DOCSLIB.ORG

Ranking Walkable Urbanism in America's Largest Metros • 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ranking Walkable Urbanism in America's Largest Metros • 2016 Ranking Walkable Urbanism in America’s Largest Metros • 2016 By Christopher B. Leinberger & Michael Rodriguez The George Washington University School of Business 1 The Center for Real Estate and Urban Analysis Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 4 II. INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY . 5 (Walkable) Urban Rebound . 6 Form Meets Function . 7 Methodology . 8 III. METROPOLITAN RANKINGS . 11 Where the WalkUPs Are . 12 2016 Current Walkable Urbanism in the 30 Largest Metros . 14 Current Ranking . 15 Forward-Looking Indicators . 18 Development Momentum Ranking . 22 Development Momentum in Individual Metro Areas . 24 IV. SOCIAL EQUITY RANKINGS . 25 WalkUPs & Social Equity . 26 Social Equity Ranking . 27 V. CORRELATIONS & FINDINGS . 29 WalkUPs, Education & GDP per Capita . 30 VI. CONCLUSIONS & FURTHER STUDY . 33 VII. APPENDICES . 36 Endnotes . 37 Acknowledgments . 39 3 Executive Summary The end of sprawl is in sight. The nation’s largest metropolitan areas are focusing on building walkable urban development. For perhaps the first time in 60 years, walkable urban places (WalkUPs) in all 30 of the largest metros are gaining market share over their drivable sub-urban competition—and showing substantially higher rental premiums. This research shows that metros with the highest levels of walkable urbanism are also the most educated and wealthy (as measured by GDP per capita)— and, surprisingly, the most socially equitable. KEY FINDINGS Walkable urban market share growth in office and substantially higher GDP per capita . These relation- multi-family rental has increased in all 30 of the larg- ships are correlations, and determining the causal There are 619 regionally significant, walkable urban est metros between 2010-2015, while drivable relationships requires further research to prove . places—referred to as WalkUPs—in the 30 largest U .S . sub-urban locations have lost market share . The metropolitan areas . These 30 metros represent market share growth for 27 of the 30 metros is two Walkable urban development describes trends re- 46 percent of the national population (145 million of times their market share in 2010 . This is of the same sulting from both revitalization of the central city and the 314 million national population) and 54 percent or greater magnitude as the market share gains of urbanization of the suburbs . For nearly all metros, the of the national GDP . drivable sub-urban development during its boom future urbanization of the suburbs holds the greatest years in the 1980s, but in the reverse direction . opportunity; metro Washington, DC, serves as a mod- The 30 metros are ranked on the current percent- el, splitting its WalkUPs relatively evenly between its age of occupied walkable urban office, retail, and Indicators of potential future WalkUP performance central city (53 percent) and its suburbs (47 percent) . multi-family rental square feet in their WalkUPs, show that many of the metros ranked highest for compared to the balance of occupied square foot- current walkable urbanism are also found at the top SOCIAL EQUITY PERFORMANCE: age in the metro area . The six metros with the most of our Development Momentum Ranking—namely, walkable urban space in WalkUPs are, in rank order, the metros of New York City, Boston, Seattle, and The national concern about social equity has been New York City, Washington, DC, Boston, Chicago, Washington, DC . This indicates that these metros exacerbated by the very rent premiums highlighted San Francisco, and Seattle . will continue to build on their already high WalkUP above, referred to as gentrification . Counter-intuitive- market shares and rent premiums . ly, measurement of moderate-income household (80 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE: percent of AMI) spending on housing and transpor- There are also some surprising metros in this top tation, as well as access to employment, shows that There are substantial and growing rental rate premi- tier of Development Momentum rankings, including the most walkable urban metros are also the most ums for walkable urban office (90 percent), retail (71 Detroit, Phoenix, and Los Angeles . socially equitable . The reason for this is that low cost percent), and rental multi-family (66 percent) over transportation costs and better access to employ- drivable sub-urban products . Combined, these three The most walkable urban metro areas have a sub- ment offset the higher costs of housing . This finding product types have a 74 percent rental premium1 stantially greater educated workforce, as measured underscores for the need for continued, and aggres- over drivable sub-urban . by college graduates over 25 years of age, and sive, development of attainable housing solutions . 4 Foot Traffic Ahead: Ranking Walkable Urbanism in America’s Largest Metros • 2016 © The George Washington University School of Business 2016 INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY 5 Introduction & Methodology (Walkable) Urban Rebound Walkable urbanism development is now propelling real estate growth in office, retail, and multi-family rental product types from a rental premium and absorption basis in the largest 30 U.S. metros. Since the mid-20th century, metropolitan areas in Most real estate developers and investors, govern- walkable urban metros, 81 percent of 2010-2015 the United States have been generally divided into ment regulators, and financiers have well understood office and rental multi-family absorption by square two categories: “central city” and “suburban” .2 The this model, turning it into a successful formula and footage is now walkable urban . Walkable urban new 21st-century