need for public transit in the city and

more specifically, light rail. His recommendations made more than fifty years ago are being

given serious consideration by present day planners in the city and around.

6.4.2 Beginning of the Smart Growth Movement:

The first discussions revolving around ‘smart growth’ in Cincinnati were heard during the

mid 1990’s. The following paragraphs outline more specifically the critical events that occurred

94 Gerckens, Laurence C., Milestones in American City Planning, Blueprints of the National Building Museum, 1992. Available from http://www.nbm.org/blueprints/90s/spring92/contents/contents.htm, accessed on 04/30/04 95 Harper, Brett, A Visionary Couple and their Love for Life, published by the Ladislas and Vilma Segoe Family Foundation, 2001. p 53

during the early years of ‘smart growth’ in the Cincinnati region as revealed by the interviews

and literature studies.

The earliest discussions that attempted to bring to the forefront the need for a balanced growth initiative was in 1989 when a group of academicians including Tom Bier from CSU and

Steve Howe from the University of Cincinnati put together a proposal to the Department of

Education that would have established regional teams to look at the existing patterns of urban

development. The proposal did not specifically use the term ‘smart growth’ but it incorporated a

lot of the principles of smart growth and looked at the impacts of suburban development on

central cities. The proposal eventually was unsuccessful due to lack of funds and the lack of

support from organizations like the Chamber of Commerce that claimed to be not interested in

the idea of regionalism at that point of time.

In 1994, Downtown Cincinnati Inc. (DCI) organized a seminar with David Rusk as the

keynote speaker. David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque and author of the highly

acclaimed Cities Without Suburbs and Inside Game/Outside Game was a consultant on regional growth issues and a key supporter of smart growth policies. This was the first time that the business communities, newspapers and large numbers of the public heard for the first time the need for smart growth in the region and this generated a lot of interest within the city and the surrounding suburbs.

Around 1997, through the efforts made by the National Sierra Club and more importantly

Glen Brand who was their key Midwest representative located in Cincinnati, sprawl issues and smart growth gained prominence.

These first discussions were mainly trying to address the issue of land use and choices

made by private property owners that made it very difficult to do any kind of regional planning

in Cincinnati. The concept of NIMBY that stands for ‘Not In My Backyard’ was quite strong in

the outlying communities and the people were in favor of isolated, residential settings away from

the over populated and older central cities. Some concerned citizens together with non-profit

groups in the western part of Hamilton County were talking about farmland preservation issues.

According to a study by the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (HCRPC), during the 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s, agricultural land in the Southwest Ohio region "was being lost at a rate that approached 23,000 acres/year."96 In Hamilton County alone almost 30%of farmland was

converted to development from 1969-1997.97

Experts on regional growth were mainly trying to get people to understand how the market forces were shaping the landscape of the greater Cincinnati region and the detrimental

impacts of the same. There was very little political support of any kind for smart growth in the

Cincinnati region during this period of the mid 1990’s.

6.4.3 Key Projects/ Organizations and Individuals in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Region:

It was in the latter part of the 1990’s and more recently after 2000, that smart growth has

found a stronger voice in the Cincinnati region. Several non-profit groups, some public agencies,

academicians and key individuals have come to the forefront and the idea of incorporating smart

growth principles in the development choices that are being made in Cincinnati and its

surrounding regions is being discussed. This section describes the role played by these

organizations and the nature of the projects that were undertaken to combat the negative impacts

of development.

Role of the Hillside Trust: The Hillside Trust is a private nonprofit organization

dedicated to preserving the hillsides of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky

96 Cincinnati Challenge to Sprawl Campaign: Sierra Club. Available from http://www.sierraclub.org/epec/cincy/, accessed on 04/30/04 97 Ibid

through education, conservation, and advocacy. The Hillside Trust has been actively

working over the past few years to help in achieving a balance between the competing

interests of development and conservation of the remaining hillside land in the greater

Cincinnati region.

Role of the Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Cincinnati Foundation: The support

of these two organizations to the concept of regionalism in the greater Cincinnati region

around the mid 1990’s marked a turning point of sorts that gave greater credibility to the

idea of smart growth.

Establishment of the First Suburbs Consortium of Southwest Ohio in 1999: The

Southwest Ohio First Suburbs Consortium is an association of government elected and

appointed officials representing the more mature and built-out communities in the

Cincinnati-Dayton Metropolitan Area.98 This group was formed in 1999 and is comprised

of the following communities: Deer Park, Fairfax, Forest Park, Greenhills, Harrison,

Lincoln Heights, Madeira, Mariemont, Montgomery, Mt. Healthy, Newport (Kentucky),

North College Hill, Springdale, St. Bernard, and Wyoming, all municipalities in the

vicinity of the city of Cincinnati.

The mission of this Consortium is to initiate and promote public policies that

maintain the vitality of communities in the Southwest Ohio region. It is a regional

consortium and is a part of the First Suburbs Consortium (FSC), which is an advocacy

group at the national level. The Southwest Consortium advocates the following:

¾ Public policies that do not create disposable communities.

¾ Balanced investments in new and existing infrastructure.

98 About the Southwest Ohio First Suburbs Consortium, Available from http://www.firstsuburbs.org/southwestohio/index.htm, accessed on 04/30/04

¾ Maintenance and enhancement of the tax base.

¾ Creation of redevelopment opportunities.99

The Southwest Ohio FSC has not been as active as its counterpart in Northeast

Ohio in lobbying for the interests of the older, inner ring suburbs which are facing the

same issues as the central city like out-migration, declining tax bases, funding issues and

high costs of infrastructure. The main mission of the FSC is to initiate a statewide

coalition to promote sweeping policy changes in Ohio and the role of Hamilton County is

key to this process. The reasons why talks at the Southwest Ohio FSC have moved

relatively slowly than in Cleveland lie in the fact that the issues of population loss, central

city decline and loss of identity in the first ring suburbs have not been as critical as in the

Cleveland region. Moreover, Cincinnati lies in a tristate area and the issues of sprawl

cross state boundaries thus adding another constraint to creating a regional mandate.

Panel discussion on ‘smart growth’ at the University of Cincinnati’s Roundtable

discussion in October 1999: The University of Cincinnati's Real Estate Industry gathering

held in October 1999 was co-sponsored by Deloitte & Touché and the Urban Land

Institute, and focused on the hot topics of "smart growth" and regionalism. Former

Indianapolis mayor and noted expert on urban development issues, William Hudnut was

the keynote speaker at this conference. Bill Hudnut, a senior fellow at The Urban Land

Institute and author of the book Cities on the Rebound: A Vision for Urban America is an

expert on smart growth, regional development, sprawl prevention and citizen advocacy.

His presence at this key event is indicative of the fact that smart growth was gathering

99 About the Southwest Ohio First Suburbs Consortium, Available from http://www.firstsuburbs.org/southwestohio/index.htm, accessed on 04/30/04

momentum in the Cincinnati region and people wanted to hear more about what it really

meant.

Hudnut’s speech was followed by a panel discussion moderated by him. The

panelists included then Cincinnati Mayor Roxanne Qualls; Jim Wuenker, senior vice

president of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and representative of the Metropolitan

Growth Alliance (MGA); Gary Moore, judge-executive of Boone County; and Nick

Vehr, president of the Cincinnati 2012 Olympics Committee. The discussion was geared

towards addressing regional issues and future changes that could help achieve the goal of

regionalism and improving the quality of life of residents in entire Southwest Ohio

region.

Efforts of Sierra Club and its Midwest Representative Glen Brand: The Sierra Club has

been a very active proponent of smart growth in the Cincinnati region under the strong

and dynamic leadership of Glen Brand, the Midwest Representative of the organization.

Their main thrust is the Sierra Club's Cincinnati Challenge to Sprawl Campaign, which is

designed to build citizen interest in the sprawl issue and to spark community action to

better plan the future of Cincinnati and its surrounding communities. A national Sierra

Club report released in 1998 ranked Cincinnati as the nation's 4th most sprawl-threatened

major metropolitan area100.

The efforts of Glen Brand deserve mention here, as he has been very active in the

Cincinnati region in promoting an understanding of smart growth principles through his

strong voice at various forums and public statements. The Sierra Club has also published

several reports and data documenting the costs of sprawl, a 50-state development survey

100Cincinnati Challenge to Sprawl Campaign: Sierra Club. Available from http://www.sierraclub.org/epec/cincy/, accessed on 04/29/04

of growth, tristate farmland destruction data and solutions to solving sprawl to name a

few.

Role of the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (HCRPC): HCRPC under

the leadership of its Director, Ron Miller has played a major role in guiding the

community planning process and sustainable development initiatives within Hamilton

County. The Regional Planning Commission is responsible for providing advisory

planning services to the 37 county municipalities that are members of the Commission as

well as the unincorporated areas (12 townships) of the county. 101 HCRPC is a regional

planning agency and can thus use its position to play a key role in promoting regional

cooperation within the county and its adjoining communities.

One of the key collaborative initiatives of HCRPC was the Planning Partnership

that was started in the year 2000 to emphasize on a long-range comprehensive approach

to planning. The Planning Partnership provides a forum for discussion of critical issues

that affect members of HCRPC and stresses on developing joint strategies that can be

used to alter the current negative trends in the county. Critical trends in Hamilton County

have identified as population loss, vacant housing, land developing regionally at a rate

five times faster than population growth, racial segregation and social separation in the

region's elementary schools and fiscal inequality among the political jurisdictions.102

Increasing collaboration between communities is one of the key principles of any

smart growth initiative. Community COMPASS was a participatory planning process that

was begun by the Planning Partnership. In October 2001, the Partnership collected

101 About Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (HCRPC), Available from http://www.hamilton- co.org/hcrpc/about/planning/, accessed on 04/29/04 102Planning Partnership, Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (HCRPC), Available from http://www.hamilton-co.org/hcrpc/about/planning/partnership.asp, accessed on 04/29/04

several ideas regarding guiding the growth of Hamilton County from the 2,800 citizens of

Hamilton County who attended the public forum of COMPASS. Out of these ideas, the

COMPASS Steering Team developed 12 broad goals and four interconnected core issues

related to Hamilton County’s vision that were used to develop specific strategies for

implementation to improve the quality of life of citizens in the county. These strategies

currently await implementation.

Another of their projects is the Eastern Corridor Land Use Vision Plan that was

started in 2001 to address the transportation- land use connections in the region extending

from downtown Cincinnati and eastern Hamilton County to western Clermont County.

The Eastern Corridor project is evaluating long-term transportation solutions necessary to

meet growing usage patterns in the region.103 Some of the key objectives of this plan are

developing transportation improvements that will provide important new regional access

to urban and ‘Brownfield’ areas inside the I-275 belt, encouraging redevelopment efforts

and reinvestment in local communities, bringing new jobs closer to more people, and

preserving greenspace and farmland. All of these objectives reflect the use of key smart

growth principles. The project is still at the research and analysis stage and holds a lot of

the promise for the city and its surrounding regions along the eastern side.

Formation of the Smart Growth Coalition of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky

in year 2000: The Smart Growth Coalition of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky

(SGC) was established in the year 2000 and comprised of a group of public officials,

activists, academicians, environmentalists and concerned citizens. This group has since

then provided a strong voice to ‘smart growth’ as an answer to managing Greater

103 Eastern Corridor Project Plan: PE/EIS Project website. Available from http://www.easterncorridor.org/news/default.asp, accessed on 04/29/04

Cincinnati's growth and reducing the impacts of suburban sprawl. In May 2001, SGC

published a guide to promote more coordinated planning in the region. Over the next two

years, this guide was distributed to public officials in eight Greater Cincinnati counties

namely Hamilton, Clermont, Butler and Warren counties in Ohio, Boone, Campbell and

Kenton counties in Kentucky and Dearborn County in Indiana. Among the

recommendations contained in the guide are the following:

¾ More regional planning among local governments.

¾ Providing money and planning to preserve greenspace and farms.

¾ Reforming zoning codes to encourage redevelopment of existing

neighborhoods and more compact development.

¾ Providing more transportation choices, including light rail and expanded

bus service.

¾ Reclaiming and developing abandoned industrial property known as

“Brownfields.”

¾ Forcing developers to pay for costs now often paid by taxpayers104

Public forums called ‘land use forums’ were held in the eight counties of the

OKI region for input from citizens, business owners and others stakeholders. The

results obtained in these forums are being documented for each county in a

‘Community Damage Survey’ that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses

104Group Promotes Smart Growth. Cincinnati Enquirer Article. Wednesday, May 16, 2001. Available from http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/05/16/loc_group_promotes_smart.html, accessed on 03/18/04

of each county. Among other things, SGC has also used the Cost of Community

Services tool developed by the American Farmland Trust to measure revenues

generated vs. costs incurred in different categories of land use for the two

counties of Butler and Kenton. The Greater Cincinnati Foundation is funding this

study. The results obtained show favorable trends indicating that preservation of

farmland actually saves money and the numerical results can be used to

substantiate the argument in favor of smart growth in the Greater Cincinnati

region.

Conference on ‘Livable Communities’ held in 2001: A conference called ‘Livable

Communities’ was held in the month of November 2001 in downtown Cincinnati to link

smart growth and community development. This was a major event that brought together

speakers who discussed solutions to challenges faced by community development in the

areas of affordable and mixed-income housing, brownfields, education, transportation,

planning and work force development. Speakers included Edward Gramlich, member of

the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System; Myron Orfield, president of

Ameregis, member of the Minnesota Senate and a renowned planner; and Angela

Blackwell, president of PolicyLink, a national research and advocacy organization.105

105 Smart Growth Focus of Conference. Business Courier Article, October 28, 2002. Available from http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2002/10/28/daily9.html, accessed on 03/18/04

The conference stressed on the fact that Smart Growth cannot be achieved by

following a standard formula, but rather requires determining the criticalities that are

unique to each locality. Ideally, residents and other stakeholders through a participatory

process should help define the community and economic priorities, identify resources,

and evaluate the available options for current and future development.

Role of the Citizens for Civic Renewal: Citizens for Civic Renewal is a non-profit civic

organization serving the Greater Cincinnati region. It was established in the year 2001

with a purpose of empowering citizens and serving as a catalyst for civic action in

Greater Cincinnati. With a grant from the Regional Initiatives Fund, CCR commissioned

Myron Orfield of the Metropolitan Area Research Corporation (MARC now called

Ameregis) to conduct studies on the socioeconomic and land use trends in the Greater

Cincinnati region.106 The study called Cincinnati Metropatterns was released in October

2001 and revealed certain disturbing trends in the context of race and class segregation in

the Cincinnati region using a combination of GIS tools and traditional research methods.

The study showed that the central city has one of the highest rates in the nation, of people

living in "extreme poverty" neighborhoods, and the urbanized area is spreading out five

times faster that population growth. The conclusion of MARC ‘s study was "pronounced

social separation, inequitable fiscal policies, and inefficient development patterns are

threatening the long-term social and economic strength of the Greater Cincinnati

region."107

106About the Citizens For Civic Renewal (CCR). Available from http://www.citizenscivicrenewal.org/page4.html, accessed on 03/18/04 107 Orfield, Myron and Thomas Luce, “Cincinnati Metro patterns: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability,” Metropolitan Area Research Corporation, 2001. Available from www.metroresearch.org, accessed on 03/18/04

To increase public awareness regarding the results of the study and promote the

need for a regional vision, CCR conducted a huge campaign in 2002 and 2003 to educate

citizens, elected officials and business groups. This campaign involved making public

presentations and distributing reports to the various sections of the population and

working closely with the task force, staff and community leaders to develop strategies

that would address the trends identified in the report. These strategies utilize several

smart growth principles and are aimed towards addressing the problems of diminishing

tax base, urban sprawl and social/racial segregation in the Greater Cincinnati region.

