USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Designing community

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Designing community the application of new urban principles to create authentic communities
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Embry, Margaret
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Social capital
Amelia Park
"Traditional neighborhood development"
West Park Village
Atlantic Station
Dissertations, Academic -- Geography -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: This research is an exploratory investigation of the potential of New Urbanist planning and design principles to create thriving and successful neighborhoods. New Urbanism is an urban design movement started in the early 1980s that promotes the development of walkable, compact, and diverse neighborhoods. It is the objective of this research to shed light on the value of creating a higher quality of life and more time for ourselves and our families. I hypothesize that New Urbanism may pave the way for recapturing commute time for time with family, creating authentic and successful communities, and engaging with neighbors. Furthermore, by utilizing the design principles of New Urbanism, traditional neighborhoods that re-integrate the activities of daily living may be possible. In short, this research is an explanatory and exploratory investigation that examines whether incorporating the design principles of New Urbanism can create walkable and successful communities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, community activities, and a long term sense of belonging. This research focuses on three case studies of New Urbanism: a large scale development in Atlanta, Georgia with approximately 3,500 residents, a moderate scale development in Tampa, Florida with approximately 2,000 residents, and a small scale development in Fernandina Beach, Florida with approximately 700 residents. These three case studies provide successful examples of the integration of the design principles of New Urbanism. New Urbanism can be used as the stimulus for the types of neighborhoods Americans has been missing since World War II. At each of these sites, observations were made of the ways in which the design of the development has fostered community and created walkable and livable neighborhoods.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Margaret Embry.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 130 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002069455
oclc - 608485821
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0003254
usfldc handle - e14.3254
System ID:
SFS0027570:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200385Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002069455
005 20100422105230.0
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 100422s2009 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003254
035
(OCoLC)608485821
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
G116 (Online)
1 100
Embry, Margaret.
0 245
Designing community :
b the application of new urban principles to create authentic communities
h [electronic resource] /
by Margaret Embry.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2009.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 130 pages.
502
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: This research is an exploratory investigation of the potential of New Urbanist planning and design principles to create thriving and successful neighborhoods. New Urbanism is an urban design movement started in the early 1980s that promotes the development of walkable, compact, and diverse neighborhoods. It is the objective of this research to shed light on the value of creating a higher quality of life and more time for ourselves and our families. I hypothesize that New Urbanism may pave the way for recapturing commute time for time with family, creating authentic and successful communities, and engaging with neighbors. Furthermore, by utilizing the design principles of New Urbanism, traditional neighborhoods that re-integrate the activities of daily living may be possible. In short, this research is an explanatory and exploratory investigation that examines whether incorporating the design principles of New Urbanism can create walkable and successful communities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, community activities, and a long term sense of belonging. This research focuses on three case studies of New Urbanism: a large scale development in Atlanta, Georgia with approximately 3,500 residents, a moderate scale development in Tampa, Florida with approximately 2,000 residents, and a small scale development in Fernandina Beach, Florida with approximately 700 residents. These three case studies provide successful examples of the integration of the design principles of New Urbanism. New Urbanism can be used as the stimulus for the types of neighborhoods Americans has been missing since World War II. At each of these sites, observations were made of the ways in which the design of the development has fostered community and created walkable and livable neighborhoods.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Elizabeth Strom, Ph.D.
653
Social capital
Amelia Park
"Traditional neighborhood development"
West Park Village
Atlantic Station
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Geography
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.3254



PAGE 1

Designing Community: The Application of New Urban Principl es to Create Authentic Communities by Margaret Embry A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Geography College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Elizabeth Strom, Ph.D. Martin Bosman, Ph.D. Kevin Archer, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 13, 2009 Keywords: social capital, Amelia Park, traditional neighbo rhood development, West Park Village, Atlantic Station Copyright 2009, Margaret Embry

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract vii Chapter One: Introduction and Background 1 Introduction 1 Methods for Research 2 Crime Rate 3 Transportation 4 Level of Satisfaction of the Developer, The Jacoby Group 5 Level of Satisfaction of Atlantic Station Residents 6 Observations 8 Visual Images 9 Background 9 Post World War II Decline of Community 9 Urban Sprawl and its Effects 10 Chapter Two: New Urbanism and Tra ditional Neighborhood Developments 13 New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Developments 13 Successful Communities 15 Social Capital 16 Sense of Community 16 Chapter Three: Design Princi ples of New Urbanism 19 Chapter Four: Critiques of New Urba nism and Corresponding Rebuttals 24 Critiques of New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Developments 24 Social Capital Critique 27 Rebuttals 30 Chapter Five: Atlantic Station 36 Background 36 Brownfields 44 Methodology 45 Crime Rate 45 Transportation 46

PAGE 3

ii Level of Satisfaction of the Developer, The Jacoby Group 49 Level of Satisfaction of Atlantic Station Residents 50 Observations 52 Visual Images 52 Data Analysis, Categories, and Codes 53 Results 53 Crime Rate 54 Transportation 58 Level of Satisfaction of the Developer, The Jacoby Group 60 Level of Satisfaction of Atlantic Station Residents 63 Observations 67 Chapter Six: Amelia Park and West Park Village 73 Methodology for Amelia Park and West Park Village 73 Observations 73 Visual Images 73 Data Analysis, Categories, and Codes 74 Amelia Park 74 Background 74 Results 80 Observations 80 West Park Village 84 Background 84 Results 86 Observations 86 Chapter Seven: Discussion 91 Atlantic Station 91 Crime Rate 91 Transportation 92 Level of Satisfaction of the Developer and Atlantic Station Residents 93 Observations 96 Amelia Park 97 Observations 97 West Park Village 99 Observations 99 Preference and Profitability of New Urbanism 101 Limitations 103 Future Research 103 Chapter Eight: Conclusion 106 References 110

PAGE 4

iii Appendices 115 Appendix A: Atlantic St ation District Map 116 Appendix B: Photographs of The District 118 Appendix C: Photographs of The Commons 121 Appendix D: Photographs of The Village 122 Appendix E: Photographs of Amelia Park 123 Appendix F: Photographs of West Park Village 128

PAGE 5

iv List of Tables Table 1. Retailers, Entertainment, Restaurants, and Services within The District 40 Table 2. Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Atlanta, GA 54 Table 3. Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Zone 5, Atlanta, GA 56 Table 4. Percentage Zone 5 is Contributing to Crimes in Atlanta in January 2008 57 Table 5. Rate of Change in Crime Between 2001 and 2008 57 Table 6. Recent Crimes at Atlantic Station 58 Table 7. Resident and Employee Trans portation Data for Atlantic Station (AS) and Atlanta (ATL) 60 Table 8. Amelia Park Timeline 75

PAGE 6

v List of Figures Figure 1. Atlanta Crime Zones 3 Figure 2. Atlantic Steel Mill 37 Figure 3. The District 39 Figure 4. The Commons 41 Figure 5. The Village 41 Figure 6. Atlantic Station Location Map 42 Figure 7. Atlantic Station Property Map 42 Figure 8. Atlantic Station Residential Property 43 Figure 9. Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Atlanta, GA 55 Figure 10. Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Zone 5, Atlanta, GA 56 Figure 11. Recent Crimes at Atlantic Station 58 Figure 12. Residential Buildings 65 Figure 13. 17th Street 68 Figure 14. Townhomes 69 Figure 15. Dense residential development 70 Figure 16. Saturday shoppers in The District 72 Figure 17. Location of Amelia Park on Amelia Island, FL 78 Figure 18. Amelia Park Locati on in Fernandina Beach, FL 79

PAGE 7

vi Figure 19. Amelia Park Master Plan 79 Figure 20. Traffic calming and buffers 80 Figure 21. Single-family homes 81 Figure 22. Townhome 82 Figure 23. Undevelope d retail district 82 Figure 24. Garden District 83 Figure 25. Westchase Location Map 85 Figure 26. West Park Village Lo cation within Westchase #17 86 Figure 27. Street view 87 Figure 28. Townhomes along Village Plaza 87 Figure 29. Single-family home 87 Figure 30. Apartment building 88 Figure 31. Retail district 89 Figure 32. Garage in back of home 90 Figure 33. Garage in front of home 90

PAGE 8

vii Designing Community: The Application of New Urban Principl es to Create Authentic Communities Margaret Embry ABSTRACT This research is an expl oratory investigation of the potential of New Urbanist planning and design principles to create thriving and successful neighborhoods. New Urbanism is an urban design movement star ted in the early 1980s that promotes the development of walkable, compact, and divers e neighborhoods. It is the objective of this research to shed light on the value of crea ting a higher quality of life and more time for ourselves and our families. I hypothesize th at New Urbanism may pave the way for recapturing commute time for time with fa mily, creating authentic and successful communities, and engaging with neighbors. Furthermore, by utilizing the design principles of New Urbanism, traditional neighbo rhoods that re-integra te the activities of daily living may be possible. In short, this research is an expl anatory and exploratory investigation that examines whether incorpor ating the design principl es of New Urbanism can create walkable and successful commun ities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, community activities, and a long term sense of belonging.

PAGE 9

viii This research focuses on three case st udies of New Urbanism: a large scale development in Atlanta, Georgia with appr oximately 3,500 residents, a moderate scale development in Tampa, Florida with appr oximately 2,000 residents, and a small scale development in Fernandina Beach, Florida with approximately 700 residents. These three case studies provide successful examples of the integration of the design principles of New Urbanism. New Urbanism can be used as the stimulus for the types of neighborhoods Americans has been missing since World War II. At each of these sites, observations were made of the ways in whic h the design of the development has fostered community and created walkab le and livable neighborhoods.