development patterns suggest economic driver throughout the mid- to late-20th products in WalkUPs generate substantial rental this former dichotomy is less meaningful; we need century . In addition to real estate, this model fueled premiums, suggesting pent-up demand for more more salient categories to examine and understand demand for automobiles, drove road construction, walkable urban development . contemporary and future metropolitan development and supported the finance, insurance, and oil indus- in the United States . tries . In short, this development model provided a Walkable urbanism could provide the same met- solid foundation for the U .S . economy for the majori- ro-level economic base in the 21st century economy The more useful dichotomy to understand metro- ty of the 20th century . that drivable sub-urbanism did in the mid-to-late politan3 America is “walkable urban” and “drivable 20th century . However, this growth will not be real- sub-urban” development . Both types of develop- By the mid-1990s, the redevelopment of center cities ized without appropriate infrastructure, zoning, and ment can occur in either a metro’s central city or in and suburban town centers, accompanied by the financing mechanisms at the federal, state, and local the metro’s suburban area . New Urbanism movement, demonstrated there was levels . revived demand for walkable urbanism, the dominant DRIVABLE SUB-URBAN vs development form before the early 20th century . Both development forms, drivable sub-urban and WALKABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT walkable urban, are now viable in most of the 30 Walkable urban development includes: largest U .S . metropolitan areas . However, these two During the second half of the 20th century, the now- forms are fundamentally different, requiring land ac- • Substantially higher densities (1 .0 to 40 FAR, familiar drivable sub-urban approach dominated real quisition, zoning, construction, financing, marketing, though mostly in the 1 .0 to 4 .0 range) estate development . and management . • Mixed-use real-estate products, or the adjacent Drivable sub-urban is characterized by: spatial mix of products • Historically low-density development (generally • Emerging “new” product types, such as rental 0 .05 to 0 .4 floor area ratio or FAR) apartments over a ground-floor grocery store • Segregated real-estate product types (different • Multiple transportation options, such as bus, rail, real estate product types generally separated bicycle, and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, as well from one another) as motor vehicles, that connect to the greater • Standardized product types that, aside from metro area . Within the boundaries of the WalkUP superficial architecture, are similar throughout itself, most destinations are within walking dis- the country tance . • Cars and trucks as the predominant transporta- As this survey shows, and previous metro-level re- tion mode . search demonstrates,4 walkable urban development This has been referred to as sprawl . appears to be a rising, or even dominant, factor in real estate development . In the most highly ranked 6 Foot Traffic Ahead: Ranking Walkable Urbanism in America’s Largest Metros • 2016 © The George Washington University School of Business 2016 Introduction & Methodology Form Meets Function Understanding 21st-century metropolitan land use options. Real estate professionals often categorize metropoli- trations of employment (particularly in base/export Local serving locations, frequently called bedroom tan land use into two economic functions: regionally or regional-serving businesses and jobs), and can communities, are predominantly residential with significant or local serving . include civic centers, higher education facilities, complementary commercial development, such major medical centers, and regional retail establish- as grocery and drug stores; doctor, dentist, bank Regionally significant locations, which the brokerage ments, as well as one-of-a-kind cultural,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Slum Clearance in Havana in an Age of Revolution, 1930-65
    SLEEPING ON THE ASHES: SLUM CLEARANCE IN HAVANA IN AN AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1930-65 by Jesse Lewis Horst Bachelor of Arts, St. Olaf College, 2006 Master of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 2012 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS & SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Jesse Horst It was defended on July 28, 2016 and approved by Scott Morgenstern, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science Edward Muller, Professor, Department of History Lara Putnam, Professor and Chair, Department of History Co-Chair: George Reid Andrews, Distinguished Professor, Department of History Co-Chair: Alejandro de la Fuente, Robert Woods Bliss Professor of Latin American History and Economics, Department of History, Harvard University ii Copyright © by Jesse Horst 2016 iii SLEEPING ON THE ASHES: SLUM CLEARANCE IN HAVANA IN AN AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1930-65 Jesse Horst, M.A., PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2016 This dissertation examines the relationship between poor, informally housed communities and the state in Havana, Cuba, from 1930 to 1965, before and after the first socialist revolution in the Western Hemisphere. It challenges the notion of a “great divide” between Republic and Revolution by tracing contentious interactions between technocrats, politicians, and financial elites on one hand, and mobilized, mostly-Afro-descended tenants and shantytown residents on the other hand. The dynamics of housing inequality in Havana not only reflected existing socio- racial hierarchies but also produced and reconfigured them in ways that have not been systematically researched.