Efforts of the Metropolitan Growth Alliance (MGA) – The Metropolitan Growth Alliance

(MGA) is a non-profit group in the city of Cincinnati that has been working in the region

as a catalyst for regional cooperation between groups that had been identified as the key

players by Michael Gallis in his report for the greater Cincinnati region. Michael Gallis is

a renowned urban planner from North Carolina and an expert on creating regional visions

to guide growth and development. He worked on documenting the trends and conditions

of the greater Cincinnati region in a report titled ‘Preparing for the New Millennium’ and

made several recommendations for promoting the economic development of the region

by capitalizing on its key assets. The report challenged the Greater Cincinnati community

to prepare for the new millennium by thinking and acting regionally. It brought to the

forefront the failure of the Cincinnati region to strike effective collaborations that is very

critical to achieving regional growth. Several smart growth principles and initiatives such

as promoting cooperation, utilization of existing resources and cultivating a sense of

place in the communities of Greater Cincinnati were evident in the recommendations

made in the report.

The study was funded by the Regional Initiatives Fund (RIF), which is a

collaborative effort of several corporate, private and community foundations groups. The

RIF makes grants to support innovative regional initiatives. The Fund is a companion

effort to the Metropolitan Growth Alliance, providing seed capital for innovative and

entrepreneurial regional initiatives.108

Role of Dr Carla Chifos and the Segoe Debate Series on Smart Growth: At the

University of Cincinnati, Prof. Carla Chifos has been leading the discussions on smart

growth policies and initiatives in the region. She has been a member of several

organizations promoting smart growth and has been working closely with Glen Brand,

CCR, SGC and several other groups to promote smart growth.

The Segoe Debate Series on Smart Growth held every year at the School of

Planning, University of Cincinnati is organized by Dr Chifos. The Smart Growth Series

tries to bring together keynote speakers who are experts on smart growth or innovative

urban development strategies from different parts of the country. Such events increase

public awareness, initiate dialogues and bring together people from different backgrounds

together to discuss the vision of the greater Cincinnati region. The University can use its

strategic position to initiate discussions, conduct research and forge collaborations

between groups and/ or individuals interested in smart growth to further strengthen the

movement.

The Strategic Regional Policy Plan of OKI: Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of

Governments (OKI), the metropolitan planning organization for the Cincinnati region,

established a Commission on Land Use (LUC) five years ago. The LUC is charged with

108Regional Initiatives Fund. The Greater Cincinnati Foundation. Available from http://www.greatercincinnatifdn.org/page492.cfm, accessed on 02/14/04

drafting a Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the entire eight county tri-state area. OKI’s

decision to form this Commission grew out of federal transportation planning mandates,

and from an estimated $3.5 billion shortfall between identified needs and funds available

for the region’s transportation system over the next 30 years. The mission of the LUC is

to bring about better coordination between land use planning and long-range

transportation planning; more specifically, to encourage land use patterns that promote

multimodal travel and the efficient use of land, natural resources, and public facilities and

services.

The Strategic Regional Policy Plan is a long-range guide for the physical, economic, and

social development of the eight county OKI region. The Plan is aimed at encouraging

increased cooperation and coordination of political, legal, and land use authority among

and between local governments, minimizing the inefficiencies that result from the

operation of 190 local jurisdictions in the region. The components of the Plan are

grouped in six topical areas: transportation; land use; public facilities and services;

natural resources and open space; housing; and economic development. The completion

of the Policy Plan is expected in late 2004.

The LUC is applying a strategic process approach that presents the big picture of

where the region is today, where it wants to be in the future, and how to get there. The process includes: creating a vision for stewardship; identifying strategic regional issues;

outlining the trends and conditions affecting the region; establishing the goals and

objectives; and finally determining reasonable and effective policy statements.

Considerable time has been spent gathering, assembling and analyzing data from

around the region. The creation of a composite existing land use map and a composite

zoning map have conveniently illustrated regional trends. The data provided the basis for

many of the strategic issues identified by the LUC, such as the lack of up-to-date

comprehensive plans, the deficiencies in capital budgeting at the local level, and the need

for more intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. Much of this information will

also be valuable in assisting local decision-making and implementing the forthcoming

regional policies. At this point, most steps in the process are complete, except for policy

development.

Other Fiscal Initiatives in 2003: Having lost ten percent of its population to the suburbs

during the last decade (1990-2000), Cincinnati is pooling $15 million with $100 million

from Fifth Third Bank, Provident Bank and U.S. Bank, in a ten-year revolving loan fund

for home construction and renovation in depressed neighborhoods, expecting every

public dollar to leverage at least $18 in private investment. According to a report by the

Cincinnati Post, it is the most ambitious local initiative of its kind, spearheaded by City

Councilman Pat DeWine. The new fund will be managed by the nonprofit Cincinnati

Development Fund Inc., which will help developers who are unable to find other sources

of financing with a variety of loans for market-rate housing, including two-year

construction loans below prime lending rates. Calling the fund a model for the city's other

revitalization efforts, Councilman DeWine said, "It takes the development decision out of

the hands of bureaucrats and gives it to people who have the expertise in making these

types of projects succeed." The writer adds that Cincinnati's 38 percent home ownership

rate is far below the 58 percent rate in similar cities and the national average of 66

percent; that the fund's first loans should be made within 30-45 days; and that the city

may put another $7 million into the fund next year, while securing participation by other

area banks.109

6.4.4 Events that hampered the smart growth movement in the Cincinnati Region:

Failure of the Light rail Issue (Issue 6): The light rail issue failed to get a vote of the

majority in Cincinnati in Dec 2002. This was a major blow to the smart growth advocates

in the region as expansion of transportation choices and an effective public transit system

are very critical to reducing congestion along highways, minimizing air pollution and

revitalizing the city.

Elimination of the Planning Department at the city of Cincinnati, 2003: In August 2003,

the Planning Department of the city was closed down due to budget cuts. This was a

reflection of the fact that city officials considered planning to be an unimportant function

and the Department was among the first to be closed down when the funds were running

low.

Preserving the American Dream Conference held in November 2003: Opponents of smart

growth gathered in the city for a conference titled ‘Preserving the American Dream’ in

November 2003. The key speakers included Wendell Cox, an anti smart growth guru,

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell; Hamilton County Commissioner Phil Heimlich;

and Hamilton County Auditor Dusty Rhodes to name a few. The day-long conference

targeted business leaders, government policy makers and community leaders to urged

them to prevent smart growth proponents from succeeding in ‘killing the American

dream’. The conference was indicative of the strong resentment of private developers and

city and county officials to the ideas of smart growth and its underlying principles.

109 Property Rights Research: Smart Growth News Room. Available from http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/smart_growth_news_room.htm, accessed on 3-7-2003

7. Smart Growth Responses in the State of Ohio 7.1 Background:

The evolution of smart growth related initiatives at a statewide level in Ohio would be key to understanding the overarching issues within the state that have had an influence over the regional initiatives in the Cleveland and Cincinnati metropolitan areas. Smart growth policies have significant supporters and significant opponents in Ohio and few people are aware of what

smart growth really means in the context of the state as well as its metropolitan regions.

A recent survey of state planning reforms and smart growth measures by the American

Planning Association (APA) found that Ohio was one of only 12 states not pursuing statewide

reforms.110 According to the APA, “Ohio has no overall vision regarding growth and

development, and state agencies tend to pursue their missions narrowly. Other states provide

promising models for how state government can do a better job managing growth".111

In such a situation, it is very difficult to put placeholders with respect to specific events at a statewide level that have influenced the smart growth movement for the simple reason that very little has been done at the state level in this direction. Smart Growth in Ohio is at a relatively early stage as compared to the status of smart growth in the more progressive states of Oregon,

Maryland and New Jersey to name a few. This section attempts to chronologically trace the smart growth responses in three phases namely: before 1980, during the 1990’s and finally since

2000.

110 Ecocity Cleveland – The Ohio Character of Smart Growth. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/ohio_character.html, accessed on 11/06/03 111 Ohio Smart Growth Agenda Unveiled. October 9, 1998. APA News Release. Available from http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/1998/ftp21098.htm, accessed on 11/06/03

7.2 Before 1980

During the early years of the twentieth century, the state of Ohio was a national leader in

land use planning. In 1915, Cincinnati attorney and planning law pioneer, Alfred Bettman,

drafted one of the first statutes for municipal planning in the United States. Subsequently, Ohio

law influenced national legislation for planning, municipal zoning, and regional planning. The

landmark 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of zoning (Village

of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365) was based on a land use dispute in a suburb of

Cleveland, Ohio.

The progressive beginning that the state made could not be maintained and over time

Ohio has slipped well behind other states in developing innovative planning/zoning strategies to

combat the negative impacts of development. The most recent attempt at a comprehensive

reform of the state's land use planning and regulatory structure came in 1975 when the General

Assembly created the ‘Ohio Land Use Review Committee’ to look at planning and land use

controls at the state, regional, county, township, and municipal levels.112

According to Ohio land use law expert Stuart Meck, the Committee released its report in

1977 and made several recommendations for a broad array of changes. These included greater responsibilities for county and regional planning commissions, procedures for large-scale development reviews, and enhanced authority for municipal and county planning commissions.113 The report also suggested that a mechanism of regional tax-base sharing should

be considered. This mechanism had previously been implemented in the Twin Cities area in

Minneapolis and is a process by which local governments share a portion of wealth generated by

112 Manley, Robert. Smart Growth Responses for Ohio. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/smart_growth_responses.html. accessed on 05/01/04 113 Ohio Land Use Review Committee Report

100

growth of their commercial and industrial real property tax bases. As these recommendations

were mainly aimed at efforts required by local governments, the report did not lead to any dramatic changes in responsibilities for state agencies. While omnibus legislation was introduced

to implement the report's recommendations, it was never enacted because of lack of strong

political support for the changes suggested by the Committee.114

The state of Ohio paid little attention to their planning policies and the local governments

acted in their own self-interest, as there were little or no incentives to promote collaborative

planning strategies. People in Ohio deeply resented the idea of growth management as it had impacts on personal property rights and innovative planning legislations were looked upon as

roadblocks to opportunities for economic development.

7.3 During the 1990’s

The decade of the 1990’s was a period of awakening within the state as the issue of

farmland preservation came to the forefront. Citizen groups, academicians, environmentalists,

farmers and public agencies started considering curbing unplanned growth as residential and

commercial development gradually ate up large tracts of greenfields. Suburban sprawl had

become a major issue across the state. In response to this critical problem, Governor George

Voinovich created the Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force in 1996, which presented its

report in 1997 after conducting several hearings across the state. The report concluded that the

two issues of preservation of a healthy agricultural economy and urban revitalization should be

looked at within a comprehensive framework to counter the threat posed to Ohio's agricultural

and economic vitality and character of small towns and rural communities. The report added that

114 Manley, Robert. Smart Growth Responses for Ohio. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/smart_growth_responses.html. accessed on 05/01/04

101

a reform in state legislation was crucial for preservation of farmlands as several initiatives by the state government in different parts of the state were affecting the conversion of agricultural land to other uses through land acquisition, development projects and financial assistance for public and private development.

Among the Task Force recommendations was a proposal to encourage local governments to prepare comprehensive land use plans. The state of Ohio does not require local governments to have a comprehensive plan to guide the future growth of their communities. This has been a major roadblock to the idea of regional growth as well as to promoting planned growth strategies within smaller communities. Most local governments have no plan for their jurisdictions and those that do seldom update their plans to incorporate the changing needs of their fast growing entities. The Task Force suggested that comprehensive plans would encourage farmland preservation, promote efficient use of capital investments made for public infrastructure projects, encourage agriculturally supportive zoning thus leading to the overall goal of planned expansion of urban and suburban areas.

A bill, H.B. 645 was introduced in the Ohio House in December 1997. It incorporated several recommendations made of the Farmland Preservation Task Force (including a proposal for voluntary countywide comprehensive plans), but it was not enacted. Instead, another proposal to authorize the purchase of agricultural conservation easements was enacted. The state also created an Office of Farmland Preservation in the Department of Agriculture, which was charged with developing a strategy to preserve farmland. Even though the efforts of the Farmland

Preservation Task Force did not result in major changes, it brought the issues of urban sprawl and loss of farmland to the forefront and gave them credibility.

102

This was a significant achievement and it gained greater momentum by the emergence of smaller organizations in different parts of the state, more specifically in Northeast and Southwest

Ohio, which were beginning to talk about smart growth and raise awareness among communities regarding the negative impacts sprawling development patterns. These were organizations like the First Suburbs Consortium (FSC), Citizens for Civic Renewal (CCR), Metropolitan Growth

Alliance (MGA), Smart Growth Coalition for Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky (SGC) and Ecocity Cleveland to name a few. Such organizations comprised of experts and activists from a variety of fields such as planning, rural/urban redevelopment, law, environmental sciences, transportation engineering and economic development who were trying to work together towards starting a movement in the state of Ohio that would propel it towards addressing growth and development issues in its local, regional and statewide initiatives.

7.4 Since 2000

There have been a few significant initiatives since 2000 that seem like they have a potential for having strong impacts on creating a regional vision of growth in different parts of the state and more specifically, promoting smart growth principles and strategies. Besides regional initiatives in the Cleveland and Cincinnati metropolitan areas that have already been discussed in the previous chapters the statewide efforts include the following:

Creation of the Ohio House Subcommittee on Growth and Land Use: The subcommittee is

chaired by Rep. Larry Wolpert of Hilliard and was created in 2003 to hear testimonies from

across the state on how the state legislation can be changed to be more supportive of urban

redevelopment. Rep. Larry Wolpert, chairman of the House County and Township

Government Committee, and Speaker Larry Householder formed this new subcommittee to

examine current growth and land use trends in Ohio. The subcommittee has been holding

103

meetings and monthly hearings on growth and land use issues during the coming year in

different parts of Ohio.

The results of these testimonies will be compiled and the subcommittee will make

recommendations to the Ohio House to initiate legislative action. The subcommittee is

trying to gain information on issues such as urban sprawl, smart growth, farmland

preservation, central city degeneration, issues faced by first ring suburbs, land use policies

and provision of public infrastructure. Several experts from within the state have made

presentations at these hearings and the process is ongoing. This initiative will have

significant impacts on the future of planning in Ohio if the subcommittee succeeds in

presenting a strong case before the Ohio House in its presentation.

Formation of Greater Ohio – Greater Ohio is a citizens' network promoting through public

education and grassroots advocacy, public policies that are more supportive of the

redevelopment of existing communities, strengthen regional cooperation, improve quality

of life and are more protective of Ohio's countryside and natural resources.115 Concerned

citizens from across Ohio packed the Atrium of the Statehouse on January 20, 2004 to

launch Greater Ohio, a statewide campaign to promote better land-use policies and to

educate Ohioans about current growth patterns. Gene Krebs, the state director for Greater

Ohio and a former state representative from southwest Ohio, has been making extensive

presentations at public forums and lobbying across the state to promote the agenda of this

citizens’ organization. The campaign has so far received funding from several Ohio-based

115 People, Land, Prosperity: About Greater Ohio. Available from http://www.greaterohio.org/, accessed on 04/29/04

104

foundations, including The George Gund Foundation, the Greater Cincinnati Foundation,

the Columbus Foundation, The Cleveland Foundation and others.116

Greater Ohio is pressing for changes in state policy, which according to its state director is

key to promoting smart growth, addressing issues of urban and suburban sprawl and

combating the growth problems that the metropolitan areas of Ohio are facing today.

Several public, private and non-profit sector leaders from different fields of specialization

but with the common purpose of addressing concerns regarding existing growth patterns in

Ohio are supporting the organization.

116 Ibid

105

8.Matrix Composition and Evaluation This chapter comprises of the matrices that were created to evaluate the status of smart growth in Cleveland, Cincinnati and their respective high growth areas namely the city of Avon and West Chester Township. This process of matrix analysis would also help to compare the status of smart growth in West Chester Township and Avon, Cincinnati and Cleveland and the two metropolitan regions respectively.

Section 8.1 is a compilation of the matrix series for Cleveland, which consists of nine matrices, A1 through A9. Each matrix deals with one of the nine principles of smart growth that make up the complete prescription as described in Chapter 3. Each matrix, A1 – A9, compares the city of Cleveland to the city of Avon, which is a new high- growth suburb in Lorain County.

At the end of each matrix, there is a small discussion to further elaborate upon the sub elements of each principle and their respective status in both places.