PAGE 10

1 Chapter One: Introduction and Background Introduction This research is an expl oratory investigation of the potential of New Urbanist planning and design principles to create thriving and successful neighborhoods. New Urbanism is an urban design movement star ted in the early 1980s that promotes the development of walkable, compact, and divers e neighborhoods. It is the objective of this research to shed light on the value of crea ting a higher quality of life and more time for ourselves and our families. I hypothesize th at New Urbanism may pave the way for recapturing commute time for time with fa mily, creating authentic and successful communities, and engaging with neighbors. Furthermore, by utilizing the design principles of New Urbanism, traditional neighbo rhoods that re-integra te the activities of daily living may be possible. In short, this research is an expl anatory and exploratory investigation that examines whether incorpor ating the design principl es of New Urbanism can create walkable and successful commun ities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, community activities, and a long term sense of belonging. This research focuses on three case studi es of neighborhoods developed according to New Urbanist planning and design principles: a large sc ale development in Atlanta,

PAGE 11

2 Georgia, Atlantic Station, with approx imately 3,500 residents; a moderate scale development in Tampa, Florida, West Park Village, with approximately 2,000 residents; and a small scale development in Fernandi na Beach, Florida, Amelia Park, with approximately 700 residents. These thr ee case studies provid e examples of the integration of the design princi ples of New Urbanism. New Urbanism can be used as the stimulus for the types of neighborhoods Americans have been missing since World War II. At each of these sites, observations were made of the ways in which the design of the development has fostered community and cr eated walkable and liv able neighborhoods. These case studies are not equivalent or meant to be compared. The main contribution to this research is the study of Atlantic Stati on in Atlanta, GA, but two other New Urbanist developments were observed to further explore how New Urbanist developments function. The paper begins with a discussion of post-World War II decline of community and the rise of urban sprawl, followed by an introduction to and discussion of design principles of New Urbanism and traditiona l neighborhood developments. Critiques of New Urbanism and the ideas associated with it are reviewed, followed by an introduction to the three case studies. Re search methods and research re sults follow, with a discussion of results and limitations, oppor tunities for future research, and conclusions. Methods for Research Quantitative research methods and qualitative research methods (semi-structured interviews, observations and visual images) were used to understand the success of Atlantic Station. Qualitativ e research methods (observati ons and visual images) were also used to understand how Amelia Park and West Park Village in corporated the design

PAGE 12

principles of New Urbanism. Following is a breakdown of each indicator of success including methods for obtaining data and what is deemed successful. Indicator of success: Crime Rate Data from the Atlanta Police Department were used to determine whether the crime rate in the areas surrounding Atlantic Station and within Atlantic Station have changed from 2001 to 2008 as compared to c ity-wide data. Data from the month of January from each year was used. January wa s chosen at random. If crime rate has decreased at a higher rate as compared to city-wide data, it will be deemed successful. Surrounding area is defined as Zone 5. The Atlanta Police Department has divided the city into six crime zones and Atlantic Station is located at the northwest corner of Zone 5 (see Figure 4). Crimes within Atlantic St ation were also analyzed from December 14, 2008 to February 7, 2009 to determine types of crimes typically occurring. This two month time span was chosen to illustrate the ty pes of crimes occurri ng in Atlantic Station using the most recent crime data available. The crime rate and types of crimes are compared to Atlanta-wide data also gather ed from the Atlanta Police Department from the month of January from 2001 to 2008. Figure 1. Atlanta Crime Zones http://www.atlantapd.org/index.asp?nav=Home 3

PAGE 13

4 Transportation Transportation issues in Atlantic Stati on were analyzed, including trip generation on the site, alternative trans portation offered, and access to pu blic transportation. Data were gathered from Atlantic Station, LLC through annual studies the group has conducted since 2001 called Project XL, a collabo rative study with the EPA, as well as the Atlantic Station Access and Mobility Program (ASAP+), a volunt ary travel options program serving Atlantic Station. The 2008 Project XL Report includes transportation data from a series of four surveys, endi ng in October 2008, conducted to assess the sites conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Transportation Control Measure (TCM). In February 2009, the data were compiled to create th e Atlantic Station Monitoring and Evaluation Update Annual Assessment. Five specific performance measures are evaluated: average daily vehicle miles tr aveled (VMT) per resident; average daily VMT per employee working at the site; the percent of all combined trips made to, from, and on the site by residents and employees in modes other than single occupancy vehicles (SOV); origin and destination data for trips ma de to, from, and on the site by residents and employees; and, average daily travel to, from, and on the si te, other than by transit for all purposes combined, including retail trips. The study also compares the spec ific Atlantic Station transpor tation data to regional data.

PAGE 14

5 Success could be looked at in two wa ys regarding trip generation on site specifically: 1) success could mean less trip generation due to residents shopping and working on site, or 2) success could mean increased trip generation due to visiting consumers. This difference in success could lead to skewed quantitative data in terms of trip generation. In order to resolve this dile mma, it will be considered a success if daily miles traveled by residents and employees of A tlantic Station is less than compared to regional data. Access and sustained use of a lternative modes of transportation and public transportation will be deemed a success. Level of Satisfaction of the Developer, The Jacoby Group An in-person interview was conducted w ith a member of the Jacoby Group to gain an understanding of Atlant ic Stations development, a nd of the major objectives of the development group during the planning stages. The interview was tape recorded and tr anscribed by hand. The interview tape was reviewed on the same day the interview was performed and transcribed soon after. While interviewing the member of the Jacoby Gr oup, it was important for me to keep in mind positionality and reflexivity. This interview faced an inequality of positions between myself and the respondent because he wa s a partner in the development and had experienced Atlantic Station from the concep tual stage, whereas I had only read about, researched and experienced A tlantic Station for a brief time in comparison. For this reason, it was important for me to put myself on the same causal plane as a major player of Atlantic Station. I was very transparen t with the respondent and offered to share a copy of the transcript from our interview before submitting my final thesis. As expected the member of the Jacoby Group expressed many positive opinions about Atlantic

PAGE 15

6 Station, but I was able to ask enough probing questions to uncover disappointments with the project. Probes used duri ng the development group interview included silent probes, ah ha probes, echo probes, and tell me more probes. I tried to facilitate a candid discussion by creating a relaxed atmosphe re. I believe I accomplished this by communicating my interests in this research along with experience and education I have had in this field. Below are interview questi ons for the Jacoby Group: 1. What were the objectives of Jacoby when planning and developing Atlantic Station? 2. Is it exciting to live in Atlantic Station? 3. Do you feel like Atlantic Station provides an enhanced quality of life for residents as opposed to other neighborhoods in Atlanta? 4. What types of community groups are available for residents? 5. How does Atlantic Station inter act with surrounding neighborhoods? 6. Were there objectives to facilitate civic success (i.e. community groups, community events, neighboring)? 7. What types of unexpected surprises have you encountered? Unexpected difficulties? 8. What would you do differently if you we re beginning Atlantic Station planning today? Level of Satisfaction of Atlantic Station Residents Residents from Atlantic St ation were also interviewed in person. The Atlantic Station Civic Association (ASCA) served as my main contact to access resident respondents. Resident interv iewed were tape recorded and as with the Jacoby Group interview, recordings were listened to the same day as the interview and transcribed by

PAGE 16

7 hand within the next few days. As with the respondent from the Jacoby Group reflexivity and positionality played an important role in these four interviews. Again, it was important to be transparent with respondents a nd offer transcriptions of interviews before the submission of my thesis. I also gave a brief description of my intentions and background on my research. I offered anonymity to each respondent to make the respondent more comfortable. I received a few frank responses to interview questions and in these cases I probed the respondent to understand why he or she felt so strongly. Probes I used included silent probes, ah ha probes, echo probes, and tell me more probes. I tried to be a relaxed and unse lfconscious interviewer and personalize the discussion by telling the re spondent about my experience with traditional neighborhood developments and other topics. As shown in the literature, aggressive interviewers tend to elicit more information, so I believe I did my best to be sure to get answers to all of the questions asked. Semi-structured interviews we re utilized with all residents. Questions for resident interviews follow below. Below are questions for Atla ntic Station residents: 1. How long have you lived in Atlantic Station? 2. Do you feel you have access to needs of daily living (groceri es, supplies, etc)? 3. Do you commute to work? How many miles away? If not, do you work at home or onsite? 4. Do you shop in Atlantic Station regula rly? Do you walk to the stores? 5. How often do you walk for a purpose (to the store, etc)? 6. Do you feel safe walking in terms of crime and traffic? 7. Are you involved in any Atlantic Station community groups? Which ones? Which ones are you not a part of and why?

PAGE 17

8 8. Do you feel a sense of belonging in your neighborhood and community? 9. Have you made trusting relationships with your neighbors (i.e. are you comfortable calling them if there is an emergency, are you comfortable borrowing and lending items)? 10. Do you have children who live with you on the site? If so, are they involved in any onsite groups? 11. Do you feel like Atlantic Station provides an enhanced quality of life as opposed to other parts of Atlanta? 12. What unexpected surprises have you encountered while living in Atlantic Station? Unexpected difficulties? 13. What things would you change about Atlantic Station if you could? 14. Is it exciting to live at Atlantic Station? Observations Observations are used to determine whet her design principles of New Urbanism have been incorporated into the development of Atlantic Station, Amelia Park, and West Park Village. Other observations are used to understand how lively the development is and if people (residents and strangers) are utilizing what these developments have to offer. I was sure to be aware of positionalit y. Reflexivity was a major consideration; I was as objective in my observations as I could be. I tried not to bring my own assumptions and beliefs into my observations, and I believe I was successful. I used field notes for my observations. After completing my observations, I made notes on my field observations and then wrote my personal f eelings about what was uncovered in the observations. In order to provide a system atic approach to discussing the observation findings, I used the design principles of New Urbanism as laid out in Chapter 3 as a guide.