    [Show full text]
  • TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No
    TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 2646 Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 1:30 p.m. City Council Chamber One Technology Center – 175 E. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Others Present Covey Stirling Bates Tohlen, COT Carnes Walker Fernandez VanValkenburgh, Legal Dix Huntsinger Warrick, COT Edwards Miller Leighty White Liotta Wilkerson Midget Perkins Shivel The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, March 18, 2013 at 2:10 p.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk, as well as in the Office of the County Clerk. After declaring a quorum present, 1st Vice Chair Perkins called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. REPORTS: Director’s Report: Ms. Miller reported on the TMAPC Receipts for the month of February 2013. Ms. Miller submitted and explained the timeline for the general work program for 6th Street Infill Plan Amendments and Form-Based Code Revisions. Ms. Miller reported that the TMAPC website has been improved and should be online by next week. Mr. Miller further reported that there will be a work session on April 3, 2013 for the Eugene Field Small Area Plan immediately following the regular TMAPC meeting. * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:20:13:2646(1) CONSENT AGENDA All matters under "Consent" are considered by the Planning Commission to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Any Planning Commission member may, however, remove an item by request. 1. LS-20582 (Lot-Split) (CD 3) – Location: Northwest corner of East Apache Street and North Florence Avenue (Continued from 3/6/2013) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Metropolitan Growth: Reflections on the Twin Cities Experience
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________ MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH: REFLECTIONS ON THE TWIN CITIES EXPERIENCE Ted Mondale and William Fulton A Case Study Prepared for: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy © September 2003 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH: REFLECTIONS ON THE TWIN CITIES EXPERIENCE BY TED MONDALE AND WILLIAM FULTON1 I. INTRODUCTION: MANAGING METROPOLITAN GROWTH PRAGMATICALLY Many debates about whether and how to manage urban growth on a metropolitan or regional level focus on the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and command-and-control government regulation. This paper proposes an alternative, or "third way," of managing metropolitan growth, one that seeks to steer in between the two extremes, focusing on a pragmatic approach that acknowledges both the market and government policy. Laissez-faire advocates argue that we should leave growth to the markets. If the core cities fail, it is because people don’t want to live, shop, or work there anymore. If the first ring suburbs decline, it is because their day has passed. If exurban areas begin to choke on large-lot, septic- driven subdivisions, it is because that is the lifestyle that people individually prefer. Government policy should be used to accommodate these preferences rather than seek to shape any particular regional growth pattern. Advocates on the other side call for a strong regulatory approach. Their view is that regional and state governments should use their power to engineer precisely where and how local communities should grow for the common good. Among other things, this approach calls for the creation of a strong—even heavy-handed—regional boundary that restricts urban growth to particular geographical areas.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-04-758 Metropolitan Statistical Areas
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Subcommittee on GAO Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives June 2004 METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS New Standards and Their Impact on Selected Federal Programs a GAO-04-758 June 2004 METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS New Standards and Their Impact on Highlights of GAO-04-758, a report to the Selected Federal Programs Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives For the past 50 years, the federal The new standards for federal statistical recognition of metropolitan areas government has had a metropolitan issued by OMB in 2000 differ from the 1990 standards in many ways. One of the area program designed to provide a most notable differences is the introduction of a new designation for less nationally consistent set of populated areas—micropolitan statistical areas. These are areas comprised of a standards for collecting, tabulating, central county or counties with at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but and publishing federal statistics for geographic areas in the United fewer than 50,000 people, plus adjacent outlying counties if commuting criteria States and Puerto Rico. Before is met. each decennial census, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) The 2000 standards and the latest population update have resulted in five reviews the standards to ensure counties being dropped from metropolitan statistical areas, while another their continued usefulness and 41counties that had been a part of a metropolitan statistical area have had their relevance and, if warranted, revises statistical status changed and are now components of micropolitan statistical them.