Similarly, Section 8.2 is a compilation of the matrix series for Cincinnati, which consists of nine matrices, B1 through B9. Each matrix deals with one of the nine principles of smart growth that make up the complete prescription as described in Chapter 3. Each matrix, B1 – B9, compares the city of Cincinnati to West Chester Township, which is a new high- growth suburb in Butler County. At the end of each matrix, there is a small discussion to further elaborate upon the sub elements of each principle and their respective status in both places.

8.1 Current Status of Smart Growth in Cleveland:

The following section is an attempt to establish connections between the nature of planning initiatives that have been used in Cleveland and Avon and the smart growth principles and their sub-elements that were identified in Chapter 3. This would help to establish how far down the line smart growth has progressed in the Cleveland metropolitan region.

106

8.1.1 Matrix Series for Cleveland and the city of Avon:

The following series of matrices, A1 through A9, have been completed based on the information collected through interviews, literature searches and observational studies. The entries of the matrix have been further elaborated upon with specific examples that help to understand how the smart growth sub elements have been implemented or are being considered in real projects. The explanations that follow each matrix cite examples for both Cleveland and

Avon in separate sections.

107

8.1.1.1 Matrix A1: Mixing Land Uses

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 1: Mixing Land Uses Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Consideration Consideration 1.1. Adopt smart growth codes in addition to Ex: Fries and innovative zoning tools to parallel Schuele, existing/conventional development codes Ecovillage 1.2. Provide incentives through state funds to Ex: Payne encourage residents to live near their places of work Avenue live- work lofts 1.3. Facilitate financing of mixed use properties Ex: Ecovillage, Avenbury Lakes through incentives to developers, financiers and Prospect homes, local communities Pinnacle condos 1.4. Convert declining shopping malls and/or Ex: Grand retrofit single use office and retail structures into Arcade mixed use developments Condominiums

Cleveland: 1.1. Some award winning projects have been undertaken in recent years in the process of rebuilding the city of Cleveland. These projects have tried to alter the conventional zoning codes with the use of tools like PUD. The new residential units that have been constructed have other facilities in the vicinity as well like markets, restaurants, clubhouses and access to rapid transit. Examples are the Fries and Schuele Condominiums located in the Historic Market Square District of Ohio City that has won an award by the Smart Growth Education Foundation for the best mixed-use development project of less than 20 acres in an urban setting. The other example is the Ecovillage town homes, which is a national demonstration project. 1.2. Provision of financial incentives to encourage residents to stay close to their places of work is being considered by downtown Cleveland developers and the City. Non-profit groups like Downtown Cleveland Partnership are promoting this idea as well. Such incentives are favorable to the rebuilding efforts of downtown Cleveland, an initiative that has gathered considerable momentum in the city. An example would the Payne Avenue live-work lofts located in downtown Cleveland.

108

1.3. Condominiums like the Pointe at Gateway, is an example of residential units that have been built downtown and have financial incentives like tax abatements, reduced interest rates and special financing schemes available to promote their sale. These are located above the entertainment district of downtown Cleveland. The City of Cleveland is providing tax abatements for projects that are aimed at rebuilding downtown Cleveland. Several other projects like Ecovillage, Prospect homes, Pinnacle condos are using these schemes extensively. 1.4. Some large, old buildings in downtown Cleveland are being converted into offices and shops. Most of these large buildings downtown are warehouses or old office structures and the issue of safety of these structures is a primary concern for their re-use. Some examples would be the Grand Arcade Condominiums located in downtown Cleveland's exciting Historic Warehouse District. These are currently over half sold out and combine unique historic detail with modern convenience, contemporary design and a fabulous location. City of Avon: 1.1 None. Most new development in Avon is the typical subdivision type single-family dwellings and these are built is traditionally zoned pockets using the conventional development codes. 1.2 None. 1.3 Mixed used properties are being encouraged in the city of Avon by the planning authorities and the mayor. A recent project called the Avenbury Lakes is an award-winning project in Avon that typically uses several elements of smart growth. Avenbury Lakes has been built for mostly empty-nesters offering 355 homes in a $180,000-$300,000 price range, with 45 percent of the 147 acres left for open space, walking trails and stocked ponds that reduce runoff. The developer stated that even the project was not as profitable as the typical subdivision it is a poster project that reflects the attempt of developers in Northeast Ohio to use smart growth principles in their projects. Avenbury Lakes features on the ''Tour de Smart Growth'' that is organized by Smart Growth Education Foundation, with bus stops at several residential construction sites in Cuyahoga and Lorain counties, to help officials, builders and realtors visualize the various dimensions of higher-density smart-growth housing. 1.4 None. The principle of trying to retrofit older office/retail structures to new developments is not really applicable to Avon as there are few few large, old buildings in the city since it has started developing only recently.

109

8.1.1.2 Matrix A2: Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 2: Expanding Housing Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Opportunities and Choices Consideration Consideration 2.1. Revise existing zoning and building codes to permit a variety of housing types and/or enact an inclusionary zoning ordinance for new housing developments 2.2. Prioritize smart growth projects and programs Avenbury by allocating federal funds, community Lakes development block grants or other funding sources 2.3. Educate realtors, lenders and home buyers on Low-income the use of resource efficient mortgages and provide apartments on financial assistance through home ownership Chester Road subsidies 2.4. Require new developments to have a percentage of affordable housing in their plans for residential development

Cleveland: 2.1. The new housing developments that are taking place in the city are mainly for the middle and high income groups; so inclusionary zoning is not a priority for the developers or the city officials. Housing for low-income groups or affordable housing options are limited in the city. Any general increase in housing affordability requires at least some declining housing prices and this does not serve the profit motives of builders or add to the city revenues. 2.2. The non- profit group Ecocity Cleveland has made several recommendations to the city, the Ohio House Subcommittee on Land Use and to the state agencies to use financial incentives like CDBG offered by the Ohio Dept of Development (ODOD) and federal funds to promote housing developments for low income communities and to provide grants and loans to new business start-ups.

110

2.3. Home ownership subsidies, tax abatements, long-term low-interest loans, deferred second mortgages are some of the tools that are being used by developers to promote moderate and high income housing in downtown Cleveland. The city has provided tax abatements to developers who undertake infill and urban redevelopment projects in the city and has conducted several forums to educate the building industry on these tools in its attempt to provide housing choices to all income ranges. 2.4. Unknown data City of Avon 2.1. None. There is a wide range of affordable housing found in Avon nestled in quiet, comfortable neighborhoods but there are no inclusionary zoning code that make it compulsory for new developments to include affordable housing in their plans. 2.2. There are no special incentives given to smart growth projects but the mayor and local planning staff does encourage projects that attempt to use smart growth principles. The city has very stringent qualifications that builders and developers have to meet before any new development is allowed. Ex: Avenbury Lakes 2.3. The mayor of the city of Avon realizes the need for balanced growth and constantly tries to promote projects that have a variety of housing types in their plans. Some low and moderate-income housing has been built in the city but residents are not in favor of such development, as they fear an increase in crime rate and decline in their quality of life. Ex: 256 low-income apartments on Chester Road. The $25 million project was built by Brisben Companies, a Cincinnati based developer, with help from the state, which provided a $5 million tax credit and $12 million in tax-free bonds in return for which the developer agreed to build apartments for families at or below 50 percent of Lorain County's median gross income. Some of the apartments in this complex have been subsidized under Section8. 2.4. None.

111

8.1.1.3 Matrix A3: Providing Transportation Options

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 3: Providing Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Transportation Options Consideration Consideration 3.1. Finance and provide incentives for NOACA/ Lorain County interconnected multimodal transportation systems Ecocity Transit Cleveland 3.2. Foster pedestrian supportive land use Guidelines of Avenbury development patterns. Create effective pedestrian NOACA for Lakes, Old environments through the use of sidewalks, easy bikes and peds parts of Avon street crossings, and local street connectivity 3.3. Address parking needs and opportunities in an innovative fashion (avoid large parking lots) 3.4. Zone for concentrated activity centers around NGO and RTA transit service within communities (TOD’s) studies

Cleveland: 3.1. In December 2001 EcoCity Cleveland presented a proposal to the Governing Board of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA, the five-county transportation planning agency) calling for a balance, multimodal transportation system. The NOACA A partially approved this proposal in 2002 and agreed in one of its resolutions to promote communities with a mix of land uses, encourage a match between housing and jobs, and work towards a public realm that supports walking, bicycling and transit. The existing light rail system in the city is mostly used by low and moderate-income groups as it has been subsidized by waiving the county sales tax. People from higher income groups still use cars extensively and the local/arterial roads and highways in the region are highly congested. 3.2. As per NOACA plan goals, sponsors of transportation projects are required to consider bicycles and pedestrians in the planning and design of their proposed project. In particular, sidewalks, shared use paths, street crossings (including over- and under crossings), pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, transit stops and facilities, and all connecting pathways should be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that all modes and pedestrians, including

112

people with disabilities, can travel safely and independently.117 The NOACA has also listed a set of specific planning and design guidelines to assist project sponsors in the consideration of bicycles and pedestrians. 3.3. None 3.4. The Committee for Transit-Oriented Design (cTOD) was formed in 1995 by local planning advocates and concerned citizens to look into the possibility of developing communities in the city and its suburbs that would be located around public transit hubs. Neighborhood-based development groups are also thinking about transit stops as development tools and the Regional Transit Authority is gaining a better appreciation of how Rapid Transit stops can relate to the surrounding community. City of Avon: 3.1. The transportation system in Avon is mainly automobile oriented. They do not have a public transit system of their own but are served by the Lorain County Transit system, which is a countywide bus service. 3.2. The older parts of the city have a pedestrian environment that supports walking and biking. The new development at Avonbury Lakes has a system of sidewalks, easy street crossings, and local street connectivity but most parts of Avon are not oriented towards fostering pedestrian friendly land use patterns. 3.3. None. 3.4. None. There is no opportunity for transit-oriented design in Avon, as it does not have a public transit system of its own.

117 Ecocity Cleveland. Transportation in Northeast Ohio. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/citizentrans/routine_accommodation.html. Accessed on 04/09/04

113

8.1.1.4 Matrix A4: Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 4: Strengthening Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Existing Communities through Consideration Consideration Infill Development and redevelopment 4.1. Strengthen state or local Brownfield programs Clean Ohio No Brownfield and locate civic buildings in existing communities Fund and SCS sites rather than greenfield areas 2000; CCPC 4.2. Institute a regional tax base sharing to reduce Income tax Some level of intra jurisdictional competition and promote levied by City basic development of the region as a whole communication exists 4.3. Create economic incentives for businesses and Balanced Few home owners to locate in areas with existing growth opportunities infrastructure Initiative-Lake Erie Comm 4.4. Modify average cost-pricing practices in utilities thus accounting for the higher costs of providing infrastructure in outlying areas

Cleveland: 4.1. At The Sustainable Communities Symposium held in Cleveland in 2000, the Business and Economics Working Group presented a set of sustainability priorities to continue to develop ways to engage business in sustainability initiatives. One of their key priorities was to encourage the reindustrialization of the inner city through Brownfield cleanup. Their suggestions included defining the benefits and concerns driving Brownfield redevelopment and increasing the amount of funding made available through the Clean Ohio Fund. Since then, some of these recommendations have been used effectively in redeveloping Brownfields in downtown Cleveland. The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission received a $200,000 grant from the US EPA to promote brownfields

114

redevelopment in Cleveland. Their activities include the redevelopment of two sites namely, the Sunar Hauserman site and the Mid-Town Corridor site. Their other initiatives have been the creation of the Toxic Sweep Task Force, established in 1993 by the Mayor, City of Cleveland, and the Ohio Attorney General, which is a collaborative community-based team effort to coordinate and apply the appropriate city, state, and federal tools to force owners and other responsible parties to clean up toxics in contaminated and abandoned properties. Over 100 such properties have been cleaned up in the city under this program. In addition, the Greater Cleveland Growth Association in its recommendations to the Ohio Subcommittee on Growth and Land Use drew attention to the 4-year Clean Ohio Bond Program that will be up for renewal in 2 years. The Association suggested that serious consideration needs to be given to renewing this program at a higher level of funding so that Brownfield redevelopment programs could be undertaken more effectively . 4.2. The city of Cleveland charges income tax on people who work in the city. This includes people who work in the city but live in the suburbs. This is a form of regional tax base sharing that makes people who are employed in the city pay for facilities provided by it even though they live elsewhere. Several recommendations have been made by key organizations like FSC, Ecocity Cleveland to promote tax base sharing. This issue has been a cause of debate and has been addressed repeatedly in many local publications and presentations at public forums. 4.3. The Balanced Growth Initiative is a project being undertaken by the Lake Erie Commission. The Commission in its recommendations has proposed various smart growth initiatives that can be used to ensure that development occurs in greater harmony with natural systems along Lake Erie. One of their recommendations is provision of economic incentives to businesses and residents that would in turn increase the demand for property in communities with existing infrastructure. 4.4. Such initiatives have been discussed by several organizations like Ecocity Cleveland and other non-profit groups in the region but no substantial progress has happened, as there is severe opposition from the newer suburbs. City of Avon: 4.1. None. The city of Avon has started developing extensively only in the last ten years and does not have any old, contaminated building sites that can be termed as Brownfields. Most civic buildings are located to ensure easy access to them and are not in the outlying Greenfield areas. 4.2. There is some cooperation between the communities that surround the city and they meet at regular intervals to exchange information and discuss the status of their respective growth trends. Regional tax base sharing is an issue that has not been talked about yet in the region. The jurisdictions do compete with each other but it is common for the mayor of a city that attracts development out of another jurisdiction to communicate with the losing areas to let them know of the situation thus giving them an opportunity to provide better services or try to meet the needs of the businesses that are trying to relocate. 4.3. Businesses are encouraged to locate in areas where infrastructure is already in place. This is mostly done by the Lorain County Department of Development in coordination with the respective jurisdictions. The city of Avon cooperates with the county on such initiatives when the need arises and the nature of the economic incentives that are given to businesses and developers range from revolving loan funds, tax abatements, down payment assistance to Community

115

Reinvestment Area (CRA’s). Avon being a relatively new city has limited opportunities for using such initiatives that are mostly used to revitalize older neighborhoods. 4.4. None.