PAGE 18

9 Visual Images Visual images are also used in the form of pictures to illustrate the physical characteristics of the three developments. Th e majority of the photogr aphs are used as a supplemental tool to allow the reader to visu alize the design and layout of the property. Photographs were taken in residential areas, ope n areas, and retail areas. This allows the reader to see naturally occurring images and make their own assumptions about the landscape. Background Post-World War II Decline of Community There is evidence that social capital a nd sense of community have been on the decline since the in troduction of post-World War II suburbs of the 1950s. Factors associated with this decline include long co mmutes to work and even to shopping areas, the increased use of television and the internet, and the pr essures of time and money put on families (Leyden 2003). As for a sense of membership and belonging, many people in suburbia are members of mass-membership organizations in whic h the only act of membership consists of writing a check fo r dues or perhaps occasionally reading a newsletter[M]ost are unlikely to encount er any other member (Putnam 1995, 71). Sprawl also weakens social and civic engagement due to the segregation and homogeneity of neighborhoods and the increasing distance from home to work (Squires 2002). It has been shown that the degree of social intera ction that takes place among neighbors is a key indicator of the strength of localized communities in urban society (Guest et al 1999, 92). When studying a c ontemporary American suburban subdivision,

PAGE 19

10 the dearth of common space or even walkable space that enables social interaction is noticeable. Social interaction becomes a pr ivilege as opposed to a chance encounter, and life is designed to take place within the hom e or the backyard (Leyden 2003). Fewer and fewer Americans are socializi ng with their neighbors (Putnam 1995). With the absence of common space within a neighborhood, th e sense of community has declined dramatically. These neighborhoods are void of what Ray Oldenburg calls third places or great good places. These great good places are identified as public places on neutral ground where people can gather and interact, such as coffeehouses, cafes, pubs, post offices, and main streets. These places according to Oldenburg, are the heart of a communitys social vitality and the foundation of a functioning democracy (Oldenburg 1991). Another factor affecting ones sense of community in suburban areas is the increase of technology, including televisi on and air conditioni ng, but chiefly the automobile. In the early twentieth century, the labor movement secured the eight-hour work day for Americans. This mandate gave citizens more time every day to spend in the pursuit of happiness, such as time with fam ily, community involvement, and participation in sports. Since the invention of the automobile and suburbs, part or all of this time outside of work is spent in ones car. Th is leaves little time for family and community (Duany et al 2000). It should be mentioned th at these ideas are gene ralizations to which there are notable suburban exceptions. Urban Sprawl and its effects Urban sprawl is a phenomenon commonly characterized by unlimited outward extension of development, automobile de pendency, low density housing and commercial

PAGE 20

11 development, leapfrog development, fragme ntation of land use planning among multiple municipalities, large fiscal disparities among muni cipalities, segregation of land use types, congestion and environmental damage and a declining sense of community among residents (Squires 2002). This growth pa ttern has emerged since World War II and appears by some to be advancing at an incr easing pace. In addition to negative impacts on the natural environment and qua lity of life, this form of growth can have detrimental effects on social capital and emotional heal th. Suburban sprawl development fosters a lifestyle of social isolation in which one may rarely intera ct with neighbors because of dis-integrated activities of daily living, autom obile dependence, garage s that lead directly into ones house, fenced backyards, and the lack of a front porch. Freedom itself and the capacity to fully actualize ones individuality can be harmed in the absence of a place and community in which ones life is em bedded, as Squires believes (2002, 13). Researchers such as Teresa Seeman have pres ented social isolation as a detriment to a persons quality of life, leading to physical and emotional health problems (1996, 442). These conditions have stimulated increased public and private s ector interest in residential development patterns that encour age increased social capital, facilitate community making within the places we live, and increase physical and emotional health in community life. The advent of urban sprawl and the d ecline of community after World War II have left the United States with segregated land use types, a seemingly unlimited outward extension of development, social isolat ion, a loss of sense of community, and a dependency on automobiles. This research explores how New Urbanism could be one solution to this trend of sprawl. New Urbanism is a potentially a way to create walkable

PAGE 21

12 communities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, comm unity activities, and a long term sense of belonging. It is hypothes ized that incorporating th e design principles of New Urbanism into new developments, these types of communities could be present again.

PAGE 22

13 Chapter Two: New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Developments New Urbanism and Traditiona l Neighborhood Developments The social and physical implications of urban sprawl have stimulated a response to combat such negative outcomes of living and create more successful communities. An important ingredient in this response has been an increase in traditional neighborhood developments, which have fostered the New Urbanism movement. Traditional neighborhood developments are represente d by mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly communities of varied populations, either standing free as villages, or grouped into towns and villages (Duany et al 2000, 4). The traditional neighborhood was the fundamental form of settlement in the United States th rough World War II and continues to be the dominant pattern of living outside of the United States, as it has been throughout recorded history (Duany et al 2000). Principles of traditional neighborhood developments promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communicating with fellow residents, discovery of mutual interests, acting together, trusting each other, and a long term sense of belonging. Diversity is promoted by a variety of housing types and prices as well as essential mixed-use development and urban transect patterns. In order to faci litate knowing ones neighbors, key components of the design plan include highly interactiv e streets that promote pedestrian activity; narrow, traffic-calmed streets with sidewalks; street trees for shade and protection from traffic; alleys to separate utility and garage access from sidewalks; and front porches with

PAGE 23

14 sidewalks close to facilitate connecti on between public and private realms. Communication and community activities are fa cilitated by the creati on of public spaces, such as parks, coffee shop, and other great good places, providing activities for meeting and acting on common interests, electronic connectivity through neighborhood intranet, and a design that promotes chance encounters by pedestrians. A study done by Hollie Lund in 2002 compared two demographically similar neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon, and found that a safe and interesting walking environment was linked with higher levels of social capital, and a greater sense of community was found in traditional neighborhoo ds than in contemporary suburbs. She points out the ability to walk for pleasure w ithin ones community as one contributor to the increased sense of community. Living, working, shopping and playing in the same neighborhood allows residents more time in the place where they live and less time in separated work places, shopping places, and recreation places. Commuting time can be recaptured for time with family and neighbors. The mixed-use, walkable community pattern that incorporates retail, office, and civic uses with reside ntial and recreational uses creates purposeful and in teresting destinations for daily activity. When these uses are mixed in a walkable geographic boundary, pe destrian activity improves well-being as it increases the frequency of encounters with fellow residents. The integration of activities of daily living and familiarity am ong neighbors facilitates long term sense of community and belonging and increased physical and emotional health, precisely what many say the suburbs are lacking (Lund 2002). Another study completed in 2003 by Dr. Ke vin Leyden examined the correlation of the pattern of community design and construction and their affect on the level of

PAGE 24

15 involvement of residents in their communities and with each other. Leyden used the city of Galway in the Republic of Ireland as a case study. The results of this analyses indicated that people living in walkable, mi xed-use neighborhoods have higher levels of social capital compared with those living in car-oriented suburbs. Respondents living in walkable neighborhoods were more likely to kno w their neighbors, par ticipate politically, trust others, and be socially engaged (L eyden 2003). In both of these studies, respondents were self-selected which may l ead to statistically invalid results. Successful Communities It is important to first understand wh at people need from a neighborhood: sensory pleasures, to feel safe and secure without fear, personal space, community space (for recreation, socializing, group activities), ability to identify objects and places, diversity, mobility, self-development, surprise, belongi ng, pride, and beauty (Greene 1992). Goals for urban life identified by Appleyard and J acobs (1987) include liv ability, identity and control, access to opportunity, imagination a nd joy, authenticity and meaning, community and public life, urban self-reliance, and an inclusive environment for all. The above references to Greene and Appleyard and Jacobs work provide a definition of what successful community in th is paper is meant to mean. As opposed to communities that inhibit natural interacti on among their inhabitants, successful communities are characterized by the interpersonal relationships of residents as well as the infrastructure surrounding th e residents. In this resear ch, a successful community is one in which all of the needs and goals de scribed by Greene and Appleyard and Jacobs are met, there is a high level of social capit al, and residents are e xperiencing a sense of community.

PAGE 25

16 Social Capital Social capital, according to Robert Pu tnam, refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and soci al trust that facil itate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam 1995, 67 ). Civic engagement and trust are two components of social capital that Putnam em phasizes. Civic engagement is the degree to which citizens participate in activities that affect the political decision making process at all levels, such as voting participation (Rohe et al 1998). High leve ls of social capital are found if individuals trust ea ch other and feel a mutual sense of obligation toward one another. This trust creates an en vironment in which people are comfortable interacting with neighbors and relative strangers because resi dents expect other to act in accordance with social norms that encourage mutu ally beneficial interactions (Rohe et al 1998). A variation of the meaning of social capital, according to Jane Jacobs, is that it refers to cross-cutting social networks wh ich provide a basis for trust, cooperation and perceptions of safety (Cattell 2004). Individuals who have high levels of social capital tend to volunteer within their community, inte ract with friends and neighbors more, and be involved politically. Nei ghborhoods with high levels of social capital usually respond effectively to the forces of change which helps to maintain or perhaps enhance the stability of the neighbor hood (Rohe et al 1998, 62). Sense of Community Sense of community broadly involves the interrelationship between the individual and the individuals social structure (Talen 2000, 174). It is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through their commitment to

PAGE 26

17 be together" (Chavis et al 1986, 6). Sense of community refers to both the social interaction component of neighboring as well as the psychological sense of community. The social interaction component is simila r to having social capital, wherein this component consists of social networks and norms and the emotional connection and support that exists among nei ghbors. These interactions include social networking as well as activities such as stopping by to visit, borrowing items, and asking for help in an emergency (Talen 2000). These social intera ctions lead to a ps ychological sense of community, which differs in context from pe rson to person. In their 1986 writing Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory, McMillan and Chavis provided one of the first explanations for a psychological sense of co mmunity. They believe sense of community consists of four attributes: 1) membership, 2) influence, 3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and 4) shared emotional connection. Membership refers to the feeling that one belongs because of personal investment in th e neighborhood. Influence is the feeling that a person can have a personal effect in the neighborhood and they are open to influences from other residents. Having ones needs fulfilled and meeting the needs of others creates a strong sense of community. This fulfillment comes from the rewarding experience of being a member in a succe ssful neighborhood. Finally, communicating a shared history, sharing events, and experienci ng positive social interaction all lead to a sense of community (Chavis et al 1986). This creates a further emotional connection with neighbors through participation in co mmunity events, acknowledging particular residents for good deeds, and the facilitation of investment in the neighborhood (Talen 2000). A sense of community is a key factor in creating a successful community.

PAGE 27

18 New Urbansim, as hypothesized, could be a tool to create walkable and successful communities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, comm unity activities, and a long term sense of belonging. Furthermore, by incorporating the design princi ples of New Urbanism into new developments, communities can be successf ul, have a high level of social capital, and allow residents to experience a sens e of community. The three concepts, understanding what defines a successful commu nity and the importanc e of social capital and sense of community, act together to further define traditional neighborhood developments and allow them to exist and thri ve. Without success, social capital, and a sense of belonging, traditional neighborhood de velopments cease to be productive and viable neighborhoods for residents. For this reason, these three concepts will be used in this research to confirm th e above stated hypothesis.

