|
L�� 1
<br />EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R GODSCHAIX
<br />Toward a Sustainable Seattle: A Plan for Managing
<br />Growth (1994) exemplifies a city approach to the con-
<br />temporary hybrid plan. Submitted as the Mayor's rec-
<br />ommended comprehensive plan, it attempted to
<br />muster political support for its proposals. Three core
<br />values — social equity, environmental stewardship, and
<br />economic security and opportunity— underlie the
<br />plan's overall goal of sustainability. This goal is to be
<br />achieved by integrating plans for land use and trans -
<br />portation, healthy and affordable housing, and careful
<br />capital investment in a civic compact based on a
<br />shared vision. Citywide population and job growth
<br />targets, midway between growth ` completely by re-
<br />gional sprawl and growth completely by infill, are set
<br />forth within a 20 -year time frame. The plan is de-
<br />signed to meet the requirements. of the Washington
<br />State Growth Management Act.
<br />The land use element designates urban center vil-
<br />lages, hub urban villages, residential urban villages,
<br />neighborhood villages, and manufacturing/industrial
<br />centers, each with specific design guidelines (figure 8).
<br />The city's capacity for growth is identified, and then
<br />allocated according to the urban village strategy. Fu-
<br />ture development-is directed to mixed -use neighbor-
<br />hoods, some of which are already established; existing
<br />single - family areas are protected. Growth is shaped to
<br />build community, promote pedestrian and transit use,
<br />protect natural amenities and existing residential and
<br />employment areas, and ensure diversity of people and
<br />activities. Detailed land use policies carry out the plan.
<br />Loudoun County Cbowa and Changer. General Plan
<br />(1991), which won APA's 1994 award for comprehen-
<br />sive planning in small jurisdictions, exemplifies a
<br />county approach to the contemporary hybrid plan. Its
<br />goals are grouped into three categories:
<br />1. Natural and cultural resources goals seek to protect
<br />fragile. resources by limiting development or mitt-
<br />gating disturbances, while at the same time not un-
<br />duly diminishing land values.
<br />2. Growth management goals seek to accommodate
<br />and manage the county's fair share of regional
<br />growth, guiding development into the urbanized
<br />eastern part of the county or existing . western
<br />towns and their urban growth areas, and conserv-
<br />ing agriculture and open space. areas in the west.
<br />(See figure 9.)
<br />3. Community design goals seek to concentrate
<br />growth in compact, urban nodes to create mixed -
<br />use communities with strong visual identities,
<br />human -scale street networks, and a range of hous-
<br />ing and employment opportunities utilizing neo-
<br />traditional design concepts (illustrated in figure 9).
<br />Three time horizons are addressed: the "ultimate"
<br />vision through 2040, the 20 year, long -range devel-
<br />378 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
<br />opment pattern; and the five -year, short- range de-
<br />velopment pattern. The plan uses the concept of
<br />community character areas as an organizing frame-
<br />work for land use management. Policies are proposed
<br />for the overall county, as well as for the eastern urban
<br />growth areas, town urban growth areas, rural areas,
<br />and existing rural village areas. Implementation tools
<br />include capital facility and transportation proffers by
<br />developers, density transfers, community design
<br />guidelines, annexation guidelines, and an action
<br />schedule of next steps.
<br />Summary of the Contemporary
<br />Situation
<br />Since midcentury, the nature of the plan has
<br />shifted from an elitist, inspirational, long -range vision
<br />that was based on fiscally innocent implementation
<br />advice, to a framework for community consensus on
<br />future growth that is supported by fiscally grounded
<br />actions to manage change.ls Subject matter has ex-
<br />panded to include the natural as well as the built envi-
<br />ronment. Format has shifted from simple . poliry
<br />statements and a single large -scale map of future land
<br />use, circulation, and community facilities, to a more
<br />complex combination of text, data, maps, and time ta-
<br />bles. In a number of states, plans are required by state
<br />law, and their content is specified by state agencies
<br />(Bollens 1993). Table 2 compares the general plan of
<br />the 1950s -1960s with the four contemporary proto-
<br />type plans and the new 1990s hybrid design -policy-
<br />management plan, which combines aspects of the pro-
<br />totype plans.
<br />Today's prototype land use design continues to
<br />emphasize long -range urban form for land uses, com-
<br />munity facilities, . and transportation systems as
<br />shown by a map; but the design is also expressed in
<br />general policies. Land use design is still a common
<br />form of development plan, especially in municipal-
<br />ities.16
<br />The land classification plan also still emphasizes
<br />mapping, but of development policy rather than
<br />policy about a pattern of urban land uses. Land clas-
<br />sification is more specific about development manage-
<br />ment and environmental protection, but less specific
<br />about transportation, community facilities, and the
<br />internal arrangement of. the future urban form.
<br />County and regional governments are more likely
<br />than are municipalities to use land classification plans.
<br />The verbal policies plan eschews the spatial speci-
<br />ficity of land use design and land classification plans
<br />and focuses less on physical development issues. It is
<br />more suited to regions and states, or may serve as an
<br />interim plan for a city or county while another type
<br />of plan is being prepared.
<br />
|