116

8.1.1.5 Matrix A5: Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 5: Conserving Open Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Space, Farmland and Critical Consideration Consideration Environmental Areas 5.1. Use transfer of development rights (TDR’s), Balanced Avenbury purchase of development rights (PDR’s) and other Growth Lakes market oriented tools to conserve privately owned Initiative /The land and to facilitate open space acquisition and its Countryside preservation Program 5.2. Identify critical ecological sites at a regional Regional Park Environmental level and create an inventory prior to development agencies and Strategic Plan to direct future growth in a planned manner county planning by Lorain agencies County 5.3. Create a continuous network of green ways CCPC County and walking/ biking trails Metroparks, 100-acre nature preserve and City parks project 5.4. Partner with non governmental organizations Ecocity and other public entities to acquire and protect land Cleveland/FSC/ and also increase public awareness REPP

Cleveland: 5.1. The use of market oriented tools like transfer of development rights (TDR’s), purchase of development rights (PDR’s) etc is a part of the series of recommendations made by the Balanced Growth Initiative project of the Lake Erie Commission. TDR’s are typically used in private real estate markets,

117

requiring very little public regulation and revenue. While cities and villages can currently use a TDR program, townships and counties in Ohio are not specifically authorized to use these tools under Ohio law. Statewide enabling legislation is needed to make this tool widely available in the form of quality programs.118 The Countryside Program (a program of the Western Reserve Conservation and Development Council) has also made recommendations to allow these tools to be used more widely for the purpose of promoting sensitive planning and development practices in Northeast Ohio. 5.2. The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the park authority of Cleveland have been working extensively on several projects aimed at identifying sites of critical ecological importance. Currently, the regional planning commission is creating an inventory of urban green space sites in the Cleveland metropolitan area. The Cleveland Metroparks consist of over 20,000 acres of various landscapes and attractions for visitors to enjoy. The Park District is commonly referred to as the "Emerald Necklace" because the reservations encircle the city of Cleveland. 5.3. The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission is working on a project called the County Greenspace Plan. This is a plan aimed at preserving the county's greenspace as well as enhancing and increasing what exists. The Greenspace Working Group (GWG) that is assisting the county on this project comprises of about 25 members consisting of environmentalists, academicians, social activists and planners and is working towards creating inter-connections between existing greenspaces and sub habitats to create a continuous network of green corridors on a regional basis. 5.4. Ecocity Cleveland, First Suburbs Consortium, Northeast Ohio Regional Alliance and Regional Environmental Priorities project (REPP) are a few of the organizations and initiatives that have been working towards increasing public awareness towards environmental issues. Conserving open space, farmland and critical environmental areas is a prime agenda for several entrepreneurs, investors, and insightful communities. In the state as a whole, farmland losses have amounted to nine acres an hour in recent years.119 Recent developments, including the Ohio Department of Agriculture's $25 million Clean Ohio Fund Agricultural Easement Purchase Program - are steps in the direction of farmland preservation on a statewide level. City of Avon: 5.1. Open space preservation has been used extensively in the new project called Avenbury Lakes, in which 147 acres had been left for open space, walking trails and stocked ponds that reduce runoff. Tools such as PDR’s and TDR’s have not been used to preserve farmland in the city but most new developments are encouraged and often times required to use elements of conservation design to optimize the use of land and create compact developments. 5.2. None. Lorain County is presently working on creating an Environmental Strategic Plan that is aimed at identifying sites of ecological importance across the county including floodplains, watersheds, open spaces and farmland. Most farmland that has been identified for preservation until now falls in the southern

118 Saving farms, saving land. Farmland preservation initiatives blossom in Ohio, EcoCity Cleveland Journal. September 1996.Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/sustain/food_systems/saving_farms.html, accessed on 05/03/04

118

part of the county. Avon is the region that is expected to grow even more in the future and has been zoned completely for development with few open spaces designated for parks. 5.3. City Council of Avon recently approved the preliminary plans for a 62-acre park - including ball fields, nature trail, walking trails, mountain bike trails and a skateboarding area. Homebuilders in Avon are required to pay almost 600$ to a park fund for each new development that they undertake in the city and this park would be funded by the money raised from homebuilders. The other project in the pipeline is a 100acre nature preserve proposed by Ohio Wetlands Foundation for the city of Avon. The Lorain County Metroparks plan also has some proposals to develop parks in the city but these are still being discussed. 5.4. None.

119

8.1.1.6 Matrix A6: Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 6: Providing Incentives Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments to Smart Development to make it Consideration Consideration predictable, fair and cost effective 6.1. Provide financial incentives to encourage smart growth projects 6.2. Expedite the plan and permit approval process for smart growth projects (policy incentives) 6.3. Identify practices in existing regulatory Lorain County framework that prohibit smart growth (smart Comprehensive growth audit) Land Use Plan

Cleveland: 6.1. Several researchers and smart growth proponents have been advocating the need for financial incentives to popularize smart growth projects at the statewide level and in Northeast Ohio but as of now there are no such incentives in place. 6.2. There are no policy incentives to promote smart growth initiatives or mechanisms to expedite the planning and permit approval process. Such incentives are key to encourage developers, private investors and the public to consider smart growth alternatives. 6.3. Identification of practices in the present regulatory framework that prohibit smart growth initiatives like existing zoning, several subdivision regulations to name a few is an area that requires considerable research. Researchers and lawyers have done several studies in recent years to identify loopholes in the regulatory framework of the state but these are not specifically related to smart growth. City of Avon: 6.1. None 6.2. None

120

6.3. None. Some efforts to are being made by the Lorain County Planning Department, which is working towards creating a county wide comprehensive Land Use Plan. This plan has identified areas within the county where development will occur in the future. It proposes the use of several tools like TDR’s and PDR’s to preserve critical farmlands and open spaces that need conservation and also suggests that new residential developments use elements of conservation design.

121

8.1.1.7 Matrix A7: Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 7: Fostering attractive Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments communities with a strong sense Consideration Consideration of place 7.1. Create civic anchors at a community level like Civic Vision neighborhood schools, community centers, health 2000 centers etc 7.2. Encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures Cleveland Not applicable through financial incentives Arcade/ Warehouse District 7.3. Create special improvement districts for focused investment

Cleveland: 7.1. As part of the civic Vision 2000 for the city of Cleveland, several community development projects have been envisioned mainly with the aim of revitalizing degenerated communities near downtown and the first suburbs. These projects include conversion of old office buildings into apartments or health centers as is being done in lower Euclid Avenue. Other such projects include new hotels, bookstores, and clubhouses within older neighborhoods to promote a sense of place and provide opportunities for community gathering thus making them more desirable and attractive to current and future residents. 7.2. The Cleveland Arcade, originally built in 1890, was the 9th building to be placed on the National Historic Register of Landmarks and was the retail center of downtown Cleveland. LR Development Company in partnership with Hyatt Development Corporation completed a $60 million adaptive restoration of this unique building into a mixed-use development anchored by a Hyatt Regency Hotel.120 In an unprecedented public/private partnership, LR Development Company worked closely with the Mayor and his economic development staff to develop a financing plan that would allow for the complete renovation of this historic building. The financing plan included eleven funding sources, both public and private, including: City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County

120Cleveland Arcade: Adaptive Reuse Project. Available from http://www.lrrealty.com/LandmarkProperties/ARTheArcade.htm, accessed on 04/03/04

122

economic development loans, loans and grants from three private foundations, a non-school TIF, federal historic tax credits, a conservation easement and private equity and debt financing. Another example would be the Warehouse District, Cleveland’s 19th century manufacturing and wholesale center, which includes many buildings of landmark status. The owner, a prominent Cleveland developer, acquired a city block of the historic district for a mixed use project, encompassing nearly 1 million square feet of leaseable space. 7.3 The Cleveland enterprise zone covers the entire city of Cleveland and the program has been reasonably well administered and run at the state level. The concept of enterprise zones implies that enterprises that locate in such zones enter into agreements with the county or municipal corporation, which can offer incentives that include exemptions from taxes on personal property used in the business at the project site. This fuels business investments and encourages private corporations to locate their commercial and residential sectors within the city instead of in the outskirts. City of Avon: 7.1. The city of Avon is not a huge suburb and thus has managed to retain its community character. Several community buildings like community centers, senior citizens centers and schools bind the neighborhoods together giving it a strong sense of place. 7.2. The city is relatively new and has very few historic structures within it. Adaptive reuse is not critical to the city as most old buildings are small structures that are one or two story high, located in the old part of Avon and are very much in use as antique shops, gift shops or as small commercial outfits. 7.3. None

123

8.1.1.8 Matrix A8: Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 8: Using Innovative and Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Compact Design Techniques Consideration Consideration 8.1.Increase awareness amongst community Ecocity members and offer incentives regarding compact Cleveland, Soil/ building options through workshops and public Water meetings Conservation Districts 8.2. Create appropriate design guidelines to Smart Growth Some balance efficiency, privacy and accessibility thus Education conservation creating attractive homes and yards Foundation design elements 8.3. Support regional efforts to support compact Ecocity Lorain County development Cleveland, FSC, Comprehensive Cuyahoga Land Use Plan County Planning Commission

Cleveland: 8.1. Ecocity Cleveland has been working towards increasing awareness among the communities in the Cleveland region regarding compact building options. Cuyahoga County is approaching its total build out scenario, which is why compact design options are being given some serious consideration in recent years. 8.2. The Smart Growth Education Foundation, an initiative of the Northeast Ohio Homebuilders Association has been working towards promoting projects that use innovative urban design elements to balance efficiency, privacy and accessibility thus creating attractive homes and yards and creating appropriate design guidelines. The Avenbury Lakes Project is an example of the same and is featured as an award winning smart growth project by a private developer.

124

8.3. The efforts of organizations like Ecocity Cleveland, FSC, and the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission are key in this regard. City of Avon: 8.1. None. 8.2. The city has stringent guidelines for new developments that developers need to follow. Some of these guidelines encourage the use of elements of conservation design for new developments. 8.3. Efforts are being made by the Lorain County Planning Department, which is working towards creating a county wide comprehensive Land Use Plan. This plan has identified areas across the county where development will occur in the future. The plan has suggestions for new residential developments to use elements of conservation design. The county has been making concentrated efforts to promote the idea of regional development with a focus on environmental issues and land use.

125

8.1.1.9 Matrix A9: Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration

Cleveland City of Avon Principle 9: Encouraging multi- Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments stakeholder and community Consideration Consideration collaboration 9.1. Develop a public participation process Civic vision /Waterfront redesign 9.2. Use different methods (media, mail, Ecocity pamphlets, charrettes, 3D computer simulations) as Cleveland well as forums to educate and disseminate information to all segments of the population regarding the development and decision making processes on a consistent basis 9.3. Incorporate stakeholder opinions at different Ecocity stages of the development process Cleveland, Downtown Cleveland development Corporation

Cleveland: 9.1. Several new projects being undertaken in the city like redesigning Cleveland’s Waterfront, revitalizing older communities and first ring suburbs and Brownfield redevelopment, to name a few have an integral public participation element. Government and civic leaders are calling for greater public involvement in planning processes in the region. At a recent conference held for getting feedback from the public for redeveloping Cleveland’s waterfront area, civic and government leaders laid out a number of new plans that could fundamentally change the way Clevelanders connect with water. This was

126

attended by a large number of people residing in the Cleveland metropolitan region. Another example would be the Civic Vision 2000, a project undertaken between 1982 and 1996 to promote public-private partnerships for redeveloping the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods in the city. 9.2. Ecocity Cleveland is one organization that has been using different methods like the media, mail, pamphlets, publications, conferences, charrettes, as well as forums to educate and disseminate information to all segments of the population regarding the development and decision making processes in Northeast Ohio. They have been promoting the need for balanced growth initiatives and bringing together the perspectives of various stakeholders in an effort to identify key strategies that could be undertaken to promote smart growth, multimodal transportation options and an overall regional vision for directing future growth. 9.3. The efforts of organizations like Ecocity Cleveland, FSC, Downtown Cleveland development Corporation and the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission are key in this regard City of Avon: 9.1. None 9.2. None 9.3. The city and the mayor try to involve opinions of stakeholders in the development choices that are being made in the region. The city is aware of the fact that if the current growth trends have to continue the opinions and needs of different stakeholders like homebuyers, businesses and developers need to be taken into consideration.

127

8.2 Current Status of Smart Growth in Cincinnati:

The following section is an attempt to establish connections between the nature of planning initiatives that have been used in Cincinnati and West Chester Township and the smart growth principles and their sub-elements that were identified in Chapter 3. This would help to establish how far down the line smart growth has progressed in the Cincinnati metropolitan region.

8.1.1 Matrix Series for Cincinnati and West Chester Township:

The following series of matrices, B1 through B9, have been completed based on the information collected through interviews, literature searches and observational studies. The entries of the matrix have been further elaborated upon with specific examples that help to understand how the smart growth sub elements have been implemented or are being considered in real projects. The explanations that follow each matrix cite examples for both Cincinnati and

West Chester Township in separate sections.

128

8.2.1.1 Matrix B1: Mixing Land Uses: Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 1: Mixing Land Uses Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Consideration Consideration 1.1. Adopt smart growth codes in addition to Revised Zoning PUD provisions innovative zoning tools to parallel code and RCO existing/conventional development codes Districts in Zoning code 1.2. Provide incentives through state funds to encourage residents to live near their places of work

1.3. Facilitate financing of mixed use properties The Streets of through incentives to developers, financiers and West Chester local communities 1.4. Convert declining shopping malls and/or retrofit single use office and retail structures into mixed use developments Cincinnati: 1.1. The Cincinnati Zoning Code has been updated recently but there are no ‘smart growth codes’ in place to promote development to occur in ways that are different from the traditional forms. The Revised Cincinnati Zoning Code represents the first major rewrite since 1963 and is a performance-based code. There are a few innovative tools that have been incorporated and these are a definite improvement from the older code. Examples: A new district entitled RMX has been established to create, maintain and enhance areas of the city that contain a mix of housing types and lot sizes at moderate intensities (1 to 3 dwellings). Existing multi-family buildings are acknowledged so they are not classified as nonconforming, but new construction is prohibited.121 The Cluster Housing Section has been established as a way for developments of single-family and attached single-family to make better use of a site by allowing property to be developed in a more flexible manner. These provisions are a part of the code but are a long way from being implemented in the city of Cincinnati.

121 Revised Zoning code Summary: City of Cincinnati. January 2004. Available from http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf3538.pdf, accessed on 04/05/04

129

1.2. Inefficient and sprawling development patterns are a characteristic of the nature of growth in the city of Cincinnati as well as Hamilton County. Population continues to shift outwards as rapidly growing communities located along the metropolitan fringe continue to pull business and homeowners. The central city is not a desirable place to live and the suburbs offer cleaner neighborhoods, lower taxes, safety and better schools. There are no incentives being offered by the city thus leading people to choose the alternative even though it involves traveling long distances along interstates to get to their place of work. 1.3. The city has not taken into consideration the current market forces and profit motives of developers and private investors that ultimately propel economic development at a certain place. Downtown Cincinnati is zoned to encourage mixed-use developments and the city could have used this to its advantage by developing financing schemes or providing tax abatements or other incentives that would attract investment in the central city. There are very few financing schemes if at all and those that are there are not being exploited to their full potential. 1.4. Conversion of declining shopping malls or reuse of abandoned office/retail structures is not the norm in the region. Older structures are generally knocked down and rebuilt to suit the needs instead of being reused in innovative ways. West Chester Township: 1.1. West Chester Township is one of the fastest growing areas in the vicinity of Cincinnati. They do not have a smart growth code in place but they are constantly updating their zoning code to adapt to the realities of growth and its impacts. Tools like PUD’s and Road Corridor Overlay Districts are a part of the township’s zoning code. The RCO District was created to allow for the maintenance of the character of Olde West Chester and the areas under RCO district have a Road Corridor Land Use/Urban Design Plan. 1.2. Union Center Boulevard located at the heart of the township has quickly become one of the premier business locations in the tri-state region, with significant development activity occurring since its opening in 1997. A large section of the population that resides in the township is employed at Union Center. Additional incentives to encourage people to live in West Chester Township are not required since it is one of the most desirable places to live in the Cincinnati metropolitan area anyway owing to its premier location, excellent education opportunities and high quality of life. 1.3. There are no specific financing schemes that are aimed at promoting mixed-use developments. There are some urban design projects in West Chester that are being undertaken as of now that use several ideas of mixed use development. One open-air mall with a movie theater is going in at the southeast corner of Union Centre Boulevard and I-75. Called The Streets of West Chester, the $100 million center also eventually will hold offices and 400 apartments covering an area of 300 acres. Construction has already started on an 18-screen, stadium-seat cinema, a bookstore, office spaces and restaurants. 1.4. West Chester Township started growing extensively during the mid 1990’s and most large buildings in the area are only ten to fifteen years old. Old West Chester has some historic buildings that date back to the mid 1900’s and some of these buildings are being converted from residential to commercial uses but these are a few in number. There are some regulations in place to ensure that the character of these buildings is not completely cost in the process of redevelopment. Even so, the option of retrofitting older buildings into mixed-use developments is an exception rather than a norm.