PAGE 28

19 Chapter Three: Design Pr inciples of New Urbanism Streets and Other Design Features Streets are an important design feature that contributes to soci al capital, sense of community and belonging, and an overall successful neighborhood and community. When properly designed, public streets double as urban spaces and provide a place where people can walk, shop, meet, and genera lly engage in the dive rse array of social and recreational activities that, for many, are what makes urban living enjoyable (Dumbaugh 2005, 283). In addition to their cont ribution to residents quality of life, streets designed for the pedestrian, coined as livable streets, ha ve been linked to economic growth and innovation, improvements in air quality, and increased physical fitness and health (Dumbaugh 2005, 283). These livable streets provide a continuous sidewalk network, are narrow and traffic calmed, and are designed to minimize the negative impacts of auto mobiles on pedestrians. Some of these design features include street trees and on-street park ing that serve as buffers between the pedestrian realm and motor vehicles and provide a spatial definiti on to the pedestrian right-of-way (Dumbaugh 2005). Other design features that impact the street life and walkability of a development are alleys to separate util ity and garage access from sidewalks and front porches with sidewalks close to facilitate connecti on between public and private realms. The street is more than the physical structure; it is a place that is formed over time through trust of other people tr aveling on the sidewalk, as Jane Jacobs believes. The

PAGE 29

20 chance encounters and casual, public contact (1961, 56) that sidewalks provide give people a sense of place and belonging as well as public respect and trust. People who experience this type of casual encounter have respect for others on the street and have a feeling of good will towards others (Jacobs 1961) One ingredient to successful sidewalk life is self-appointed public characters (Jacobs 1961, 68). These characters can either be anchored public characters, such as a stor e clerk, roving public ch aracters, such as a pastor or prominent local, or specialized public characters. Another ingredient vital to successful sidewalk life is fac ilities that act as gathering places, lik e the local bookstore or corner grocery. These facilities also crea te a sense of safety on the sidewalk (Jacobs 1961). A well-used street is more likely to be a safe street than a deserted street. New Urbanist design principles set up streets to be lively, interesting places that can handle residents and strangers alike. A street that is equipped to handle strangers, and to make a safety asset, in itself, out of the presence of strangersmust have three main qualities (Jacobs 1961, 35). These qualities include having a clear boundary between public and private space. Another quality includes the notion that there must be eyes upon the street (Jacobs 1961, 35). These eyes belong to what Jacobs calls natural proprietors (1961, 35) of the street. The buildings on a stre et able to insure the safety of residents and strangers must face the street. This allo ws store owners, residents, customers, and others to view the street even when inside a building. The third quality of a safe street is that the street is used fairly continuously. This adds to the number of eyes on the street and also gives those in buildi ngs an interesting reason to wa tch sidewalks (Jacobs 1961).

PAGE 30

21 With these three qualities, streets within New Urbanism communities become safer than those that are not as pedestrian friendly and interesting. Other important design considerations include dense residential development along with intensive land use, mixed land-use design (integration of activities near each other), placing buildings so that they define public space between and around them instead of simply sitting in space, an d many smaller buildings with compound arrangements and relationships as opposed to a few large buildings. Creating compact neighborhoods (in terms of units and residents) accounts for pedestri an accessibility to certain services and uses that are vital to urban life, such as corner markets, coffee shops, cleaners, etc. These are the great good places that make a neighborhood thrive. Mass transit is also dependent upon de nsity and if mass transit is used, there is less reliance on motor vehicles and less demand for parking. If people are living clos ely, it also increases the energy efficiency of the development b ecause less land is being consumed and there is less need to commute or drive to services (Appleyard 1987). Again, living, working, and playing in th e same neighborhood is important to the success of a neighborhood and to the developmen t of social capital in the area. The mixed uses respond to the values of public ness and diversity th at encourage local community identity (Appleyard et al 1987, 118). It is the mix of uses along with the density of people and uses that creates a successful neighborhood. With a mixed landuse plan, people are able to conduct activities of daily livi ng without having to get into their car. Uses in the neighborhood range fr om the great good places mentioned above as well as schools, places of worship, a nd open space (Appleyard et al 1987). People living in a mixed-use neighborhood tend to view their neighborhood as an extension of

PAGE 31

22 their home into public space. This sense of community is built upon familiar objects and shared experiences of daily living (Hargreaves 2004). The ways in which these structures and residential homes are situated throughout the neighborhood also contribute to the neighborhoods success a nd level of social capital and sense of community. Buildings that are built close together and are close to the street (which should be narrow as described above ) define a space. These spaces that are surrounded by buildings are more likely to dr aw people to them and promote social interactions between neighbors and ot hers (Appleyard et al 1987). Many different buildings and spaces should have complex arrangements and relationships. Diversity, the possibility of intimacy and confrontation with the unexpected, stimulation, are all more likely w ith many buildings than with few taking up the same ground area (Appleyard et al 1987, 11 9). These smaller buildings should be placed on small parcels which create more pub lic space and the need for more entrances, more windows, and a diversity of design among buildings. Through these multiple small buildings, a more public, divers e, and vibrant neighborhood is created (Appleyard et al 1987). Finally, the commercial district of a traditional neighborhood development should include as many small, independently owned venues as possible. Three major neighborhood commercial streets in three town s in the Boston, MA metropolitan area were studied by Vikas Mehta to determine the specific characteristics that support social interaction on neighborhood commercial str eets. All three neighborhood commercial streets combined small independently owne d businesses with national chain stores. Mehta found that the liveliest settings on the street had a ve ry high number of stores that

PAGE 32

23 were one-of-a-kind. Most were independently owned but a few were local small chain stores (Mehta 2009, 53). The goods and services sold at these stores were mainly for daily use, not specialty items, but the goods a nd services were provided in a way that was special to that particular store. The results of user interviews show that people preferred small independently owned and operated busin esses, not only for the quality and variety of goods and services and friendly staff but also for their unique ness and character and the overall ambience they created (Mehta 2009, 53). Many people found that these smaller businesses were friendlier and treate d the business property with more care and personal attention. This, according to respondent s, created a street environment that was more interesting and attractive and enc ouraged lingering and meeting people. These design principles are the backbone of what makes New Urbanism a potential solution to combating sprawl and creating walkable and successful communities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, community act ivities, and a long term sense of belonging, as hypothesized. The physical layout of a development has the potential to have a tremendous impact on the social and economic success of a traditional neighborhood development. The design features presented in this ch apter will serve as a guide to determine whether the three case studies in this research ha ve incorporated these principles to create a walkable and successful neighborhood.

PAGE 33

24 Chapter Four: Critiques of New Urbanism and Corresponding Rebuttals Critiques of New Urbanism and T raditional Neighborhood Developments A major critique of New Urbanism is that New Urbanism communities tend to cater to the upper-middle socio-economic class. While there may be a slight mix of incomes, studies show that there is little evidence of racial mixing and segregation by class, race, and ethnicity is perpetuated (Gordon and Ri chardson 1998). Critics also believe that New Urbanism denies cultura l difference, does not allow residents to participate in the creation of their communitie s, and creates rigid patterns that may not accommodate future residents (Ellis 2002). It is believed that low income families are the ones most in need of community, but community is mainly created for upper middle class families. David Harvey questions whether these upper middle class residents are really choosing community or the image of community. He goes on to say that New Urbanism builds an image of community and a rhetoric of place-based civic pride and consciousness for those who do not need it, while abandoning those that do to their underclass fate (Harvey 1997, 68-69). According to many critics, New Urbani sm creates communities based on a false nostalgia and utopian ideals, wanting to return to a romanticized small-town life where children find it more fun to throw autumn leav es in the air than toilet paper your house (Shibley 1998, 81). To achieve this, develope rs use an old archite ctural tradition and incorporate specific design f eatures that include not onl y buildings, but streets and

PAGE 34

25 neighborhood patterns to affect social behavior and resident s sense of community. New Urbanists believe that these design elements w ill recreate a social and civic behavior that has been absent since the advent of urban sp rawl and decline of tr aditional neighborhoods (Gordon and Richardson 1998). Critics believe these desi gn features (e.g. centrally located public buildings, front porches on homes which face pedestrian walkways) are in fact examples of surveillance and repre ssive control which create a communitarian environment (Ellis 2002). David Harvey explai ns that community is a historic site of social control and surveillance. Well-founded communities often exclude, define themselves against others, and erect all so rts of keep-out signs (Harvey 1997, 69). These historic definitions show community as often being a barrier to, rather than a facilitator of progressive social change. The characteristics that make cities exciting, such as conflicts, the unexpected, and the excitement of explori ng the unknown in urban areas, are screened out by Ne w Urbanist design principles (Harvey 1997). There is also no clear evidence of a direct link between desi gn and social behavior; therefore, building a neighborhood does not necessarily mean one is building a community (Biddulph 2000). There is a further concern th at New Urbanism might be a shallow representation of community and an unrealistic Leave it to Beav er life that is void of the struggle for a diverse and democratic life (Shibley 1998). Some critici ze the actual ar chitecture of buildings and homes in New Ur banism communities, claiming it denies both historical change and individual inspiration (Ellis 2002). Another major claim of New Urbani sm is that traditional neighborhood developments will reduce trip generation be cause of planning for reduced automobile dependence through public transit, walkable communities, and increased cycling.

PAGE 35

26 Automobiles remain vital, however, because th e majority of residents commute to work, many transit projects have not come to fr uition, and many people ar e not willing to walk more than half a mile for any given pur pose (Gordon and Richardson 1998). There is commercial use in mixed-use developments, but typically these establishments do not provide for sufficient employment. This crea tes the trend where residents of traditional neighborhood developments commute to work while members of the outside population commute to work within the development, which creates more commuting overall (Gordon and Richardson 1998). Other critics question whether people want to shop at small, local stores rather than malls, big box re tailers, and other large-scale clusters. But these latter types of stores are usually out of scale with traditional neighborhood developments (Ellis 2002). Some believe that New Urba nism ignores the social a nd economic realities of the present time. It is argued that people enj oy having private lives, enjoy being so mobile by automobile, and enjoy creati ng their own dispersed social networks. Urban space has changed, leaving the principles of New Urba nism outdated (Ellis 2002). The landscape does not show that New Urban communities have been in demand since WWII. It can be assumed that developers would have built these types of communities if demanded. Surveys conducted by Fannie Mae show that people want a single family home with a private yard and dense urban infill projects ca nnot meet this demand. Many of the claims of New Urbanist communities are also achieved in a wide variety of urban and suburban residential communities, such as a richer life for children and allowing one to age in place (Gordon and Richardson 1998).