    [Show full text]
  • Urbanistica N. 146 April-June 2011
    Urbanistica n. 146 April-June 2011 Distribution by www.planum.net Index and english translation of the articles Paolo Avarello The plan is dead, long live the plan edited by Gianfranco Gorelli Urban regeneration: fundamental strategy of the new structural Plan of Prato Paolo Maria Vannucchi The ‘factory town’: a problematic reality Michela Brachi, Pamela Bracciotti, Massimo Fabbri The project (pre)view Riccardo Pecorario The path from structure Plan to urban design edited by Carla Ferrari A structural plan for a ‘City of the wine’: the Ps of the Municipality of Bomporto Projects and implementation Raffaella Radoccia Co-planning Pto in the Val Pescara Mariangela Virno Temporal policies in the Abruzzo Region Stefano Stabilini, Roberto Zedda Chronographic analysis of the Urban systems. The case of Pescara edited by Simone Ombuen The geographical digital information in the planning ‘knowledge frameworks’ Simone Ombuen The european implementation of the Inspire directive and the Plan4all project Flavio Camerata, Simone Ombuen, Interoperability and spatial planners: a proposal for a land use Franco Vico ‘data model’ Flavio Camerata, Simone Ombuen What is a land use data model? Giuseppe De Marco Interoperability and metadata catalogues Stefano Magaudda Relationships among regional planning laws, ‘knowledge fra- meworks’ and Territorial information systems in Italy Gaia Caramellino Towards a national Plan. Shaping cuban planning during the fifties Profiles and practices Rosario Pavia Waterfrontstory Carlos Smaniotto Costa, Monica Bocci Brasilia, the city of the future is 50 years old. The urban design and the challenges of the Brazilian national capital Michele Talia To research of one impossible balance Antonella Radicchi On the sonic image of the city Marco Barbieri Urban grapes.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economist's Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1, Defining Excessive
    An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 Defining Excessive Decentralization in California and Other Western States California Senate Office of Research January 2002 (Revised) An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part I Defining Excessive Decentralization in California and Other Western States Prepared by Robert W. Wassmer Professor Graduate Program in Public Policy and Administration California State University Visiting Consultant California Senate Office of Research Support for this work came from the California Institute for County Government, Capital Regional Institute and Valley Vision, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the California State University Faculty Research Fellows in association with the California Senate Office of Research. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author. Senate Office of Research Elisabeth Kersten, Director Edited by Rebecca LaVally and formatted by Lynne Stewart January 2002 (Revised) 2 An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl, Part 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................... 4 What is Sprawl? ........................................................................................... 5 Findings ........................................................................................................ 5 Conclusions..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Infill and Redevelopment Plan City of Bismarck
    City of Bismarck’s Infill and Redevelopment November 16, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Adoption February 28, 2017 Plan Board of City Commissioners Acceptance Infill and Redevelopment Plan City of Bismarck Acknowledgements Jake Axtman, Axtman+Associates, PC Linda Oster, Design and Construction Engineer, City Ben Ehreth, North Dakota Department of of Bismarck Transportation Michael Greer, Design and Construction Engineer, Bismarck Board of City of Commissioners Kyle Holwagner, Daniel Companies City of Bismarck Accepted: February 28, 2017 Dave Patience, Swenson, Hagen & Co. Ron Kunda, Fire Marshall, City of Bismarck Mike Seminary, President Blake Preszler, Plainview Designs Jeff Heintz, Public Works Service Operations Josh Askvig Director, City of Bismarck Jason Tomanek, City of Bismarck Nancy Guy Sheila Hillman, Director of Finance, City of Bismarck Earl Torgerson, Bismarck State College Steve Marquardt Keith Hunke, City Administrator, City of Bismarck Bruce Whittey, Bismarck Futures Shawn Oban Rachel Drewlow, Bismarck-Mandan Metropolitan David Witham, Civitecture Studio PLLC Planning Organization Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission Wayne Yeager, Planning and Zoning Commission Darin Scherr, Director of Facilities and Adopted: November 16, 2016 Transportation, Bismarck Public Schools Additional Assistance Wayne Yeager, Chair (City of Bismarck) Renae Walker, Community Relations Director, Bismarck Public Schools Doug Lee, Vice Chair (City of Bismarck) Brian Ritter, Bismarck-Mandan Development Michelle Klose, Public Works Utilities