130

8.2.1.2 Matrix B2: Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices:

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 2: Expanding Housing Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Opportunities and Choices Consideration Consideration 2.1. Revise existing zoning and building codes to Revised Zoning No inclusionary permit a variety of housing types and/or enact an Code of zoning inclusionary zoning ordinance for new housing Cincinnati ordinance; developments Zoning code is constantly updated 2.2. Prioritize smart growth projects and programs by allocating federal funds, community development block grants or other funding sources 2.3. Educate realtors, lenders and home buyers on Windtree the use of resource efficient mortgages and provide Housing at financial assistance through home ownership Beckett Ridge subsidies 2.4. Require new developments to have a percentage of affordable housing in their plans for residential development

Cincinnati: 2.1. The Revised Zoning Code of the city of Cincinnati is the first major rewrite of the code since 1963 and is a performance based code. The new code has elements that promote a mix of housing types and also take into account the different types of housing in the city like the single family homes on smaller lots of 2000 square feet instead of the minimum lot requirement of 5000 sq feet in the old code that promoted suburban type dwellings that is not in tune with the current pattern of many built out neighborhoods. A new district called the Residential Mix has been established to create, maintain and enhance areas of the

131

city that contain a mix of housing types and lot sizes at moderate intensities (1 to 3 dwellings). Existing multi-family buildings are acknowledged in the new code so they are not classified as nonconforming uses. There is no specific provision for inclusionary zoning in the new code. 2.2. Smart Growth is a term that brings up heated debates in the Cincinnati region and stakeholders continue to argue that smart growth opposes development and undermines the profit motives of private investors. Many private developers, politicians and decision makers in the region continue to promote the age-old development choices and there is little or no funding available for smart growth projects or similar initiatives. 2.3. Home Ownership subsidies are a way to encourage development in less desirable neighborhoods in the central city as has been done in the central city of Cleveland. Development begets development and these declining neighborhoods need a thrust in the positive direction, which can be provided in the form of tax abatements, lower interest rates and home ownership subsidies. 2.4. In Cincinnati, new developments are not required to have a percentage of affordable housing in their plans for residential development. West Chester Township: 2.1. The Township promotes a variety of housing types like suburban residences, single family, multi family and apartment type dwellings but there is no inclusionary zoning ordinance for new developments. 2.2. None 2.3. None. There are a few apartments for the low and moderate-income groups that have been tax subsidized. These are located at Windtree, which is a part of the Beckett Ridge development, a large planned unit development (PUD) project that has housing options ranging from subsidized housing to half a million dollar homes not necessarily in the vicinity of each other. 2.4. None. Affordable housing issues are considered to be the prerogative of the Butler County Housing Development Authority and the township does not require new developments to consider affordable housing in their plans.

132

8.2.1.3 Matrix B3: Providing Transportation Options

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 3: Providing Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Transportation Options Consideration Consideration 3.1.Finance and provide incentives for OKI’s SRPP Limited interconnected multimodal transportation systems and LRTP Options due to lack of need 3.2.Foster pedestrian supportive land use OKI’s SRPP development patterns. Create effective pedestrian and LRTP; environments through the use of sidewalks, easy Revised Zoning street crossings, and local street connectivity Code 3.3. Address parking needs and opportunities in an Limited options Zoning Code innovative fashion (avoid large parking lots) like the Parking has provisions Shuttle for off street parking 3.4. Zone for concentrated activity centers around transit service within communities (TOD’s)

Cincinnati: 3.1. The Ohio- Kentucky- Indiana (OKI) Regional Council of governments has made several recommendations in its Long Range Transportation Plan to promote multimodal transportation options in the city. Improving the availability of public transit options, making transit more affordable, directing local traffic toward arterial and local roads instead of interstates are some of the initiatives that OKI has been considering as part of their LRTP and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). Since OKI is the regional MPO in the tri-state, eight county region, it plays a critical role in getting the local governments to participate in a regional dialogue and provide funding for innovative and balanced transportation projects. 3.2. OKI’s Land Use Commission that has been working towards developing the SRPP has several policy recommendations to promote pedestrian friendly environments, bike/hiking trails as part of their policies for transportation that has been identified as a strategic regional issue. These policy

133

recommendations are presently being drafted and will be ready for implementation in 2005. The land use- transportation connection, which is critical in the region, has been addressed in several policies that are a part of this plan. The mixed-use overlay designation that is part of the revised code is intended to provide for a mix of pedestrian and auto-oriented development. Older, pedestrian-oriented buildings may be intermixed with newer, auto-oriented uses. One drawback of the new code is that new pedestrian oriented development is encouraged but not required and this option would allow new developments to continue to grow in the old fashioned way. 3.3. SORTA runs the metro service, which is the bus service that serves the city of Cincinnati. One of their recent initiatives is the Parking Meter Shuttle that loops around downtown and the riverfront thus encouraging people to park in the large lots that are located along the river and use the shuttle to get to their places of work downtown. This shuttle runs every ten minutes during peak hours and is used by a large number of employees who are unable to afford or access the limited and expensive parking that is available downtown. 3.4. There is limited public transit in the city of Cincinnati and almost no opportunities for transit oriented development. The light rail issue that was brought to vote in December 2002 failed to pass in the city. West Chester Township: 3.1. Most growth in the township is typically suburban and has occurred as single uses on large acreage which has in turn increased automobile dependency. Most people residing in the township are affluent and own more than one car. Multimodal transportation is not a necessity as there is very little demand for public transit in the township. The zoning code has certain elements that encourage multimodal transportation options but these have not been implemented effectively. 3.2. None. The transportation system in the township is mainly private automobile oriented but there are some new developments that are using elements like sidewalks and street crossings to promote pedestrian friendly environments. The land use development pattern for the most part is not pedestrian friendly. West of the I-75 interchange, 42,600 vehicles use Union Centre Boulevard daily and the region has a severe congestion problem during peak hours. Traffic engineers predict that it will become more clogged as new shopping centers and businesses open in the area. By comparison, Colerain Avenue in Cincinnati has 55,000 vehicles daily and Beechmont Avenue has about 43,000.122 3.3. None. Streets of West Chester, a new mixed-use development in the township has street parking instead of large lots and is the first of its kind in the area. Usually, cars are parked in large lots to accommodate the large number of vehicles that people who live and work in the township own. The Zoning Code requires all business and residential districts to include off street parking in their design as per the guidelines in the code. 3.4. None.

122 Traffic in West Chester Township. Cincinnati Enquirer Article. Available from http://www.cincinnati.com/local/wchester/G50html_04202004__GNWCtraffic.ART_Other.html, accessed on 04/03/04

134

8.2.1.4 Matrix B4: Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 4: Strengthening Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Existing Communities through Consideration Consideration Infill Development and redevelopment 4.1.Strengthen state or local Brownfield programs OKI’S SRPP and locate civic buildings in existing communities and Ohio VAP rather than greenfield areas 4.2. Institute a regional tax base sharing to reduce TIF Districts intra jurisdictional competition and promote development of the region as a whole 4.3. Create economic incentives for businesses and OKI’S SRPP, home owners to locate in areas with existing Greater infrastructure Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce 4.4. Modify average cost-pricing practices in utilities thus accounting for the higher costs of providing infrastructure in outlying areas

Cincinnati: 4.1. Few Brownfield redevelopment projects have been undertaken in the city by private developers and the City and the sites have been reused for office and retail spaces. Example: The Sawyer Point Building located opposite Sawyer Point Park on East PeteRoseway is an example of one such initiative. The Ohio Voluntary Action Program (VAP) has also been used by some neighborhoods to redevelop some of their contaminated sites into civic anchors such as community centers. OKI’s SRPP has a policy recommendation under their land use issue to promote Brownfield redevelopment and provide incentives for

135

the same. This is an attempt to level the playing field between greenfield and infill development and to provide alternatives to developers who consider greenfield development to be the cheaper and easier alternative 4.2. The city is yet to come to terms with the idea of regionalism and many key city officials consider the surrounding communities of Blue Ash, Newport and West Chester as competitors rather than allies. These regions continue to compete against each other for economic development projects in their attempts to outdo each other. Under such circumstances, the region is a long way from considering regional tax base sharing as an option to promote more balanced growth. 4.3. OKI’s SRPP has several policy recommendations under its strategic issue for economic development to maintain the value of public and private investment already made in areas served by infrastructure and use available resources prior to directing development to new areas. The Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce is a non profit organization that provides numerous services, including business retention and attraction, education and networking, solutions to members' workforce challenges, as well as legislative and regulatory advocacy to create and sustain a positive business climate for the greater Cincinnati region of 13 counties located in three states.123 Some of their initiatives are aimed at promoting business incentives in downtown Cincinnati. 4.4. The issue of using tools like impact fees to account for the higher cost of providing infrastructure and services to new areas always meets severe opposition from developers and homeowners who do not want to raise their housing cost and demand that these services be subsidized by the public sector. This underestimates the true per unit cost of expansion. West Chester Township: 4.1. The commercial and industrial sectors of West Chester Township are only 10-15 years old and have not declined to an extent that they would require redevelopment like brownfields. There is a Superfund site called the Skinner landfill located in the vicinity that has been capped off to prevent future use of the site. 4.2. None. There has been some discussion about regional cooperation initiatives but these have mostly been initiated by surrounding townships like Liberty. There is some conflict between the county and the township on the issue of creating TIF Districts. TIF’s are tax increment financing districts that both townships and counties have the authority to designate. The concept behind TIF’s is that the amount that becomes available with the increase in taxes of a particular site as it develops commercially is used to fund other improvements in the same area. Situations where the county tries to raise revenue by using its authority to designate a particular area within the township as a TIF District raises opposition from the citizens, township trustees and the planning commission of West Chester Township, as property taxes are the only source of revenue for the township.

123 About Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. Available from http://www.cincinnatichamber.com/about_chamber/, accessed on 03/03/04

136

4.3. None. The township is under no pressure to develop within areas of existing infrastructure, as there is ample land and resources available and businesses and residents are free to choose where they would like to purchase property and develop it. 4.4. None.

137

8.2.1.5 Matrix B5: Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 5: Conserving Open Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Space, Farmland and Critical Consideration Consideration Environmental Areas 5.1. Use transfer of development rights (TDR’s), purchase of development rights (PDR’s) and other market oriented tools to conserve privately owned land and to facilitate open space acquisition and its preservation 5.2. Identify critical ecological sites at a regional Voice of level and create an inventory prior to development America site to direct future growth in a planned manner 5.3. Create a continuous network of green ways OKI SRPP, and walking/ biking trails Cincinnati Park Department and private citizen groups 5.4. Partner with non governmental organizations Three Valley and other public entities to acquire and protect land Conservation and also increase public awareness Trust

Cincinnati: 5.1. Transferable Development Rights (TDR’s) and purchase of development rights (PDR’s) as tools for farmland preservation have not been used to conserve open spaces in the city. There are very few open spaces left in the city; most of the open areas that exist are part of the park system.

138

5.2. None. The Regional planning wing of OKI is considering creating a regional inventory of watersheds in the eight county OKI region, which will in turn be used to identify areas where future growth could be directed, thus minimizing the impacts on environmentally fragile sites but this is at a very preliminary stage. 5.3. Several private citizen groups in the Cincinnati region have been working towards creating continuous bike trails. Some examples are the paved bike paths at Lunken Airport and the Dunham Recreation Center. Efforts are on to extend the existing bike path between Milford and Cincinnati. The Cincinnati Parks Department Loveland Bike Trail 5.4. The Three Valley Conservation Trust is a community-based, non-governmental, nonprofit corporation incorporated in Southwest Ohio. The Three Valley Conservation Trust works to conserve the natural environment and cultural heritage in the Four Mile/Seven Mile, Indian Creek and Twin Creek valleys. West Chester Township: 5.1. None. Farmland preservation is not a concern in the township as most private property owners are driven by their desire to earn profits from the sale of farmland as development pushes outwards towards the fringe areas. Open space acquisition and preservation has been discussed at planning commission hearings but nothing substantial has emerged from these, as there is no strong citizen desire to promote farmland preservation and/or acquisition. 5.2. Preservation of ecologically sensitive sites is an issue that is dealt with by the county or state agencies like the Ohio EPA. Very little is being done by the township government to promote preservation of wetlands or other sensitive sites. There is some effort to cooperate with the county on the Millcreek Restoration Project and both the township and county are promoting good practices that would prevent further contamination of the creek. The Federal Lands to Parks Program has recently completed two transfers of surplus federal property from a former Voice of America relay station in Butler County, Ohio. West Chester Township plans to build a recreation complex with football and soccer fields, baseball, tennis, volleyball and basketball courts on 308 acres, valued at $16 million at the time of transfer. MetroParks of Butler County, Ohio will build an 18-hole public golf course on 200 acres it acquired. The property was valued at $8 million at the time of transfer. These transfers are particularly important, as little other land had been set aside for recreation in this rapidly growing part of Ohio. 5.3. None. 5.4. None. There are hardly any non-profit groups in the township that are promoting awareness or conducting forums to address the issue of open space conservation and /or farmland preservation. This is manly because there is not much interest in such issues among citizens of the township.

139

8.2.1.6 Matrix B6: Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 6: Providing Incentives Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments to Smart Development to make it Consideration Consideration predictable, fair and cost effective 6.1. Provide financial incentives to encourage smart growth projects 6.2. Expedite the plan and permit approval process for smart growth projects (policy incentives) 6.3. Identify practices in existing regulatory Smart Growth framework that prohibit smart growth (smart Coalition for growth audit) Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky

Cincinnati: 6.1. None. The city of Cincinnati has only recently started considering alternatives to the existing inefficient and sprawling patterns of development. The idea of regional cooperation is being discussed at various forums but it will take a while before concrete steps are taken in the direction. 6.2. None. There are hardly any smart growth projects being undertaken for a need for policy incentives to encourage the same. 6.3. The Smart Growth Coalition for Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky has made some efforts in the direction of identifying limitations in the planning and zoning codes in several jurisdictions. Their Land Use Forums bring together citizens, civic leaders and decision makers to identify local needs of communities that are then placed before the local governments for further consideration and action.

140

West Chester Township: 6.1. None. The township is a long way from considering smart growth alternatives to guide development. The economic boom, its associated financial benefits, large vacant lots and ample opportunities for development are factors that are driving the region. Until certain critical issues crop up as a result of the typical suburban development patterns that force the attention of communities and local planners to consider alternatives there is little scope for smart growth or other innovative concepts to guide growth. 6.2. None. West Chester Township’s process for issuance of permits for zoning or building structures takes very little time. The planning and zoning commission processes applications for permits of all kinds of proposed projects within three days on an average. There is no special permitting process for smart growth initiatives. 6.3. None.

141

8.2.1.7 Matrix B7: Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 7: Fostering attractive Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments communities with a strong sense Consideration Consideration of place 7.1. Create civic anchors at a community level like Land Use neighborhood schools, community centers, health Vision plan centers etc 7.2. Encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures Local through financial incentives Regulations; RCO District 7.3. Create special improvement districts for OKI Union Centre focused investment SRPP/HCRPC Boulevard

Cincinnati: 7.1. Some neighborhoods in Cincinnati like CUF, Hyde Park to name a few have neighborhood schools, community centers and health centers but they these civic buildings are not being used to bind communities together and give them a sense of place. 7.2. None. Some adaptive reuse is being done is downtown Cincinnati but there are no financial incentives to encourage such efforts. 7.3. OKI’s SRPP has made policy recommendations under its economic development strategic issue to focus investments in declining areas that have potential for growth. Areas like downtown Cincinnati have certain unique strengths that can be used profitably to direct investment in the urban cores. The public agencies and city authorities need to identify these strengths and implement strategies to focus investments in these declining cores.

142

West Chester Township: 7.1. Some projects in the township that are currently under consideration are proposing the creation of civic anchors like community centers and health centers to bring the communities together and foster a sense of place within them. The planning department is presently working on a new land Use Vision Plan and the committee for land use has incorporated several suggestions to use community buildings as civic anchors within smaller neighborhoods. 7.2. There are no financial incentives to encourage the reuse of historic structures. The Olde West Chester area has several buildings that are 30 to 40 years old and the planning and zoning department has put forth some regulations that need to be followed to ensure that the historic character of these structures in maintained and the neighborhood continues to retain its diversity like the creation of an RCO District. The historic Voice of America building is being rebuilt. The building is an unofficial monument to World War II and the Cold War, and the future site of the VOA Museum.124 The museum will display and explain the history of the VOA in its audio battle against communism. 7.3 West Chester Township is one of the prime locations for commercial, industrial and business development on account of its prime location and high level of services. Commercial development in the township is occurring as a result of the market forces that are operating in the region and location is a prime consideration for the success of such developments. The Union Centre Boulevard located off I75 in the heart of the township and a hub of commercial and industrial activity has driven the diversification of West Chester's economy that was once dominated by agriculture, manufacturing and distributing.