PAGE 36

27 New Urbanism advocates claim they are committed to improving city centers and creating urban infill, mainly for two reasons: to make cities a better place to live and preserve farmland. Critics note, however, that many developments are built on greenfields on the edges of cities and infill development has been limited. The farmland preservation concern does not hold merit si nce urban development contributes to less than five percent of the landmass. In the case of infill projects, New Urbanist communities only accommodate a small percen tage of the metropolitan population, leading to no real change in city cente rs (Gordon and Richar dson 1998). Mike Biddulph criticizes New Urbanism for the belief that building neighborhoods (or villages) creates neighborliness and that with enough neighborhoods, a city can be transformed into a better place to live. He belie ves that a group of villages do not make a city and these urban villages do not acknowle dge the nature of or the re al processes that shape the contemporary city. There appears to be little urbanity in New Urbanism (Biddulph 2000). Social Capital Critique Several critiques have been levied agai nst Putnams idea of social capital. The term social capital has come under scrutiny becau se of the belief that it blurs analytical distinctions. The term capital is usually used in economic discussions, so to apply capital to human interaction seems to obscure the long-standing and hi storical meaning of the term. As Kulynych and Smith state: [T]o characterize civic engagement and th e preconditions of democracy as social capital is to foster the view that community involvement and political participation are forms of economic activ ity, thus blurring important distinctions

PAGE 37

28 and, among other things, undermining th e development of all-encompassing, genuine forms of democracy (Kulynych and Smith 2002, 150). To apply this term to humans can be seen as viewing people as wealth or property, which can be offensive to some. Putnam calls for citizens to become social capitalists, which ultimately leads to communitarianism. It is argued that Putnam s conceptualization of communitarianism in the United States is limited and perhaps impo ssible. As pointed out by Vicente Navarro, Putnams communitarian argument is lack ing significant components, such as a discussion on power, politics, and struggle. He fails to realize that some of the welfare and well-being of communities he commends are the result of years of the political struggle that actually give it meaning. His unawareness of political and power struggles makes his analysis extremely superficial. It reduces social change to a mere social engineering carried out by enlig htened elites (his term) with the participation of social agents in the background (Navarro 2002, 428). Sheri Burman challenges Putnams idea that a strong civil society ensures democracy. She provides an analysis of the ro le civil society played in Weimar Germany in her article Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic which some have nicknamed Bowling with Hitler (Carothers 1999)). She argues that in the 1920s and 1930s Germany saw a rich civil society with high levels of social capital, but with the weak political institutions that were in pl ace at the time, this rich associational life actually led to the rise of th e Nazi party and, therefore, th e demise of democracy (Burman 1997). The weak political institutions were not able to respond to the many demands of the citizen organizations, which led the citizen organizations to shift their allegiance to

PAGE 38

29 nationalist, populist groups, and eventually th e Nazi Party (Carot hers 1999, 23). Hitler recognized the strong leadership skills and so cial ties within these citizen organizations and believed they would be very useful in the political arena. Because of this, civil society activists formed the backbone of the Nazis grassroots propaganda machine (Burman 1997, 420). Bob Edwards and Michael Foley argue Pu tnam underestimates the ability of newer organizations and of political associati ons, such as social movements and political parties, to foster aspects of civil society a nd to advance democracy. As the authors point out in their article, The Paradox of Civil Society it seems as though Putnams examination of social movements in the United States overlooks important groups, such as national groups and the grassroots bases of the vast majority of social-movement groups operating nationally (Edwards et al 1996, 43). They also argue Putnams term "networks of civic engagement" glosses over the real conflicts among groups in civil society. These conflicts, in the absence of specifically political settlements, may spill over into civil disruption and violence (Edwards et al 1996, 40). They believe that to understand polity, it is imperative to understa nd the political settle ments that ground it, and what effects these settlements have on so cial forces and civil society, which Putnam does not. In short, the authors argument s "suggest the problematic character of both Putnam's definition of civil society and the la rger civil society argum ent itself (Edwards et al 1996). Putnam contradicts himself when calling fo r more social capitalists and his desire for togetherness, but also calls for the competitiveness that capitalism forces on its adherents (Navarro 2002, 427). Putnams argum ent is also lacking an explanation of the

PAGE 39

30 purpose of togetherness and participation. Is the organization, participation, and togetherness of members of a New York City gang, who do everything to keep each other within the gang milieu, the same as the organization, participation, and togetherness of a neighborhood civic association? Obviously not but these are two forms of social capital according to Putnams definition (Navarro 2002, Sorensen and Svendsen 2006). The shear breadth of the concept of social capital makes it difficult to identify what Putnam is ultimately striving for. It appears that he is advocating for healthy people and communities, authentic democracy, and economic success, but Putnams definition of the term only sometimes contributes to these br oad goals (Kulynych and Smith 2002). Civic engagement has actually seen an increase in the twentieth century, unlike what Putnam claims, with civic engagement increasing even today. Therefore, w hy is there a concern of the decline of social capital and civic engagement? Rebuttals As seen, there are many critiques of New Ur banism and social capital. In light of these critiques, New Urbanism remains a popular and sought after tool to create walkable and successful communities that promote co mmunity-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, community activities, and a long term sense of belonging. The clai m that New Urbanism communities tend to cater to the upper-middle class seems to be based on early suburban projects which were targeted at a more affluent ma rket. What the critics do not seem to consider are the other types of New Urbanist devel opment that directly responds to the issue of affordable housing. There are multiple urban infill projec ts and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments Hope VI program explicitly uses new Urbanist principles to

PAGE 40

31 weave public housing into i nner-city neighborhoods without the stigmatizing design features that have characterized such hous ing for half a century (Ellis 2002, 279). New Urbanism advocates have rebutted the claim that New Urbanism creates communities based on a false nostalgia and utopian ideals, wanting to return to a romanticized small-town life by stating th at the principles of New Urbanism are applicable at all scales. New Urbanism advocates believe that urban neighborhoods are just as important as the small town model. New Urbanists do not use the term nostalgia to describe what they are trying to ac hieve by incorporating traditional neighborhood elements, but instead have a respect for th ese traditional neighbor hoods and civic life. New Urbanism follows, but modernizes selecte d historical patterns that are consistent with life in the world today (Ellis 2002, 268) In many cases, the critical response to New Urbanism is weakened by the critics fa ilure to suggest an applicable alternative (Ellis 2002). The studies done by Hollie Lund and Kevin Leyden (Lund 2002, Leyden 2003) provide a clear illustration of the role walkable neighborhoods play in creating neighborhoods that facilitate a long term sens e of community and high levels of social capital. These studies represent the fact that there is a direct link between the design of a New Urban neighborhood and soci al behavior. New Urbani sts do not claim to build community, rather they equip a neighborhood wi th the tools it needs to create community and hope residents fulfill this goal. In res ponse to the claim that the architecture in New Urbanism communities denies historical change and individual inspiration, New Urbanists have reminded critic s that traditional local vernaculars are drawn upon in hopes of creating an authentic, not manufacture d sense of place and belonging. Also, New

PAGE 41

32 Urbanism believes that the buildings with in a neighborhood are not the most important feature; it is the ensemble of streets, lots, and buildings and the way they fit together. New Urbanism does not hold a par ticular style of architecture, rather it can make use of all types of architectural styles, ba sed on the context (Ellis 2000). Critics question whether people want to shop at small, local stores rather than malls, big box retailers, and other large-scale clusters. The study done by Vikas Mehta in the Boston metropolitan area directly confirms that people do enjoy shopping at small local stores as opposed to large, national ch ain stores. In his work, he found that the liveliest settings on the street had a very high number of stor es that were one-of-a-kind. Most were independently owne d but a few were local sma ll chain stores (Mehta 2009, 53). The goods and services sold at these stor es were mainly for daily use, not specialty items, but the goods and services were provi ded in a way that was special to that particular store. The results of user in terviews show that people preferred small independently owned and operated businesses, not only for the quality and variety of goods and services and friendly staff but also for their uniqueness and character and the overall ambience they created (Mehta 2009, 53) Many people found that these smaller businesses were friendlier and treated the bus iness property with mo re care and personal attention. This, according to respondents, cr eated a street environment that was more interesting and attractive and encourag ed lingering and meeting people. The claim that New Urbanism ignores th e social and economic realities of the present time seems to be a caricature. New Urbanists are very aware of the connection between urban design and demographic, economic and technological changes, as well as global restructuring, social transformations, and the dynamics of the land development

PAGE 42

33 process under late capitalism (Ellis 2002, 268) While New Urbanists are aware of the changes taking place, they are not in a posit ion to change those structural variables single-handedly. New Urbanist s can simply understand context and design accordingly (Ellis 2002). Critics ask why traditional neighb orhood developments have not been developed more if they provide such beneficial outcomes. They go on to argue that New Urban communities have not been in demand since World War II, because if they had, developers would have certainly built these types of communities. What critics fail to address is that the ubiqui tous, conventional suburban subdivision has been heavily subsidized by the U.S. government since World War II, marketed as a symbol of social status, and endorsed as the only modern alternative by profe ssional land planners, transportation planners, and de velopers (Ellis 2002, 270). On the other hand, the supply of New Urbanist developments has been restricted due to developers unfamiliarity with traditional neighborhood development, obstruc tive zoning codes, and conservatism of financial institutions (Ellis 2002). After Putnams 1995 article, Bowling Alone: Americas Declining Social Capital was heavily criticized, he wrote a rebuttal in the fo rm of his 2000 book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community In this book, Putnam explains that the present decline in civic engagement is not representative of the entire twentieth century. Rather, in the first two-thirds of the century civic engagement seemed to increase, but stagnated and dec lined in the last third. The decline began in the 1960s and accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s. There has be en evidence of certain forms of civic engagement increasing, such as workplace so cializing, participation in self-help and

PAGE 43

34 support groups, participation in protest dem onstrations, and volunteering. The increases seen, however, are generally forms of participation that do not promote face-to-face connections among people. The increases in ac tivities that do promote these types of connections among people are too small to offset the large-scale decline in civic engagement throughout American society (Putnam 2000). The overall decline in civic engagement can be seen in nearly all social and demographic groups in the United States. There is evidence of this decline among women and men, different racial groups, religions, political parties, social classes, household types, occupational categories, all regions of the country, and in cities and towns of all sizes. Specific generations, however, have seen a difference in decline of civic engagement. It appear s that the younger generations, sp ecifically those born after 1945 are much less likely to be civically i nvolved than those born before 1945. About half of the decline in civic engagement has come about because those born before 1945 are passing away and are being replaced by th e less civically engaged generations born after 1945 (Putnam 2000). Putnam documents the ways in which cities with higher levels of civic engagement differ from cities with lower leve ls. One difference is th at areas with higher levels of civic engagement al so have higher levels of child welfare, better schools, less crime, healthier people, and better func tioning democratic institutions (Putnam 2000). While the criticisms of New Urbanism and social capital create a convincing argument, I believe that these concepts ar e still viable and theoretically sound. The principles of the New Urbanism movement and the concept of social capital are still valuable to this research and provide im portant devices to potentially confirm my

PAGE 44

35 hypothesis that New Urbanism can create wa lkable and successful communities that promote community-making with urban patt erns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, community act ivities, and a long term sense of belonging. Furthermore, by incorporating the design principles of New Urbanism into new developments, communities can be successf ul, have a high level of social capital, and allow residents to experi ence a sense of community.