    [Show full text]
  • Suburban Gentrification: Understanding the Determinants of Single-Family Residential Redevelopment, a Case Study of the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, IL, 2000-2010
    Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University Suburban Gentrification: Understanding the Determinants of Single-family Residential Redevelopment, A Case Study of the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, IL, 2000-2010 Suzanne Lanyi Charles February 2011 W11-1 Suzanne Lanyi Charles is the 2008 recipient of the John R. Meyer Dissertation Fellowship The author wishes to thank her dissertation committee members, Richard Peiser, Susan Fainstein, Judith Grant Long, and Daniel McMillen, as well as Eric Belsky for helpful comments and suggestions. She is also grateful to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the Real Estate Academic Initiative of Harvard University, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing research funding. © by Suzanne Lanyi Charles. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Prepared under Grant Number H-21570 SG from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of University Partnerships. Points of views or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. Abstract Suburban gentrification is most visible through capital reinvestment in the built environment. In this paper, I examine one type of reinvestment—the incremental, residential redevelopment process in which older single-family housing is demolished and replaced with larger single- family housing.
    [Show full text]
  • Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide
    Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide STUDY PREPARED BY CENTER FOR URBAN POLICY RESEARCH EDWARD J. BLOUSTEIN SCHOOL OF PLANNING & PUBLIC POLICY RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY with the participation of THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR SMART GROWTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND and SCHOOR DEPALMA MANALAPAN, NEW JERSEY STUDY PREPARED FOR NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (NJDCA) DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDS and NEW JERSEY MEADOWLANDS COMMISSION (NJMC) NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF SMART GROWTH (NJOSG) June, 2006 DRAFT—NOT FOR QUOTATION ii CONTENTS Part One: Introduction and Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations Chapter 1. Smart Growth and Infill: Challenge, Opportunity, and Best Practices……………………………………………………………...…..2 Part Two: Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide Section I. General Provisions…………………….…………………………….....33 II. Definitions and Development and Area Designations ………….....36 III. Land Acquisition………………………………………………….……40 IV. Financing for Infill Development ……………………………..……...43 V. Property Taxes……………………………………………………….....52 VI. Procedure………………………………………………………………..57 VII. Design……………………………………………………………….…..68 VIII. Zoning…………………………………………………………………...79 IX. Subdivision and Site Plan…………………………………………….100 X. Documents to be Submitted……………………………………….…135 XI. Design Details XI-1 Lighting………………………………………………….....145 XI-2 Signs………………………………………………………..156 XI-3 Landscaping…………………………………………….....167 Part Three: Background on Infill Development: Challenges
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring Americaâ•Žs New •Œmegapolitanâ•Š Geography
    Brookings Mountain West Publications Publications (BMW) 2005 Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America’s New “Megapolitan” Geography Robert E. Lang Brookings Mountain West, [email protected] Dawn Dhavale Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/brookings_pubs Part of the Urban Studies Commons Repository Citation Lang, R. E., Dhavale, D. (2005). Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America’s New “Megapolitan” Geography. 