124About West Chester Township. Available from http://www.cincinnati.com/local/wchester/G90html_04202004__GNWCroadtrip.ART_Other.html, accessed on 04/09/04

143

8.2.1.8 Matrix B8: Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 8: Using Innovative and Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments Compact Design Techniques Consideration Consideration 8.1. Increase awareness amongst community members and offer incentives regarding compact building options through workshops and public meetings 8.2. Create appropriate design guidelines to Zoning Code balance efficiency, privacy and accessibility thus guidelines creating attractive homes and yards 8.3. Support regional efforts to support compact HCRPC/OKI/ development Sierra Club/ SGC/CCR

Cincinnati: 8.1. None 8.2. None 8.3. The need for more compact development is being felt in Hamilton County as the county is approaching its total built-out scenario. HCRPC is doing research to promote compact building options. Land Use Commission of OKI has made several policy recommendations to local jurisdictions to consider compact building options in their future comprehensive plans. Groups like Sierra Club, Smart Growth Coalition and CCR are trying to increase awareness for regional vision and cooperation between the communities of the Cincinnati metropolitan area West Chester Township: 8.1. None.

144

8.2. The zoning code has several guidelines that lay out the minimum lot sizes, off street parking requirements, sizes of front yards and back yards but they are geared towards the needs of typical suburban residential and business district. The guidelines in the Code do not promote compact design except for in the Road Corridor Overlay District that has been created for Olde West Chester. 8.3. None.

145

8.2.1.9 Matrix B9: Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration

Cincinnati West Chester Township Principle 9: Encouraging multi- Present Absent Under Comments Present Absent Under Comments stakeholder and community Consideration Consideration collaboration 9.1. Develop a public participation process Community Township Compass Trustee meeting Planning Commission hearings 9.2. Use different methods (media, mail, pamphlets, charrettes, 3D computer simulations) as well as forums to educate and disseminate information to all segments of the population regarding the development and decision making processes on a consistent basis 9.3. Incorporate stakeholder opinions at different stages of the development process

Cincinnati: 9.1. Community COMPASS was a participatory planning process that was begun by the Planning Partnership. In October 2001, the Partnership collected several ideas regarding guiding the growth of Hamilton County from the 2,800 citizens of Hamilton County who attended the public forum of COMPASS. Out of these ideas, the COMPASS Steering Team developed 12 broad goals and four interconnected core issues related to Hamilton County’s vision that were used to develop specific strategies for implementation to improve the quality of life of citizens in the county. 9.2. None 9.3. None

146

West Chester Township: 9.1. None. The township trustee meetings and the planning commission hearings are an opportunity for the people of the township to voice their opinions regarding key issues of their concern. The Land use Committee that is currently working towards developing a land use vision plan has several citizens as part of the committee. 9.2. None. 9.3. None. Stakeholder opinions are taken into consideration if applicable but it is not a required element of the planning process.

147

8.3 Summary of Matrix Results The following sets of three tables are a summary of the matrix analysis done in the preceding section for the cities of Cleveland and Cincinnati and their respective suburbs namely Avon and West Chester Township. These summary tables are a count of the total number of the sub elements present, absent or under consideration in each place. A comparison of these numbers help to gain an idea about how many of these elements are actually being used in each region and where each place stands with respect to the other. The numbers as shown in the summary matrices cannot be used to make absolute quantitative comparisons and/or draw conclusions regarding the success or failure of smart growth in each region due to the fact that the matrices do have a component to ‘weigh’ the relative importance elements with respect to each other. The summary tables give an overview of the nine principles and the number of sub elements under each that are a part of the smart growth agenda of each region.

8.3.1 Summary of sub-elements ‘present’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and West Chester Township

Table A: Comparative Analysis showing number of sub elements present in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and Westchester

No. Principles Sub-elem Cleveland Avon Cincinnati Westchester 1 Mixing Land Uses 43300

2 Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices 41110 3 Providing Transportation Options 4 1 0 1 0 4 Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment 4 1 1 0 0 5 Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas 4 3 0 0 0

6 Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective 30000 7 Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place 3 3 1 0 1 8 Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques 3 2 0 0 1 9 Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration 3 2 0 1 0 32 16 6 3 2

148

8.3.2 Summary of sub-elements ‘absent’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and West Chester Township Table B: Comparative Analysis showing number of sub elements absent in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and Westchester

No. Principles Sub-elem Cleveland Avon Cincinnati Westchester 1 Mixing Land Uses 4033 4 2 Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices 4 2 2 3 4 3 Providing Transportation Options 4 1 3 1 4 4 Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment 4 1 2 2 4 5 Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas 4 0 2 2 3 6 Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective 3 3 3 2 3 7 Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place 3 0 2 1 0 8 Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques 3 0 1 2 2 9 Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration 3 0 2 2 3 32 7 20 18 27

8.3.3 Summary of sub-elements ‘under consideration’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and West Chester Township Table C: Comparative Analysis showing number of sub elements ‘under consideration’ in Cleveland, Avon, Cincinnati and Westchester

No. Principles Sub-elem Cleveland Avon Cincinnati Westchester 1 Mixing Land Uses 4111 0 2 Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices 4 1 1 0 0 3 Providing Transportation Options 4 2 1 2 0 4 Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment 4 2 1 2 0 5 Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas 4 1 2 2 1 6 Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective 3 0 0 1 0 7 Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place 3 0 0 2 2 8 Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques 3 1 2 1 0 9 Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration 3 1 1 0 0 32 9 9 11 3

149

8.4 Overall Summary of Matrix Results

Table D showing the summary of the matrix results expressed as percentage (%) Matrix Summary Cleveland Avon Cincinnati Westchester Present % 50 19 9 6 Absent % 21 62 56 85 Under Consideration % 28 28 35 9

Table D summarizes the results of tables A, B and C with results expressed as percentage. The percentages in the summary table shown above should not be treated as absolute. This means that if the table shows 50% of elements of the smart growth prescription are present in Cleveland, it does not mean that Cleveland is halfway on the road to success towards implementing its smart growth agenda. The results are only a reflection of the relative status of the presence or absence of the principles outlined in the smart growth prescription in each area of study. Table D shows that the city of Cleveland has more number of the principles and sub elements of smart growth presently being used in their programs and/or initiatives being undertaken. The city of Cincinnati has a significant number of these principles and sub elements under consideration. While both the suburbs of West Chester Township and Avon have similar growth patterns, Avon has a greater percentage of smart growth principles being considered in their current and future projects. This table can be used to conclude that the Cleveland metropolitan region is more aware of the pressures of growth and the negative impacts of development and has been considering the use of smart growth principles to guide future growth and development in the region. The Cincinnati metropolitan region on the other hand, has only recently started considering smart growth principles and alternatives and these efforts are more concentrated in the central city than in the suburbs. The suburbs in the greater Cincinnati region continue to promote traditional modes of sprawling development patterns.

150

9. Findings and Comparative Analyses This chapter uses the results of the matrix analysis to evaluate the status of smart growth initiatives within a comparative framework. The focus is on understanding the nature of smart growth efforts or the lack of them in urban and suburban settings within different regions in the state of Ohio. This section tries to document the disparities between two cities, between suburban areas located in two different regions and finally between two metropolitan areas in the context of smart growth.

The evolutionary study of smart growth and matrix analyses reveal that fiscal and social disparities that previously existed in central cities alone are gradually moving outwards and engulfing the older suburbs. The aftermath of sprawling and inefficient development patterns is slowly being felt at the outer fringes of developed areas as well. A comparative analysis of central cities, suburbs and metropolitan regions will help to understand which region is faring relatively better in addressing the impacts of development and the reasons for the same. Certain key similarities and differences in smart growth initiatives, development choices, land use policies and political mindsets between urban cores and suburbs will also be highlighted thus throwing light on what the strengths and drawbacks are in each region. Such a comparative analysis of two strategic regions within Ohio, namely the southwest and the northeast, will also be useful in identifying the conflicts and constraints in Ohio with respect to smart growth at a macro level.

The following table 9.1 summarizes the population data for the cities of Cleveland,

Cincinnati, Avon and West Chester in the year 2000 and 1990. A comparison of the figures and the change in population data indicates that both West Chester Township and the city of Avon gained population while Cincinnati and Cleveland dramatically lost population. This data in this

151

table will used to compare the high growth areas and the cities in the following sections of

comparative analysis.

Table 9.1 Changes in Population in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Avon and West Chester

Year West Chester Avon Cincinnati Cleveland 1990 39,703 7337 364,040 505,616 2000 54,895 11,446 331,285 478,403 Change in pop 15,192 4,109 -32,755 -27,213 Source: Census Data 2000 and 1990, available from www.census.gov

9.1 Comparison of central cities: Cleveland and Cincinnati

The cities of Cleveland (77.6 square miles) and Cincinnati (78.82 square miles) are

similar in size and are the two primary cities located strategically in the northeastern and southwestern part of Ohio respectively. Cleveland, Ohio’s second-largest city has grown fan-

wise outwards from the Lake Erie shore while the city of Cincinnati is the third largest in Ohio

spreading back from the Ohio River over a disarray of rugged hills. According to Census 2000

data, the population in the city of Cleveland is 478,403 while that of Cincinnati is 331,285 (refer

Table 9.1) with the entire population of both cities located within urbanized areas.

The two cities have significant differences in the structure and dynamics of their urban settings and suffer from different degrees of stress but they have one common characteristic: they both lack adequate resources to meet their social, economic and physical needs. Both Cincinnati and Cleveland are characterized by poverty stricken and segregated neighborhoods in their

central cores, both cities have few public schools attractive to middle class families and their tax

rates exceed respective suburban averages by large amounts. This section focuses on the smart

growth initiatives or their absence within the two cities. The success or failure of regional

initiatives has been discussed in the comparison of the respective metropolitan areas.

The differences between the two cities lie in:

152

the intensity of the problems faced in the respective areas

nature of the responses to tackle the problems in the respective areas

Cleveland has been facing the issues of racial segregation and out migration in a more severe

form than has been seen in Cincinnati. Like most cities, outmigration patterns in the Cleveland region are also patterns of social stratification125, as certain exclusive suburbs like Avon have

captured a greater proportion of the region's wealthy households and stronger tax base. This has

exerted a greater pressure on the limited fiscal resources and infrastructure of the city, as the city

has to provide the same amount and level of services to fewer people with lower incomes. This is

true for Cincinnati as well but the problem was more pronounced in Cleveland and therefore

generated a more urgent and determined response.

Over the past decade the city of Cleveland has tried to address these issues in an aggressive

manner and taken some drastic measures to redevelop older communities through several

initiatives that are components of the prescription of smart growth. These initiatives include the

following:

Promoting the use of innovative zoning tools like PUD’s to parallel existing/conventional

development codes for mixed use developments

Facilitating the financing of mixed-use developments through financial incentives like tax

abatements, reduced interest rates and special financing schemes to promote their sale

Retrofitting large, old buildings in downtown Cleveland into modern offices and shops.

Using public-private partnerships to promote the adaptive reuse of historic structures

125Outmigration Trends in Cleveland. Available from www.ecocitycleveland.org. accessed on 05/04/04

153

Providing financial assistance through home ownership subsidies, tax abatements, long-

term low-interest loans, deferred second mortgages to promote moderate and high income

housing in downtown Cleveland

The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the park authority of

Cleveland have been working extensively on several projects aimed at identifying sites of

critical ecological importance and developing an inventory of these sites

Ecocity Cleveland, First Suburbs Consortium, Northeast Ohio Regional Alliance and

Regional Environmental Priorities project (REPP) are a few of the organizations and/or

initiatives that have been working towards increasing public awareness towards

environmental issues. Conserving open space, farmland and critical environmental areas

is a prime agenda for several entrepreneurs, investors, and local community groups.

As part of the Civic Vision 2000 for the city of Cleveland, several community

development projects have been envisioned mainly with the aim of revitalizing

degenerated communities near downtown and the first suburbs by giving them a sense of

place.

The Cleveland enterprise zone covers the entire city of Cleveland and the program has

been reasonably well administered and has been effective in promoting investments in

downtown areas

The non-profit groups like Ecocity Cleveland, First Suburbs Consortium, Northeast Ohio

Regional Alliance are quite active in the Cleveland region and have been aggressively

supporting regional efforts to support compact development patterns. Several workshops

and public meetings have been conducted to increase awareness amongst community

members regarding the benefits of balanced growth alternatives.

154

The efforts to rebuild Cleveland have come from various fronts including non-profit groups,

academicians, environmentalists, local government representatives, private developers, religious

organizations and other individuals. These individuals and groups have been active proponents of smart growth initiatives with the common aim of enhancing the quality of life in the city and reversing the negative trends that were contributing to its downfall. The coordinated efforts of various groups have been successful to a large extent and Cleveland has cultivated an image of being the ‘comeback city’ and its rate of population loss had slowed dramatically. The interviews and research reveals that among the nine principles of smart growth that have been studied in

Cleveland Principle 4, namely ‘Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment’ has been the most successful in the city.

The critical challenges of blighted neighborhoods, social and racial segregation, fiscal constraints still persist in the city of Cleveland and it has a long way to go before it can claim to be success in the implementation of smart growth strategies but a positive start has been made.

One has to crawl before one walks and walk before one can run. Cleveland has begun its walk on the road to creating a successful smart growth agenda for the city and its neighboring first ring suburbs.

Cincinnati on the other hand, still lags far behind its northeastern counterpart in effectively altering the trends of outmigration and effectively administering a program for central city redevelopment. Some efforts have been made in the direction but what lacks is an aggressive strategy for reviving the central city and cooperative efforts from public and private entities. The following points summarize some of the inefficiencies and roadblocks that the city of Cincinnati has witnessed over the past few years that have been impediments to creating an effective smart growth strategy:

155

The policies of the City of Cincinnati and weak leadership have been ineffective in

forging partnerships with neighboring communities.

The planning decisions that were made by the City to revive downtown failed to

adequately consider the market forces and have not yielded desired results leading to

wasteful expenditures and unintended negative consequences.

There are little or no incentives given to financiers or developers in the city to

promote mixed-use developments or reuse historic buildings many of which have

been torn down and rebuilt.

There are almost no mechanisms in place to educate realtors, lenders and home

buyers on the use of financing schemes that would promote housing opportunities in

central city neighborhoods and/or provide financial assistance through home

ownership subsidies

Elimination of the Planning Department in the city of Cincinnati in August 2003 was

a reflection of the fact that city officials considered planning to be an unimportant

function and the Department was among the first to be closed down when the funds

were running low

Some organizations like the Sierra Club, Smart Growth Coalition, First Suburbs

Consortium, Citizens for Civic Renewal, MGA, HCRPC and OKI have been working

towards increasing awareness in the city and its surrounding regions for the need for a

smart growth strategy but there is strong resistance from the city authorities and

private developers to any such ideas

156

There is limited public transit in the city of Cincinnati and almost no opportunities for

transit oriented development. The light rail issue that was brought to vote in

December 2002 failed to pass in the city

Overall, the idea of using innovative planning techniques to achieve balanced growth in

the city of Cincinnati and its surrounding communities has met with greater resistance than it has

at its Cleveland counterpart. Using the analog mentioned a while back, Cincinnati is still

crawling slowly on the road to developing a successful smart growth strategy of its own.

9.2 Comparison of suburbs: City of Avon and West Chester Township

The City of Avon lies along the Interstate I-90 connecting Cleveland and Toledo/Detroit.

. Ease of access to the city and its location on the banks of lake Erie are two key factors that have

been responsible to a great extent for the fast paced development that this city has seen in the last

ten years. While the city and the older suburbs were losing population, Avon was absorbing

people and growing as a popular, new suburb. According to Census 2000 data, the population of

Avon is 11,446 with 9146 people located inside urbanized areas and 2280 people in rural areas

within the city.126 Between 1990 and 2000, the population of Avon has grown by 4109, an increase of 56% while Cleveland has lost 5.5% of its population.

West Chester Township lies along the Interstate I-75, just north of the I-75/I-275 interchange, connecting Cincinnati and Dayton. The Township's premier location and multiple access points to the interstate system have led to significant growth, elevating West Chester into

Greater Cincinnati's 5th largest community, based on population. West Chester has also experienced a significant growth in its office, commercial and industrial base. According to

126 Table P1: Total Population. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. American Factfinder, Available from www.census.gov, accessed on 04/04/04

157

Census 2000 data, the population of West Chester Township is 54,895 with 54, 101 located inside urbanized areas and 794 people in rural areas within the township. Between 1990 and

2000, the population of the township has grown by 15, 192 an increase of approximately 40% in while Cincinnati has lost 10%of its population.