PAGE 45

36 Chapter Five: Atlantic Station The following two chapters provide a l ook at three case studies of neighborhoods developed according to New Urbanist planning and design principles: a large scale development in Atlanta, Georgia, Atlantic Station, with approximately 3,500 residents; a moderate scale development in Tampa, Florid a, West Park Village, with approximately 2,000 residents; and a small scale development in Fernandina Beach, Florida, Amelia Park, with approximately 700 residents. These three case studies provide examples of the integration of the design prin ciples of New Urbanism. The main contribution to this research is the study Atlantic Station in Atlanta, GA, but two other New Urbanist developmen ts were observed to further explore how New Urbanist developments function. At each of these sites, observations were made of the ways in which the design of the development has fostered community and created walkable and livable neighborhoods. At Atlantic Station quantit ative research and developer and resident interviews were perf ormed to gain further insight into how the neighborhood functions. Background on each case study is provided, as well as methods of research used, followed by the results of this research. These case studies are not equivalent or meant to be compared. Background Atlantic Station, in Atlanta, Georgia, is a leading exampl e of a brownfield redevelopment that has utilized the principles of traditional neighborhood

PAGE 46

developments to create what appears to be a vibrant mixed-use community. Atlantic Station was chosen as the subject of this re search because it has been under development for almost ten years and has reached a level of maturity that can cr eate viable and valid research evidence. The land on which Atlantic Station is situated was once the 138-acre Atlantic Steel Mill, but is now the largest urban brownfield redevelopment in the United States and serves as a national model for New Urbanism (Atlantic Station website). Please see Figure 2 for a photograph of Atlantic Steel Mill. Figure 2. Atlantic Steel Mill http://www.epa.gov/region4/opm/nepa/atlanticsteel.html The Jacoby Group initiated plans to redeve lop the site in 1997. The property was under contract in 1997 and bought on the last day of 1999 by the Jacoby Group. It took a year to deconstruct the buildings and the following year was spent on remediating the land in conjunction with the Environmental Pr otection Agency (EPA). Infrastructure development began the next year. The Jacoby Group was founded by Jim Jacoby in 1975 37

PAGE 47

38 and focuses mainly on mixed-use developments, geocommunities, and greenspace preservation as well as ventures in health care research, environm ental and alternative waste-to-energy technology, and new educational tools. Asid e from Atlantic Station, the Jacoby Group has also developed Kona Kai Ol a on the Kona side of the Big Island in Hawaii, is currently revitalizing Marinela nd near St. Augustine, FL, and plans to redevelop Hapeville Assembly Plant into the mixed-use development Aerotropolis in Hapeville, GA (Jacoby Group website). The goal of the developer when developing Atlantic Station was to recapture about 138 acres that had long b een in industrial use in the heart of Atlanta. [T]o create a place that create s jobs, opportunities for people to live in a sustainable master plan that allows them to not use their car nearly as much as youd have toanywhere else in Atlant a and to have a sustainable community (Jacoby Group interview). Atlantic Station is curre ntly owned by AIG Global Real Estate Investment Corporation, a subsidiary of AIG Investments. Currently, forty to forty-five percent of the master plan has been constructed. Once the project is complete, $2 billion in new construction will be represented in three areas : 1) The District, 2) The Commons, and 3) The Village. These areas combined will provide: Six million square feet of class A office space 3,000 5,000 residential units (for-sale and for-rent) Two million square feet of retail and en tertainment space, including restaurants and a movie theatre 1,000 hotel rooms

PAGE 48

11 acres of public park s (Atlantic Station 2008) The District serves as the town cente r with retail, office space, restaurants, entertainment venues, green space, and reside ntial units (loft apar tments above retail, single family detached homes, townhomes, and a new high-rise condo building opening in late 2009). There is metered street parking as well as an underground parking garage. See Figure 3 for a photograph of The District and Table 1 for a list of retailers, entertainment venues, restaurants and services within The District. Figure 3. The District 39

PAGE 49

40 Table 1. Retailers, Entertainment, Restaurant s, and Services within The District Retailers Entertainment Restaurants Services American Eagle Outfitters Bodies* Atlantic Grill 19th Street Dental Ann Taylor Cirque du Soleil* Boneheads Allstate Insurance Ann Taylor Loft Dialog in the Dark* California Pizza Kitchen ASAP+ Commuter Caf AT&T Regal Cinemas 16 Cold Stone Creamery Atlanta Police Department Banana Republic Ten Pin Alley Copeland's Cheesecake Atlantic Station Management Office Bath & Body Works Doc Green's Gourmet Salads Eye Gallery Chaplin's Dolce Enoteca FIO 360 Daycare and Boutique City Sports FOX Sports Grill nani AVEDA Salon & Spa Dillards Geisha House Piedmont Physicians Group DSW Shoes Kilwin's Chocolate & Ice Cream Smart Was Eco Auto Spa Express Lobby at TWELVE Twelve Hotel & Residences Gap Moe's Southwest Grill Wachovia Guess? PJ's Coffee and Lounge H&M Rosa Mexicana Jos. A Bank Clothiers Starbucks Journeys Strip Steaks & Sushi Kay Jewelers Subway K-La Ten Pin Alley nani Sensorium The Grape Nine West Tin Drum Asia Caf Old Navy Pier 1 Imports Publix Target Taste Clothing Boutique The Body Shop Victoria's Secret West Elm White House/Black Market Z Gallerie denotes entertainment within The District during the observation period Atlantic Station website

PAGE 50

The Commons is the residential hub of th e development. It includes residential units that encircle a two-acre lake and a large greenspace with an amphitheatre design to accommodate small outdoor events. The area also contains preserved structures from the former Atlantic Steel Mill (steel presses, a 60-foot smoke stack, etc.) to provide historic reminders. Please see Figure 4 for a picture of The Commons. Figure 4. The Commons The Village includes apartments and lo fts, occupied by residents with mixed incomes and ages, and an IKEA store. Please see Figure 5 for a photograph of The Village. Figure 5. The Village 41

PAGE 51

Atlantic Station is well connected to surrounding nei ghborhoods and the 17th Street Bridge has been added to increase connectivity in Midtown Atlanta (Atlantic Station 1-3). See Figures 68 below to clarify location of Atlantic Station, property layout, residential property at Atlantic Station. Figure 6. Atlantic Station Location Map Atlantic Station http://www.intownelite.com/Atlantic_Station_Condos/page_2134583.html Figure 7. Atlantic Station Property Map 17thStree t http://www.atlanticstation.com/site.php 42

PAGE 52

Figure 8. Atlantic Statio n Residential Property http://www.atlanticstation.com/live.php This research uses qualitative and quantita tive data to determine Atlantic Stations success as a New Urbanist development. Th e indicators of success used include crime rate data, transportation statistics, level of satisfaction of developer, and level of satisfaction of residents. Crime rate was chosen because the literature shows that New Urbanism communities foster a sense of community and social capital which increases social trust among neighbors (Talen 2000, Rohe et al 1998) and these communities also have vibrant, interesting street s (Jacobs 1961). As Jane Jacobs states and is true in New Urbanism communities, a street that is equi pped to handle strangers, has a clear boundary between the private and public realm, has ma ny eyes upon the street, and is used fairly constantly tends to be safer (Jacobs 1961). Transportation statistics were chosen as an indicator of success because, again, as shown in the literature New Urbanism aims to 43

PAGE 53

44 create communities in which you can live, wor k, shop, and play in the same place. These walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods tend to reduce the dependence on vehicles (Appleyard et al 1987). Sp ecific transportation indicator s are listed in the methodology section. Interviews with the Jacoby Group a nd Atlantic Station residents were conducted to understand the motivation behind the develo pment of Atlantic Station, as well as how this idea has translated into real-life living. Before interviews were performed, a day and a half was spent in Atlantic Station to cr eate unbiased impressions and observations. After the interviews, first impressions were compared with the impressions given by the development group and different residents. Observations were used to understand whether the design principles laid out in the literature on New Urbanism have been utilized in the development of Atlantic Station. Visual images were used to allow the reader a first-hand look at the design and layout of Atlantic Station. There are currently 3,500 people living at Atlantic Station, about 5,000 people working at Atlantic Station, and about 100,000 people visiting Atlantic Station every week. No study has been performed on Atlantic Station concerning th e social success of the development. Brownfields Brownfields, according to the Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA), are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant (EPA website). Brownfield redevelopment provides many benefits to the specific city, county, state, and environment where the brownfield pr oject is located. A mo st obvious benefit is the remediation of a polluted site which improves the surrounding environment and

PAGE 54

45 groundwater in some cases. Most brownfields ar e located in or near the city center, so the redevelopment of these properties can at tract urban infill by improved aesthetics, proximity to jobs, access to cultural activities, and tax incentives. With concerns about urban sprawl rising in many citi es, their central locations provide an attractive alternative to suburban and ex-urban development in outlying areas, thus decreasing the demand for greenspace development. Brownfields are of ten large parcels of land situated near existing infrastructure and tran sportation routes so on the ne ed for public investment for the project is decreased as opposed to a gr eenfield development (PolicyLink website). Many times jobs are created on the brownfield si te for which there is a large labor pool in the surrounding areas. With a successful redevelopment project, the market value of surrounding areas usually increases, especially if the areas are low-income. If the residents of the surrounding communities c hoose to not stay in the neighborhood, they are often willing to sell their property on the open market and see a hi gher return than if the redevelopment had not taken place (Duany et al 2000). Methodology Quantitative research methods were used along with qualitative research methods (semi-structured interviews, observations and visual images) to unders tand the success of Atlantic Station. Following is a breakdow n of each indicator of success including methods for obtaining data and what is deemed successful. Indicator of success: Crime Rate Data from the Atlanta Police Department were used to determine whether the crime rate in the areas surrounding Atlantic Station and within Atlantic Station have