1-33. Available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/brookings_pubs/38 This Report is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Report in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Report has been accepted for inclusion in Brookings Mountain West Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. METROPOLITAN INSTITUTE CENSUS REPORT SERIES Census Report 05:01 (May 2005) Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America’s New “Megapolitan” Geography Robert E. Lang Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech Dawn Dhavale Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech “... the ten Main Findings and Observations Megapolitans • The Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech identifi es ten US “Megapolitan have a Areas”— clustered networks of metropolitan areas that exceed 10 million population total residents (or will pass that mark by 2040). equal to • Six Megapolitan Areas lie in the eastern half of the United States, while four more are found in the West.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Metropolitan Area
    Minnesota Metropolitan Area Clear Lake Zimmerman Stanford Twp. IsantiAthens Twp. Oxford Twp. Clear Lake Twp. Orrock Twp. Chisago Lake Twp. Livonia Twp. Lent Twp. Clearwater Becker Twp. Bethel St. Francis Stacy Center City Shafer Sherburne Lindstrom Clearwater Twp. Becker 169 Linwood Twp. Chisago City 10 East Bethel Big LakeBig Lake Twp. Burns Twp. Oak Grove Wyoming Twp. Franconia Twp. Silver Creek Twp. Elk River Wyoming Chisago Monticello Corinna Twp. Anoka Monticello Twp. Columbus Twp. Otsego Twp. Ramsey Andover Ham Lake Forest Lake New Scandia Twp. Maple Lake Twp. Albertville 35 Maple Lake Anoka Albion Twp. Buffalo Twp. St. Michael Rogers Marine on St. Croix Dayton Buffalo Hassan Twp. Chatham Twp. Coon Rapids Champlin Blaine Hanover Lino LakesCenterville Hugo May Twp. 169 Circle Pines Lexington Washington Rockford Twp. Osseo Spring Lake Park Wright Corcoran Maple Grove Brooklyn Park Mounds View White Bear Twp. Marysville Twp. Greenfield North Oaks Dellwood Stillwater Twp. Rockford Fridley Shoreview Grant Waverly 94 Montrose Hennepin Brooklyn Center Arden Hills Gem LakeBirchwood Village New Brighton Loretto White Bear LakeMahtomedi Stillwater Columbia Heights Vadnais Heights Delano New Hope Franklin Twp. Medina Crystal Pine Springs Oak Park Heights Woodland Twp. Independence Plymouth Robbinsdale St. Anthony Little Canada Bayport Roseville MaplewoodNorth St. Paul Maple Plain 36 Baytown Twp. Medicine Lake Lauderdale Lake Elmo Long Lake Golden Valley Falcon Heights 35E Oakdale Wayzata Winsted 394 West Lakeland Twp. Watertown Orono Minneapolis Ramsey Woodland St. Louis Park St. Paul Landfall Spring Park Hollywood Twp. Watertown Twp. Minnetrista Lakeland Mound DeephavenMinnetonka Hopkins Lake St. Croix Beach Shorewood Lilydale St. Bonifacius Tonka BayGreenwood West St.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Development: Patterns,Problems,Causes, Policy Proposals
    CHAPTER 1 Metropolitan Development: Patterns,Problems,Causes, Policy Proposals Janet Rothenberg Pack The literature on urban development of the past decade (since about the mid-1990s) has been characterized by the introduction of two concepts: “the New Metropolitanism” and “the New Urbanism.” A recent essay refers to the new metropolitanism as a “paradigm shift.”1 Although the term takes on many different meanings, its principal components are “urban sprawl” as the problem and “smart growth” as the solution. Moreover, there are many variations on the definitions of the two com- ponents in the scholarly literature, in the increasing outpouring of gov- ernment studies, in general-interest articles on the subject, and, as will be seen, in the chapters in this volume. Despite the differences, there is, nonetheless, broad agreement on the major themes, however defined— sprawl and smart growth. The New Urbanism is largely about urban design. The organization Congress for the New Urbanism, founded by a group of architects and town planners (http://user.gru.net/domz/charter.htm), emphasizes the design features of new communities. In their introduction to a forum on the New Urbanism, Sohmer and Lang refer to it as “architecture’s answer to our rediscovered urban heritage. New Urbanism models its developments on an eclectic combination of traditional urban neighbor- hoods. Neotraditional building styles and mixed-use, mixed-income, and pedestrian-oriented development are New Urbanism’s defining 1. Katz (2002). 1 2PACK characteristics.”2 The tie between the two—New Metropolitanism and New Urbanism—may be seen in a description by Burchell and his coau- thors of smart growth as “an effort, through the use of public and pri- vate subsidies, to create a supportive environment for refocusing a share of regional growth within central cities and inner suburbs.
    [Show full text]