9.2.1 Avon’s perspective on smart growth

The city of Avon is the fastest growing region in Lorain County and new developers, businesses and homeowners are vying for land in the area. The housing industry has been growing most rapidly in the city followed by industrial parks and business centers. A total number of 5442 permits for housing units were issued for Avon between the years 2000 and

2003, a significant increase of over 3000 units since 1993.

Even though the city does not have a smart growth agenda, it has been growing in a somewhat planned manner with consideration being given to issues like affordable housing, development of nature parks and innovative mixed use developments. The most prominent example of a smart growth project in the city is the Avenbury Lakes project, which has won a

Smart growth excellence award in the category of ‘innovative multi-family developments of 50 units or more’, instituted by Smart Growth Education Foundation. This foundation was established by the Northeast Ohio Homebuilders Association to promote an understanding of smart growth and its principles for future residential development and efficient land use.

Avenbury Lakes has been built for mostly empty-nesters offering 355 homes in a $180,000-

$300,000 price range, with 45 percent of the 147 acres left for open space, walking trails and stocked ponds that reduce runoff.

The city also encourages the use of conservation design for new residential developments and has very stringent qualifications that builders and developers have to meet before any new

158

development is allowed. The pressures of growth in the city are the same as in any other high

growth region in the state but Avon has a strong and effective political leadership and is

conscious about the impacts of development on its communities.

Lorain County that houses the city has the lowest rates of farmland losses in Northeast

Ohio even though it is one of the fastest growing counties in the area. It seems as though

communities in the county are learning lessons from Cuyahoga County and do not want to end up facing similar critical challenges of declining tax bases, racial and social segregation and

outmigration at a future date. A true regional metropolitan vision of growth is still far way as

inter-jurisdictional competition is still persists. Local governments control all land use decisions

and they work to improve the quality of life in their own jurisdictions. Municipalities and

townships that are currently experiencing rapid growth seek to zone for the most expensive

homes that the market will bear and the most valuable commercial/industrial property that they

can capture. Avon is no different but it is still trying to make some balanced choices in a

proactive manner to minimize the negative impacts of development.

9.2.2 West Chester’s perspective on smart growth

West Chester Township is a rapidly growing community that is reaping the benefits of its

strategic location and the decline of the adjoining city of Cincinnati. The township caters to the

business community by providing valuable real estate close to the interstates at competitive

prices and provides homeowners the option of typical suburban type, single-family dwellings not

too far away from the city, a high quality of life, lower taxes and better schools. Thus, the

township has sucked in high-income group families, corporate houses and other business groups

leading to the establishment of several wealthy residential neighborhoods, business and industrial

centers.

159

The impacts of urban sprawl that are negatively affecting the city of Cincinnati and the first ring suburbs are placing West Chester Township at an advantageous position at the same time. In such a situation, the use of smart growth principles to guide development patterns is not a prime consideration because more development means more tax dollars. As long as economic development is happening, the township like many other rapidly growing regions across the country is not paying too much attention to the impacts of growth that may be felt at a future date.

The interviews revealed some vital information about the culture of planning in the township. The township officials believe that since dense conditions and declining patterns of urban development that characterize the city of Cincinnati are absent in West Chester, there is no pressure or urgency for adopting smart growth codes or promoting smart growth principles like mixed uses, transit oriented design, infill development or farmland preservation. So long as there is a demand for land and there is ample land available in the township, it will continue to attract businesses and homeowners and encourage them relocate even though the region as a whole loses out. The residents and business owners of the township are not concerned about metropolitan growth patterns as long as the quality of life within the township is maintained.

This is a typical example of the myopic vision and micro level decision making that is prevalent in most rapidly growing townships in Southwest Ohio.

9.3 Comparison of metropolitan regions: Cleveland metropolitan region and Cincinnati metropolitan region

There is a sharp difference in the status of smart growth and the level of acceptance of smart growth principles in two metropolitan regions of Cincinnati and Cleveland. Even though similar problems characterize both regions like pressures of outmigration, racial and social

160

segregation issues, declining tax bases of central cities, attractive growth options in outlying

areas and intra regional competition the responses to address these problems are different in both

regions. Cleveland has realized that these are critical issues and is slowly addressing them in

incremental steps through public-private partnerships, financial incentives like tax abatements,

use of tools like PUD for promoting mixed use, infill development and adaptive reuse of historic structures.

A lot more needs to be done and changes are required in state statutes as well as local land use regulations. There is open dialogue between some adjoining counties and communities in the Cleveland metropolitan region and they try to make information available to each other and communicate in matters related to economic development options or development choices that may have implications on a regional basis. Even though several conflicts exist, there is a realization of the need for a regional vision that is growing, albeit very slowly. The regional conflicts in the Cleveland metropolitan area can be summarized as under:

9.3.1 Regional Constraints in Cleveland metropolitan region

Outmigration from cities and first ring suburbs: In Northeast Ohio, cities of

Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have seen declining populations at the same time that

neighboring rural counties like Lorain County with cities like Avon have been growing in

population. This is the result of public policies that have helped to create a situation where it's

easier to develop farmlands than to redevelop older urban cores (refer Appendix C, map 1).

Shifting wealth: Outmigration patterns in the region are also patterns of social stratification, as certain newer suburbs with strategic locations like Avon, capture a greater proportion of the region's tax base and wealthy households. Tax bases are weakest in older urban areas and rural areas that are yet to develop thus tilting the regional balance. These inequities

161

further prevent urban areas from providing high level of services like public facilities, schools

and infrastructure. This brings down the quality of life in urban areas further pushing businesses

and people outwards (refer Appendix C, map 2).

Fragmentation prevents regional cooperation: The fragmented political

structure with multiple jurisdictions in Northeast Ohio sets communities against one another in

the competition for tax base thus preventing cooperative efforts for balanced development.

Severe Racial segregation: The fiscal segregation in northeast Ohio has

gradually reflected as racial segregation since most people inhabiting the poorer central city

neighborhoods are the African American/Latino population. Even within moderate income

neighborhoods, when black and Latino residents reach a critical mass, white homebuyers

perceive the community as in decline, and soon white residents also move away leading to the

spread of racial and social change through older suburbs and satellite cities.127

Zoned for development: Apart from a few protected open spaces in the region,

almost the entire seven county region of Northeast Ohio is zoned for development, regardless of

whether land is productive farmland or houses unique ecosystems and/or watersheds (refer

Appendix C, map 3).

Transportation spending: In the next 20 years Northeast Ohio is planning to spend $2 billion on new highway capacity additions and/or constructions, much of which will further encourage low-density development and outmigration in areas that are presently rural.

The Cincinnati metropolitan region on the other hand is still caught up in its age-old notion

of ‘development occurring the way it always has’. Some organizations like the OKI, HCRPC,

127 Orfield, Myron. 2002. American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Brookings Institution. pg 11

162

Sierra Club, SGC, CCR and MGA are making efforts to promote regional collaboration between

local governments and get them to communicate.

It is very critical that municipalities and townships in any metropolitan setting taking into

consideration the impacts of their land use, transportation system, natural systems, public

facilities and services, economic development and housing decisions on adjoining communities.

No jurisdiction exists in isolation and development forces operating in one section of a region

have implications for other sections as well.

The Southwest Ohio First Suburbs Consortium has not been as active as its counterpart in

Northeast Ohio in lobbying for the interests of the older, inner ring suburbs which are facing the same issues as the central city like out-migration, declining tax bases, funding issues and high costs of infrastructure. The reasons why talks at the Southwest Ohio FSC have moved relatively slowly than in Cleveland lie in the fact that the issues of population loss, central city decline and loss of identity in the first ring suburbs have not been as critical as in the Cleveland region until now. Moreover, Cincinnati lies in a tristate area and the issues of sprawl cross state boundaries thus adding another constraint to creating a regional mandate.

Even the regional associations of homebuilders in northeast and southwest Ohio differ in their opinion regarding incorporating smart growth strategies in their new development proposals. The Smart Growth Education Foundation was formed to present a unified voice for the home builders and related industries of Northeast Ohio concerning the issues surrounding the smart growth movement in America. Even though the focus of such organizations is profit driven, it is encouraging to see that different stakeholders that were previously in disagreement are now making efforts towards integrating the ideas of growing ‘smart’ in their development initiatives in the Cleveland region. The southwest Ohio Homebuilders Association on the other

163

hand strongly opposes these ideas and continues to develop into outlying regions instead of investing in the city. The city too provides limited opportunities to encourage infill development through incentives to developers and the problem is further magnified.

The Cincinnati metropolitan area has a diverse history, culture and occupies a strategic location in the Midwest. It also has several strengths that that it can capitalize upon if the communities, stakeholders and decision makers decide to collaborate and make balanced choices in the interest of the region as a whole. The regional constraints in the Cincinnati can be summarized as under:

9.3.2 Regional Constraints in Cincinnati metropolitan region

No political leadership: There is no potent political leadership in the townships and

municipalities of the Cincinnati metropolitan region. The political leadership of the city

of Cincinnati has failed to use their strategic position as the largest city in southwest Ohio

to forge collaborative efforts and promote a regional vision. The city looks upon its

neighboring communities like Newport, Blue Ash, Norwood as competitors rather than

allies. This trend is prevalent in the entire region where townships and municipalities are

working toward promoting their own local agendas alone.

Shifting wealth: The issue of shifting wealth is similar to what is happening in

Cleveland and several other metropolitan areas across the country. As older

urban areas lose population, the tax base of the city keeps diminishing while newer

suburbs with strategic locations like West Chester Township capture the wealthy

households, new corporate ventures and expanding businesses.

164

Land locked Cincinnati: The city of Cincinnati is surrounded on all sides by other

jurisdictions and the Ohio River and there is no room left for the city to grow farther out

to meet the changing needs and requirements of businesses that want to expand or

homeowners that want single family, large homes. The limited real estate available in the

city needs to be used judiciously and is often times unable to meet the changing needs of

growing communities.

Lack of consensus on regional cooperation and vision: Local governments n the

Cincinnati metropolitan region lack a regional vision. Local governments in each

jurisdiction elect their representatives to respond to two basic issues – to provide the best

services and lowest taxes in their constituency. These governments are not elected to take

care of other cities or other people. With such a mindset prevalent in the region, there is

little scope for forging effective bonds between neighboring communities and

jurisdictions

Democratic central city vs. Republican Townships: There is a strong political divide

between the central city that has a democratic political ideology and its surrounding

townships that are republican in nature. This further intensifies the differences between

the two serving as an additional roadblock to creating a regional vision.

Tristate region ~ state statutes of Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana: The Cincinnati

metropolitan region is located in the tristate area of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. This is

an additional constraint as regional cooperation implies working within three different

state statutes. The jurisdictions that lie within each state follow different sets of rules and

the culture of planning varies as well. For example, the states of Kentucky and Indiana

165

require local communities to have a comprehensive plan while there is no such

compulsion in the state statutes of Ohio.

Fragmented by multiple jurisdictions: The fragmented political structure with multiple

jurisdictions in Southwest Ohio sets communities against one another in the competition

for tax base thus preventing cooperative efforts for balanced development.

This section highlighted the differences in the status of smart growth in suburbs, cities and metropolitan regions. Despite differences in their specific approaches, the critical problems that each of these areas is experiencing are somewhat similar in nature. Unless there is recognition of the need for regional vision, greater cooperation between jurisdictions and a change in public policies, these metropolitan regions will continue to face a future of spreading decline, revenue losses, environmental degradation, and loss of farmlands and natural areas.

166

10. Conclusions: Conflicts and Constraints within the state of Ohio In the last decade or so metropolitan thinking has emerged as a potent force in different

parts of the United States and this school of thought espouses the idea that the traditional shapes

and patterns of growth of metropolitan regions across the country are no longer desirable or

sustainable. It has been realized that current growth patterns are the result of government policies

that distort the market and facilitate the excessive decentralization of jobs and people. The idea

of regionalism puts forward an integrated agenda to change the ‘rules of the development game’

at the federal, state, metropolitan and local levels of government.128 This is a powerful paradigm

shift, a sweeping rethinking of the costs and consequences of metropolitan growth in the country

and a compelling vision of how to achieve environmental quality, economic competitiveness and

racial and social justice in metropolitan America.129

Strong central city- suburban-rural coalitions are difficult to achieve amidst the conflicts and roadblocks that abound in the realm of policies and politics but it is not impossible. What is required is an alteration of our traditional modes of thinking regarding the role, function and composition of central cities and their surrounding suburbs. This is a real challenge and is a

cause for serious debate especially in a state like Ohio where the traditional forms of growth and

development and ideas of intra regional competition are very deep rooted in the psyche and

culture currently in place. For regionalism to realize its full potential, citizens, civic leaders,

political leaders and corporate houses within the state need to look beyond geographical boundaries and build powerful coalitions with the bigger picture in mind.

This thesis has attempted to document the disparities between cities and their respective

suburbs, between two cities within the same state and also among suburban areas located in two

128 Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality, Brookings Institution. 2002. pg 4 129 Ibid

167

different regions in the context of smart growth. The fiscal and social disparities that exist in

central cities are gradually moving outwards and engulfing the older suburbs. The aftermath of sprawling and inefficient development patterns is slowly being felt at the outer fringes of developed areas as well.

Ohio is predominantly an urban state with a strong agricultural tradition. More than three- quarters of the state's population and jobs are located in urbanized areas.130 Within these urban

areas, there is a distinct urban core that is surrounded by suburban and rural areas. Metropolitan areas in Ohio have been spreading outward into the surrounding countryside at a rate five times faster than population growth.131 Although state government has been an active participant in

many urban redevelopment efforts, Ohio needs to make a more concerted effort at a macro level

to reverse the growing disparity between urban cores and the areas that surround them.

The micro analysis of the status of smart growth initiatives in the metropolitan areas of

Cleveland and Cincinnati have led to the identification of the following key conflicts and

constraints in the social, economic and political framework of Ohio. These constraints are the

main roadblocks that have prevented the success of smart growth at a macro level in addition to

other micro level constraints that have been discussed in the previous chapter.

10.1 Conflicts and Constraints in Ohio

Local government fragmentation: There are too many local governments entities in

Ohio and the presence of so many jurisdictions is a major impediment to any efforts of

collaboration or attempts to creating a regional vision. The process of initiating a

dialogue between adjacent communities becomes increasingly difficult due to the vast

130The Bioregion: Where do we live? Ecocity Cleveland. Available from www.ecocitycleveland.org, accessed on 04/29/04

131The Bioregion: Where do we live? Ecocity Cleveland. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/bioregion/bioregion.html, accessed on 03/04/04.

168

number. Also, getting so many entities to agree on a particular strategy that could be

beneficial to all is extremely difficult.

Competition for tax dollars: It is the current tax policies in the state that determine

growth and development patterns in Ohio. Suburbs offer lower taxes t, better schools and

higher level of services than older cities thus making them more desirable places to live

and work than their urban counterparts. Suburbs compete to zone their land in ways that

would attract development thus increasing their tax base. Individual jurisdictions prosper

in the process but the region as a whole loses out. It is easier and cheaper to develop in

greenfields that to invest in urban cores. It is extremely critical to determine how land

use/zoning policies might be modified to achieve desired growth/development objectives.

Suburbs-cities-rural areas need to forge bonds and try to grow as regions instead of as

single entities. A program for tax reform with elements that would promote a more

equitable fiscal relationship between cities and suburbs is critical in this regard.

• State investments, programs, and development policies (land use/zoning with harmful

consequences: The initiatives of the state clearly influence where development will occur

in the state. Often times, in Ohio development decisions made by different state

authorities are not in tune with each other that ends up directing growth in conflicting

directions. This is because the state lacks an overall vision regarding the future of growth

and development in Ohio. There is limited coordination between state departments and

this is key to promoting sound and balanced planning at the macro level. For example,

the Ohio Department of Transportation needs to make sound judgments regarding the

future of transportation networks in the state and this needs to be done in conjunction

with departments like the Ohio EPA. Moreover, the state should offer fiscal and other

169

incentives to local jurisdictions to promote compact development, mixed development

and transit-oriented development that are key to any smart growth strategy.