PAGE 55

46 changed from 2001 to 2008 as compared to c ity-wide data. Data from the month of January from each year was used. January wa s chosen at random. If crime rate has decreased as compared to city -wide data, it will be deem ed successful. Surrounding area is defined as Zone 5. The Atlanta Police Depa rtment has divided the city into six crime zones and Atlantic Station is located at the northwest corner of Zone 5 (see Figure 1 in Chapter 1). Crimes within Atlantic Station were also analyzed from December 14, 2008 to February 7, 2009 to determine types of cr imes typically occurring. This two month time span was chosen to illustrate the types of crimes occurring in Atlantic Station using the most recent crime data available. The cr ime rate and types of crimes are compared to Atlanta-wide data also gathered from the Atlanta Police Department from the month of January from 2001 to 2008. One limitation to this indicator is that before Atlantic Station was built, the land was unoccupied, which would lead to a decr eased crime rate on the site. One would expect an increase in crimes when Atlantic Station had retailers and residents in it, especially larceny, residentia l burglary, and non-residential bu rglary, because there is a new set of opportunities for crimes. In 2001 the land Atlantic Station now sits on was still undergoing remediation, so 2001 s crime statistics will sh ow a crime rate before the development of Atlantic Station, whic h will resolve this dilemma. Transportation Transportation issues in Atlantic Stati on were analyzed, including trip generation on the site, alternative trans portation offered, and access to pu blic transportation. Data were gathered from Atlantic Station, LLC through annual studies the group has conducted since 2001 called Project XL, a collabo rative study with the EPA, as well as

PAGE 56

47 the Atlantic Station Access and Mobility Program (ASAP+), a volunt ary travel options program serving Atlantic Station. The 2008 Project XL Report includes transportation data from a series of four surveys, endi ng in October 2008, conducted to assess the sites conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Transportation Control Measure (TCM). In February 2009, the data were compiled to create th e Atlantic Station Monitoring and Evaluation Update Annual Assessment. Five specific performance measures are evaluated: average daily vehicle miles tr aveled (VMT) per resident; average daily VMT per employee working at the site; the percent of all combined trips made to, from, and on the site by residents and employees in modes other than single occupancy vehicles (SOV); origin and destination data for trips ma de to, from, and on the site by residents and employees; and, average daily travel to, from, and on the si te, other than by transit for all purposes combined, including retail trips. The study also compares the spec ific Atlantic Station transpor tation data to regional data. ASAP+ serves as Atlantic Station s Transportation Management Association (TMA) and encourages residence trip reduction a nd travel mode alternatives to SOV use. The program integrates parking strategi es, transportation in formation, dedicated storefront space, individualized commuter consultations, incentives and promotional strategies to maximize the number of resident s who live, work, and play onsite (Project XL 2009). Specific programs studied in the 2008 Project XL Report include:

PAGE 57

48 Log Your Commute: the ASAP+ website allows resident commuters to log how they got to work each day in hope of winning a prize; Walk Challenge: residents wore a pedome ter and log the number of steps they to each day to win prizes, in cluding a weekend getaway; Ridematching: ridematching applications through ASAP+ help employees form carpools and vanpools; Outreach events; ASAP+ website; Commuter Caf: a place where employees, residents, and visitors can discover transportation options; Bike Share: currently two bike shar e programs through Carter Management and IKEA which allows members to enjoy free, convenient access to bicycles for use in and around Atlantic Station; Bike Valet: free valet service for bikes, in conjunction with Atlanta Bicycle Campaign; Environmental Impact; and, Atlantic Station Free Shuttle: free sh uttle service between the MARTA Arts Center Station and the community with multiple vehicles. There is also an express shuttle from the Wachovia Building to the MARTA Arts Center Station. The shuttle is in place due to an EPA requirement through the collaborative annual report, Project XL (Project XL 2009). Success could be looked at in two wa ys regarding trip generation on site specifically: 1) success could mean less trip generation due to residents shopping and

PAGE 58

49 working on site, or 2) success could mean increased trip generation due to visiting consumers. This difference in success could lead to skewed quantitative data in terms of trip generation. In order to resolve this dile mma, it will be considered a success if daily miles traveled by residents and employees of A tlantic Station is less than compared to regional data. Access and sustained use of a lternative modes of transportation and public transportation will be deemed a success. Level of Satisfaction of the Developer, The Jacoby Group An in-person interview was conducted w ith a member of the Jacoby Group to gain an understanding of Atlant ic Stations development, a nd of the major objectives of the development group during the planning stages. The interview was tape recorded and tr anscribed by hand. The interview tape was reviewed on the same day the interview was performed and transcribed soon after. While interviewing the member of the Jacoby Gr oup, it was important for me to keep in mind positionality and reflexivity. This interview faced an inequality of positions between myself and the respondent because he wa s a partner in the development and had experienced Atlantic Station from the concep tual stage, whereas I had only read about, researched, and experienced A tlantic Station for a brief time in comparison. For this reason, it was important for me to put myself on the same causal plane as a major player of Atlantic Station. I was very transparen t with the respondent and offered to share a copy of the transcript from our interview before submitting my final thesis. As expected the member of the Jacoby Group expressed many positive opinions about Atlantic Station, but I was able to ask enough probing questions to uncover disappointments with the project. Probes used duri ng the development group interview included silent probes,

PAGE 59

50 ah ha probes, echo probes, and tell me more probes. I tried to facilitate a candid discussion by creating a relaxed atmosphe re. I believe I accomplished this by communicating my interests in this research along with experience and education I have had in this field. Below are interview questi ons for the Jacoby Group: 1. What were the objectives of Jacoby when planning and developing Atlantic Station? 2. Is it exciting to live in Atlantic Station? 3. Do you feel like Atlantic Station provides an enhanced quality of life for residents as opposed to other neighborhoods in Atlanta? 4. What types of community groups are available for residents? 5. How does Atlantic Station inter act with surrounding neighborhoods? 6. Were there objectives to facilitate civic success (i.e. community groups, community events, neighboring)? 7. What types of unexpected surprises have you encountered? Unexpected difficulties? 8. What would you do differently if you we re beginning Atlantic Station planning today? Level of Satisfaction of Atlantic Station Residents Residents from Atlantic St ation were also interviewed in person. The Atlantic Station Civic Association (ASCA) served as my main contact to access resident respondents. Resident interv iewed were tape recorded and as with the Jacoby Group interview, recordings were listened to the same day as the interview and transcribed by hand within the next few days. As with the respondent from the Jacoby Group reflexivity and positionality played an important role in these four interviews. Again, it was

PAGE 60

51 important to be transparent with respondents a nd offer transcriptions of interviews before the submission of my thesis. I also gave a brief description of my intentions and background on my research. I offered anonymity to each respondent to make the respondent more comfortable. I received a few frank responses to interview questions and in these cases I probed the respondent to understand why he or she felt so strongly. Probes I used included silent probes, ah ha probes, echo probes, and tell me more probes. I tried to be a relaxed and unse lfconscious interviewer and personalize the discussion by telling the re spondent about my experience with traditional neighborhood developments and other topics. As shown in the literature, aggressive interviewers tend to elicit more information, so I believe I did my best to be sure to get answers to all of the questions asked. Semi-structured interviews we re utilized with all residents. Questions for resident interviews follow below. Below are questions for Atla ntic Station residents: 1. How long have you lived in Atlantic Station? 2. Do you feel you have access to needs of daily living (groceri es, supplies, etc)? 3. Do you commute to work? How many miles away? If not, do you work at home or onsite? 4. Do you shop in Atlantic Station regula rly? Do you walk to the stores? 5. How often do you walk for a purpose (to the store, etc)? 6. Do you feel safe walking in terms of crime and traffic? 7. Are you involved in any Atlantic Station community groups? Which ones? Which ones are you not a part of and why? 8. Do you feel a sense of belonging in your neighborhood and community?

PAGE 61

52 9. Have you made trusting relationships with your neighbors (i.e. are you comfortable calling them if there is an emergency, are you comfortable borrowing and lending items)? 10. Do you have children who live with you on the site? If so, are they involved in any onsite groups? 11. Do you feel like Atlantic Station provides an enhanced quality of life as opposed to other parts of Atlanta? 12. What unexpected surprises have you encountered while living in Atlantic Station? Unexpected difficulties? 13. What things would you change about Atlantic Station if you could? 14. Is it exciting to live at Atlantic Station? Observations Observations are used to determine whet her design principles of New Urbanism have been incorporated into the developmen t of Atlantic Station. Other observations were made on a Saturday to understand how lively the development is and if people (residents and strangers) ar e utilizing what Atlantic Station ha s to offer. I was sure to be aware of positionality. Reflexivity was a major consideration; I was as objective in my observations as I could be. I tried not to br ing my own assumptions and beliefs into my observations, and I believe I was successful. I used field notes for my observations. After completing my observations, I made notes on my field observations and then wrote my personal feelings about what was uncovered in the observations. In order to provide a systematic approach to discussing the obser vation findings, I used the design principles of New Urbanism as laid out in Chapter 3 as a guide. Visual Images

PAGE 62

53 Visual images are also used in the form of pictures to illustrate the physical characteristics of Atlantic Station. The ma jority of the photographs are used as a supplemental tool to allow the reader to visu alize the design and layout of the property. Photographs were taken in the re sidential areas, open areas, and retail areas. This allows the reader to see naturally occurring images and make their own assumptions about the landscape. Data Analysis, Categories, and Codes Three major themes exist throughout the re search: 1) social success, 2) economic success, 3) physical success, with social success being of the most importance in this study. Social success is defined as whether a sense of community has been created among residents and throughout Atlantic Station. Social success, as se en in the literature, is a fundamental goal of New Urbanism. Soci al success includes whether residents have a sense of community, walkability of the ne ighborhood, safety, access to needs of daily living, and how exciting the development is to be in. Economic success is a factor because the development is mixed-use, as traditional neighborhoods are designed to be, so there should be signs that people ar e living in the development and people are shopping and playing (residents and strangers) in the development. Physical success is directly paralleled with the literature. If the development is a successful New Urbanism community, one should see many of the design principles utilized in the layout. Results Following are the results from both quant itative and qualitative research to explore the safety and reside nt and employee vehicle depend ence of Atlantic Station as well as explore the design of Atlantic Stati on to understand how the design principles of

