Lecture Notes Green Development Chapter 3 Land Use: Considering the Big Picture Assessing Sprawl: Since WWII, US development has been characterized by inefficient land use EUCLIDEAN ZONING: Euclid vs Ambler Realty, 1926 The United States Supreme Court upheld this authority as constitutional in the landmark case of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926). Euclid wanted to prevent Cleveland industry from overtaking the character of Euclid. Euclid created a land-use policy based on 6 classes of use, 3 classes of height and 4 classes of area. Amblers property was divided into three use classes, as well as various height and area classes, thereby hindering Ambler Realty from developing the parcel for industry. Ambler Realty sued the village, arguing that the zoning ordinance had substantially reduced the value of the parcel by limiting its use, amounting to a deprivation of Ambler's liberty and property without due process (i.e., an unconstitutional "taking"). The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's denial of the dismissal motion, but overturned the outcome of the case and sided with the village of Euclid. The Court argued that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional. Further, the Court found that Ambler Realty had offered no evidence that the ordinance had in fact had any effect on the value of the property in question, but based their assertions of depreciation on speculation only. The court ruled that speculation was not a valid basis for a claim of takings. Ambler Realty had argued their case on the basis of the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The Court noted that the challenger in a due process case would have to show that the law in question is discriminatory and has no rational basis. The Court found that Euclid's zoning ordinance in fact did have a rational basis. Planner and lawyer Alfred Bettman submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of Euclid, arguing that zoning is a form of nuisance control and therefore a reasonable police power measure. In the roughly eighty years since the Euclid decision, zoning has become the planning professions primary tool to regulate land use. While an effective policy response to issues at that time of a rapidly industrializing America, Euclidean zoning has unintentionally shaped the US landscape into a sprawling, auto-dependent society characterized by segregated communities of isolated populations. Euclidean zoning makes it extremely difficult to mix uses. As a result, traditional development patterns with high-density housing, nearby commercial, and pedestrian-friendly

walkways are virtually impossible to create. Many critics suggest that zoning promulgates sprawl. In short, Euclidean zoning prevents good urban design. Types of Zoning: Euclidean: Certain activities, building types in certain areas. Setbacks, height

requirements, Uses within each district are usually heavily prescribed to exclude other types of uses (residential districts typically disallow commercial or industrial uses).

Performance Based: aka Effects Based, The appeal of Performance Zoning lies in its high level of flexibility, rationality, transparency and accountability.[citation needed] Performance Zoning avoids the arbitrary nature of the Euclidian approach, and better accommodates market principles and private property rights with environmental protection. However, performance zoning can be extremely difficult to implement and can require a high level of discretionary activity on the part of the supervising authority

Incentive Based: First implemented in Chicago and New York City, incentive zoning is intended to provide a reward-based system to encourage development that meets established urban development goals

Form Based: One example of a recently adopted code with design-based features is the Land Development Code adopted by Louisville, Kentucky in 2003. This zoning code creates "form districts" for Louisville Metro. Each form district intends to recognize that some areas of the city are more suburban in nature, while others are more urban. Building setbacks, heights, and design features vary according to the form district. As an example, in a "traditional neighborhood" form district, a maximum setback might be 15 feet from the property line, while in a suburban "neighborhood" there may be no maximum setback

Dwight D. Eisenhower (34th) National System of Interstate and Defense Highways

1956

Adaptive Reuse/Renovation of Buildings and Communities: Why reuse existing stock? - cultural value, historical value, less energy used, outstanding opportunities for architectural features that could not be attained in new construction, - Reuse of military bases: Existing infrastructure and amenities Infill Development: Often more cost efficient as it makes use of existing infrastructure Can be threatening to some (urban renewal=urban removal) Live/Work projects Granny flats...increase density without affecting neighborhood character

Brownfields Development Greenfield Development: -Best to avoid - How to develop responsibly?

Clustering Downsizing

Ecosystem protection

Reduce automobile dependence through compact land-use patterns Clustering: -Keeping development contained to certain areas -Values open space (market value of open space...studies showing small lots with access to open space keep value as compared to larger lots with their own open space) Neotraditional Development Patterns Less auto dependent Pedestrian friendly Congress for New Urbanism....go to their website. Good ideas if they are all incorporated Have faced criticism for their lack of emphasis on siting, energy, Corporate Campuses: Green focus on their site, yet site are way out, forcing auto dependence and using up prime lands that could remain undeveloped (UPS) Boeing....in-town location on a highly-impacted site Downsizing of parking, provides buses/transport shuttles, ride sharing Development Good for the Environment? Environmental restoration through development versus "minimizing impacts" The best green developments strengthen and enhance existing communities Low-density development versus high-density development