As mentioned earlier, traditional land use controls and zoning that promotes a

separation of uses are ineffective in today’s date as the demand for land is rapidly

increasing together with the pressures on environment, fiscal resources and physical

resources. The current public policies are helping to create a situation where it's easier to

build on farmland than to redevelop existing urban areas. Alternatives to these traditional

tools need to be introduced at the state level and promoted among local jurisdictions.

Lack of regional vision among communities: The idea of a regional vision has to be

promoted at the state level. Communities in Ohio believe that the best way to develop is

the traditional way and it is not easy to change people’s mindsets in a short period of

time. There has to be a statewide effort to promote an understanding of the need to alter

the current, wasteful patterns of developments and the implications that these patterns

may have at a future date. Efforts of groups like Greater Ohio are key in this regard.

What is required is a statewide campaign to educate citizens and elected officials about

the impacts of current land use trends and the policy options. The political leadership at

the state level has to realize these challenges and take concrete measures to promote

balanced growth. Micro level changes cannot be effected unless there is a mandate at the

macro level to guide growth and development.

170

10.2 Recommendations:

The following recommendations are a few strategies that have been suggested that may be used to develop a strong statewide consensus that would help to promote smart growth initiatives.

Strengthen metropolitan capacity through initiatives of regional organizations like OKI,

NOACA, county planning organizations and role of other non profit groups

Build coalitions for cooperation like public-private partnerships; promote them at a

statewide level

Reform ineffective land use and zoning laws

Fight housing discrimination through programs and initiatives to promote affordable

housing and fair share programs

Initiate policies to promote protection and conservation of environmental resources

crossing jurisdictional boundaries

Provide financial incentives to local governments to promote cooperation

Provision of technical assistance to local governments

Develop an overall Vision Plan for the state and streamline the goals and objectives of

state departments and funding authorities to prevent conflicting choices

Some of these strategies have been used effectively by other states like Maryland and Oregon while others address the specific challenges in the state of Ohio. What is required is a holistic perspective and a realization that land use, transportation, public facilities and services, economic development, housing needs and preservation of natural systems are all interconnected issues. Growth and development decisions need to be based upon a comprehensive framework that addresses all these strategic issues. A Smart Growth agenda lays the groundwork for such a balanced framework. The principles of smart growth and the resulting policies can serve as a

171

foundation for building a strong comprehensive regional agenda to confront metropolitan Ohio’s present day challenges.

10.3 Limitations of this study:

Some of the limitations of this study have been enumerated as under:

The points of view of groups that oppose smart growth initiatives in the state have not

been taken into account for the purposes of this study. Experts that were interviewed are

proponents of smart growth in Cincinnati and Cleveland metropolitan regions.

The prescription for smart growth that has been created for the matrix analysis does not

contain an exhaustive list of possible smart growth initiatives. Though the nine principles

cover all the broad areas that smart growth initiatives need to address, the prescription

could be fine-tuned further based on ongoing research being done by organizations like

Smart growth Network, Urban Land Institute, Brookings Institution and other smart

growth experts.

The matrices do not have ‘measures’ to help quantify the number of actual projects that

use a particular sub element. The absence of such ‘measures’ make it difficult to state in

quantitative terms as to how successful a particular strategy has been in a given region.

172

Bibliography

American Planning Association. Ohio Smart Growth Agenda Unveiled. October 9, 1998. APA News Release. Database on-line. Available from http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/1998/ftp21098.htm. Accessed 6 November 2003.

Benfield, F. Kaid, Raimi Matthew et al. Once There Were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl Is Undermining America’s Environment, Economy And Social Fabric. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council, 1999.

Benfield F. Kaid, Terris Jutka et al. Solving Sprawl: Models of Smart Growth in Communities Across America. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council, 2001.

Bollier, David. How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl: A Fledgling Citizen Movement Expands. Washington DC: Sprawl Watch Clearing House, 1988.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. U.S. Department of Transportation. The National Transportation Statistics Report. 1999. Database on-line. Available from http://www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS99/data/Chapter4/4/-11.html. Accessed 6 November 2003.

Census Bureau. Total Population. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. Database on-line. Available from www.census.gov. Accessed 4 April 2004.

Cleveland Ohio. 2003. Profile of 50 largest cities of the United States. Database on-line. Available from http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0108498.html. Accessed 19 November 2003.

Cleveland Ohio Resource Guide. 2003. Database on-line. Available from http://www.usacitiesonline.com/ohcountycleveland.htm. Accessed 19 November 2003.

Cincinnati. 2003. City Information/ Maps/ Directions. Database on-line. Available from http://www.placesnamed.com/c/i/cincinnati.asp. Accessed 16 November 2003.

Cincinnati and Hamilton County: Heritage Study. Chapter V. 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.heritagepursuit.com/Hamilton/HamiltonChapV.htm. Accessed 30 April 2004.

Citizens for Civic Renewal. About the Citizens For Civic Renewal (CCR). 2004. Database on- line. Available from http://www.citizenscivicrenewal.org/page4.html. Accessed 18 March 2004.

City of Avon. The City of Avon Community Guide: 2004-2005 Edition. Sponsored by the City of Avon and Avon Local Schools. Database on-line. Available from http://www.boomware.com/cityofavon/index.htm. Accessed 29 April 2004.

City of Cincinnati. Revised Zoning code Summary. January 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf3538.pdf. Accessed 5 April 2004.

173

Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Projects. 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/. Accessed 30 April 2004.

Delucchi, M.A. Summary of Non-Monetary Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Report No 9: Union of Concerned Scientists, Institute of Transportation Studies, 1995.

Durrell, Richard. A Recycled Landscape. Cincinnati, OH: Quarterly of the Cincinnati museum of Natural History, vol. 14, no. 2, 1977.

Ecocity Cleveland. Introduction to Smart Growth: Where Are We Now? 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/intro/where_now.html. Accessed 30 April 2004.

Ecocity Cleveland. Open Space: Now or Never. 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/openspace/openspace.html. Accessed 23 April 2004.

Ecocity Cleveland. The Ohio Character of Smart Growth. 2003. Database on-line. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/ohio_character.html. Accessed 6 November 2003.

Ecocity Cleveland. Transportation in Northeast Ohio. 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/citizentrans/routine_accommodation.html. Accessed 29 April 2004.

Ecocity Cleveland. Saving farms, saving land. Farmland preservation initiatives blossom in Ohio. September 1996. Database on-line. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/ecologicaldesign/sustain/food_systems/saving_farms.html. Accessed 3 May 2004.

Environmental Working Group and Surface Transportation Policy Project Paper. Washington DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1997.

Facts at a Glance. 2003. Welcome to Greater Cleveland. Database on-line. Available from http://www.clevelandgrowth.com/market_data/Publications/Facts_at_a_glance.asp. Accessed 19 November, 2003.

First Suburbs Consortium. About the Southwest Ohio First Suburbs Consortium. 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.firstsuburbs.org/southwestohio/index.htm. Accessed 30 April 2004.

Flanagan, William G. Urban Sociology: Images and Structure. Fourth Edition. Boston: Massachusetts, 2001.

174

Gerckens, Laurence C. Milestones in American City Planning. 1992. Blueprints of the National Building Museum. Database on-line. Available from http://www.nbm.org/blueprints/90s/spring92/contents/contents.htm. Accessed 30 April 2004.

Griffith, Susan. REPP looks at problems of urban sprawl. 1995. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University. Database on-line. Available from http://www.cwru.edu/pubs/cnews/1997/2- 13/reppclos.htm. Accessed 8 April 2004.

Hansen, Michael. The Ice Age in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. 1997. Database on-line. Available from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/pdf/el07.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2003.

Harper, Brett. A Visionary Couple and their Love for Life. The Ladislas and Vilma Segoe Family Foundation, 2001.

Homebuilders Association Of Northeast Ohio. How can Smart Growth work in Northeast Ohio? 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.hbacleveland.com/growth.html#4. Accessed 30 April 2004.

Jackson, Richard and Chris Kochtitzky. Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Washington DC: Sprawl Watch Clearing House, 2002.

Knaap, Gerrit. “Talking Smart in the United States” Proceedings of the International Meeting For Multiple Intensive Land Use. 6, Habiform, Netherlands, 2002.

Knepper, George W. Ohio and its People. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1997.

Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Inc. Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2002. New York: PricewaterhouseCoopers and Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Inc, 2001.

Manley, Robert. Smart Growth Responses for Ohio. Ecocity Cleveland. Database on-line. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/statewide_organizing/smart_growth_responses.ht ml. Accessed 1 May 2004.

Mcwhirter, Cameron. “Ice made cities safe from water” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 1997. Database on-line. Available from http://www.enquirer.com/flood_of_97/science1.html. Accessed 15 November 2003.

O’ Neill, David. The Smart Growth Tool Kit. Community Profiles and Case Studies to Advance Smart Growth Practices. Washington DC: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2000.

Ohio Almanac: State Facts and Figures. 2000. Your Guide to the US states. Database on-line. Available from http://www.statehousegirls.net/oh/almanac/. Accessed 12 November 2003.

175

Ohio Department of Transportation. Freight Impacts on Ohio’s Roadway System: Final Report. Columbus: ODOT, 2002. FHWA/0H-2002/026.

Ohio State University Land Use Team. Minutes of the Smart Growth Committee Meeting. January 7, 2003. Database on-line. Available from http://landuse.osu.edu/PDF%20files/sgcreport.pdf. Accessed 6 November 2003.

Ohio Writers’ Project. The Ohio Guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.

Orfield, Myron. American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 2002.

Orfield, Myron, and Thomas Luce. Cincinnati Metro patterns: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Metropolitan Area Research Corporation, 2001. Database on-line. Available from www.metroresearch.org. Accessed 18 March 2004.

People, Land, Prosperity. About Greater Ohio. Database on-line. Available from http://www.greaterohio.org/. Accessed 29 April 2004.

Planning Partnership. 2004. Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (HCRPC). Database on-line. Available from http://www.hamilton- co.org/hcrpc/about/planning/partnership.asp. Accessed 29 April 2004.

Porter, Douglas. Making Smart Growth Work. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2002.

Porter, Paul R., and Sweet, David C. Rebuilding America’s Cities: Roads to Recovery. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1984.

Reece, Jason, and Irwin Elena. Land Cover in Ohio's Townships: An Analysis of Township Land Cover and Population Change. 2002. Database on-line. Available from http://www- agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/programs/exurbs/EX3/fig1.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2003.

Regional Initiatives Fund. The Greater Cincinnati Foundation, 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.greatercincinnatifdn.org/page492.cfm. Accessed 14 February 2004.

Shrank, David and Tim Lomax. Urban Mobility Report. College Station, Texas: Texas Transportation Institute, 2001.

“Smart Growth Focus of Conference”. Business Courier, October 28, 2002. Database on-line. Available from http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2002/10/28/daily9.html. Accessed 18 March 2004.

Smart Growth Network. Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies For Implementation Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 2002.

176

Smart Growth Network. Getting To Smart Growth: 100 More Policies For Implementation. Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 2003.

Smart Growth Network. Why Smart Growth: A Primer. Handbook of the Smart Growth Network and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1998.

Sweet, David C., Hexter Kathryn Werthem and Beach, David. The New American City Faces its Regional Future: A Cleveland Perspective. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1999.

The Church in the City. 1996. The Diocese of Cleveland. Database on-line. Available from http://www.citc.org/issues.htm. Accessed 29 April 2004.

The Sierra Club. Cincinnati Challenge to Sprawl Campaign. 2004. Database on-line. Available from http://www.sierraclub.org/epec/cincy/. Accessed 2 May 2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Management Authority. Appendices I, II, III to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Washington D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998.

Westchester Development Council. About Westchester Township. 2004. Database on-line. Available from www.westchesteric.com. Accessed 4 May 2004.

Where are we now? Ecocity Cleveland Journal. 1999. Database on-line. Available from http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/smartgrowth/intro/where_now.html. Accessed 8 April 2004.

177

Appendix A

Appendix A contains the questionnaire that was used for the series of interview sessions that were conducted in the metropolitan areas of Cleveland and Cincinnati and their respective high growth areas namely, Avon and Westchester Township.

Questionnaire for Interviewing Experts

Part A - Personal Details of the Interviewee • Name, Organization, Designation

Part B – Beginning of the Smart Growth movement • When did discussions regarding the need for a smart growth movement first begin in Cleveland/Cincinnati?

• What was the context of the first smart growth related discussions?

• Which were the key organizations that spearheaded these discussions?

• Who were the key individuals who supported the beginning of the smart growth movement?

• What have been the critical points (specific events) in the history of evolution of the Smart growth movement?

• Which of these critical points strengthened/ weakened the movement in Cleveland/Cincinnati?

178

• Which of these critical points strengthened/ weakened the movement in Cleveland/Cincinnati?

Part B –Debate surrounding Smart Growth in each region • What is the nature of the debate that surrounds the Smart Growth movement in Cleveland/Cincinnati? • Who support? Who oppose? Position of the stakeholders?

Part C – Specific Principles: For City and High Growth Area in its vicinity Principle 1: Mixing Land Uses • In your experience have there been any success stories in the context of mixed-use developments in Cleveland/Cincinnati? • If yes, what are they, where, specific examples? • What policies/ programs or initiatives (use of tools) were used by the proponents of mixed-use development? • Are there any projects/initiatives being discussed as of now? What’s in the pipeline? • Which organizations/individuals have been active supporters of mixed use? How strong is their voice? Who are the main opponents? How strong are they?

Note: Similar questions for each of the following principles Principle 2: Expanding Housing Opportunities and Choices Principle 3: Providing Transportation Options Principle 4: Strengthening Existing Communities through Infill Development and redevelopment

Principle 5: Conserving Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas Principle 6: Providing Incentives to Smart Development to make it predictable, fair and cost effective Principle 7: Fostering attractive communities with a strong sense of place Principle 8: Using Innovative and Compact Design Techniques Principle 9: Encouraging multi-stakeholder and community collaboration

179

Note: The questions asked would be for Cleveland and its surrounding high growth region, Avon and Cincinnati and its surrounding high growth region, Westchester Township.

Part E – Overview- For City and High Growth Area in its vicinity • Which of the nine principles listed above has been the most successful in Cleveland/Cincinnati? What are the reasons for this success?

• Which of the nine principles listed above has been the least successful in Cleveland/Cincinnati? What are the reasons for the failure?

180

Appendix B

The list below contains the names, designations and contact information of people who

were interviewed for this study. The list includes experts from a variety of fields including

academicians, politicians, planners, social activists, environmentalists and developers. The

experts were chosen carefully with the aim of getting relevant information regarding the status of

smart growth in the state of Ohio, Northeast Ohio region, Southwest Ohio region, cities of

Cleveland and Cincinnati and the high growth areas of Avon in Lorain County and Westchester

township in Butler County.

List of people interviewed:

State of Ohio Stuart Meck, Fellow American Planning Association 312-431-9100 [email protected]

Hon. Larry Wolpert Chair, Ohio House of Representatives Sub committee on Growth and Land Use

Gene Krebs State director Greater Ohio 614-258-1713 www.greaterohio.org

Cleveland Region Tom Brier Cleveland state university College of Urban Affairs 216-687-3907 [email protected]

Wendy Kellogg Cleveland state university College of Urban Affairs [email protected]

181

Joe Scaletta President and owner Scaletta Development Corporation

Rebecca Jones Economic Development Specialist Lorain County Community Development Department Phone: (440) 328-2326 [email protected]

James Smith Mayor, City of Avon Office of the Mayor 440-937-7803

Charles Ellison Planning Professor School of Planning University of Cincinnati 513-556-0210 [email protected]

Cincinnati Region Steve Howe University of Cincinnati Psychology Professor 513-556-5572 [email protected]

Elizabeth Brown Smart Growth Coalition for Greater Cincinnati 513-471-3624 [email protected]

Robert Manley Partner, Manley Burke And Associates 513-721-5525 [email protected]

Brian Elliff Planning and Zoning Director West Chester Township (513) 777-4214

182

Bill Miller and Janet Keller Senior Planners OKI Regional Council of Governments Phone: (513) 621-6300 Fax: (513) 621-9325

183