PAGE 63

54 New Urbanism have been incorporated. The results are provided for each separate indicator of success. Crime Rate Crime rates in the greater Atlanta area seemed to have generally decreased between the years of 2004 and 2007, but 2008 show s an increase in all crimes except homicide and rape. Larceny is, by far, the most prevalent crime in the city, with auto theft coming in at a distant second. Reside ntial burglary, aggravat ed assault, robbery, and non-residential burglary are fairly ubiqu itous crimes in the city. Rapes and homicides are the least common crimes seen. Table 2 and Figure 9 illustrate the number and types of crimes committed in January from 2001 to 2008 city-wide (Atlanta Police Department website). Table 2. Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Atlanta, GA Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Atlanta, GA Year Homicide Rape Robbery Agg. Assault Res. Burglary Non-Res. Burglary Larceny Auto Theft 2001 24 27 345 462 465 226 2084 587 2002 9 20 351 454 504 279 2309 646 2003 9 17 368 328 529 257 1961 647 2004 5 16 250 314 438 171 1958 562 2005 2 13 244 323 384 130 1526 434 2006 6 15 252 321 421 121 1573 445 2007 6 10 270 280 482 111 1564 481 2008 5 9 288 303 595 146 1904 530 Atlanta Police Department

PAGE 64

Figure 9 Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Atlanta, GA Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Atlanta, GA0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500Ho mi c i de Rap e R o bb e r y A g g. A ssau l t R e s. B urglary Non-Res. Burgl a r y L a r c en y Auto TheftCrimeNumber of times crime occurred 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Crime rates have generally decreased between the years of 2001 and 2008 in Crime Zone 5. Larceny is historically the most prevalent crime, with auto theft a distant second, both of which have decreased since 2001. Very few rapes and homicides have occurred in Zone 5 and these incidents are occurring less over time. Robbery, aggravated assault, and residential and non -residential burglary are all totaling an average of forty to forty-five incidents per year with general d ecreases over time. Overall, these statistics are similar to what the greater Atlanta area is witnessing. Table 3 and Figure 10 illustrate the crime statistics from Zone 5 from January 2001 to January 2008 (Atlanta Police Department website). 55

PAGE 65

Table 3. Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Zone 5, Atlanta, GA Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Zone 5, Atlanta, GA Year Homicide Rape Robbery Agg. Assault Res. Burglary Non-Res. Burglary Larceny Auto Theft 2001 2 2 68 52 44 49 613 124 2002 1 2 78 64 42 58 740 159 2003 1 3 61 46 42 54 590 135 2004 2 4 49 52 33 35 590 129 2005 0 1 50 42 20 35 505 96 2006 1 2 38 41 26 15 609 99 2007 0 1 51 33 26 14 522 75 2008 1 2 50 28 51 25 518 64 Atlanta Police Department Figure 10. Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Zone 5, Atlanta, GA Crimes in January from 2001 to 2008 in Zone 5, Atlanta, GA0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Hom i cide Rape Robber y A gg. A ss aul t Res B urglary Non-Res. Burglary L a r ceny A uto TheftCrimeNumber of times crime occurred 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Comparing city-wide crime data to Zone 5 crime data, similar trends are apparent. To demonstrate how Zone 5 is contributing to overall crime in Atlanta, Table 4 below shows at what percentage Zone 5 is contributi ng to each particular type of crime. Data from January 2008 was selected to show the most recent trends. If the percentage that Zone 5 is contributi ng to the overall crimes in Atla nta is over 16.3%, the Zone 5 is accounting for more than its equal share st ate-wide. This number was found because Atlanta is divided into six zones, each of which should account for 16.3% of crimes to 56

PAGE 66

57 equal 100% for the city. The data show that Zone 5 is contributing more crimes than its share except for aggravated assault, residentia l burglary, and auto th eft. See Table 4. Table 4 Percentage Zone 5 is Contributing to Crimes in Atlanta in January 2008 Percentage Zone 5 is Contributing to Crimes in Atlanta in January 2008 Crime Zone 5 City-wide % Zone 5 is contributing Homicide 1 5 20.0% Rape 2 9 22.2% Robbery 50 288 17.4% Agg. Assault 28 303 9.2% Res. Burglary 51 595 8.6% Non-Res. Burglary 25 146 17.1% Larceny 518 1904 27.2% Auto Theft 64 530 12.1% Atlanta Police Department Comparing the rate of change in crime from 2001 and 2008 of Atlanta-wide and Zone 5 data show mixed results. Looki ng at Atlanta-wide data, homicide and rape decreased more as compared to Zone 5. All other crimes decreased more in Zone 5. The only crime that showed significant decrease as co mpared to city-wide data is auto theft. All other crimes do not show a significant di fference. The only crime that did not experience a decrease from 2001 to 2008 is residential burglary. Residential burglary saw an increase in both Atlanta (30% increas e) and Zone 5 of Atlanta (16% increase). A negative percentage shows a decrease in that specific crime over time. Table 5. Rate of Change in Crime Between 2001 and 2008 Rate of Change in Crime Between 2001 and 2008 Crime Atlanta Zone 5 Homicide -79.2% -50.0% Rape -66.7% 0.0% Robbery -16.5% -26.5% Agg. Assault -34.4% -46.2% Res. Burglary 30.0% 16.0% Non-Res. Burglary -35.4% -49.0% Larceny -9.6% -15.5% Auto Theft -9.7% -48.4% Atlanta Police Department

PAGE 67

More recent crime statistics (D ecember 14, 2008 through February 7, 2009) within Atlantic Station show that types and frequency of crimes are consistent with the greater Zone 5 area and Atlanta-wide crime da ta. Larceny is the most prevailing crime, with vehicle larceny next. There were tw o incidents of residential burglary and one incident of both auto theft and aggravated assault within the give n time range. Table 6 and Figure 11 illustrate these crime statis tics (Atlanta Police Department website). Table 6 Recent Crimes at Atlantic Station Recent Crimes at Atlantic Station Date Homicide Robbery Agg. Assault Res. Burglary Non-Res. Burglary Larceny Vehicle Larceny Auto Theft 12/14/08 12/27/08 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 12/28/08 1/10/09 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 1/11/09 1/24/09 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 1/25/09 2/7/09 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 Atlanta Police Department Figure 11 Recent Crimes at Atlantic Station Recent crimes at Atlantic Station0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8HomicideRobberyAgg. Assault Res. Burglary Non-Res. Burglary LarcenyVehicle Larceny Auto TheftCrimeNumber of times crime occurred 12/14/08-12/27/08 12/28/08-1/10/09 1/11/09-1/24/09 1/25/09-2/7/09 Transportation 58

PAGE 68

59 Using the transportation data from the 2008 Project XL Report, the five performance measures and the findings specific to Atlantic Station follow: Average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per resident of the site: 13.9 miles Average VMT per employee of the site: 11.8 miles Percentage of trips made to, from, and on the site by residents and employees by non-single occupancy vehicles (SOV) modes of travel: 51% Trip destinations: Trips Made to Site: 43% of all trips made to the site were made using non-SOV modes. Trips Made from Site: 60% of all trips made from the site were made using non-SOV modes. Trips Made Onsite: 76% of all trips within the site were made using nonSOV modes. Average daily travel to, from, and on th e site, other than by transit, for all purposes combined, including retail trips: 40, 858 (Project XL 2009). According to the 2007 regional data, which includes a 20-county modeling domain, the average individual travels 33.7 m iles per day. Employed individuals travel an average of 18.85 miles per da y and 39% of the trips made by individuals within the 20-county modeling domain are non-SOV trips (P roject XL 2009). Please see Table 7 for a summary of Atlantic Station resident and employee transportation data as compared to Atlanta resident and empl oyee transportation data.

PAGE 69

Table 7. Resident and Employee Transporta tion Data for Atlantic Station (AS) and Atlanta (ATL) 2008 Project XL AS/ATL VMT Miles per day AS Resident VMT 13.9 ATL Resident VMT 33.7 AS Employee VMT 11.8 ATL Employee VMT 18.85 AS/ATL non-SOV Percentage AS non-SOV 51% ATL non-SOV 39% As can be seen by the survey results, A tlantic Station residents and employees are traveling less than the average regional re sident and using nonSOV modes of travel more. According the 2008 Project XL Report, the site is currently exceeding the year-six performance targets for mode splits and daily VMT per resident and employees. Also, the Average Daily Total Vehicle Trips are well below the thre shold (Project XL 2009). It appears that Atlantic Stat ion has been successful at reducing commute times and increasing alternative modes of travel. Level of Satisfaction of D eveloper, The Jacoby Group One member of the development group was interviewed. The questions were mainly focused on the planning and design obj ectives of Atlantic Station, but also questions to understand the developers view of residential life at At lantic Station (the respondent was not a resident of Atlantic Station). The respondent was a white male in his thirties. He has been w ith the Jacoby Group since 1997. The main themes that came from this in terview were the walkability of Atlantic Station, events that take place within Atla ntic Station, and how the development group hopes the retail district will become more family-oriented. The respondent mentioned that walkability of Atlantic Station in the majo rity of his answers. He believes that this 60

PAGE 70

61 feature has contributed to th e success of the development. He states that because residents are less dependent on their cars and that many have a reduced commute time, it allows more time to be spent with family and friends and makes life in Atlantic Station more exciting. A major design principle of New Urbanism is to create a walkable community. As shown by the studies performed by Hollie Lund and Kevin Leyden, residents of a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood tend to have higher levels of social capital and a greater sense of community (Lund 2002). Thes e residents are also more likely to know their neighbors, partic ipate politically, trust others, a nd be socially engaged (Leyden 2003). In many of his answers, there was a me ntion of a certain event that has taken place (or was taking place at the time) in Atlant ic Station and of popular restaurants in the development. The respondent stated, [We] always have something going on. So right now we have Cirque de Soleil, and we have Taste of Atlanta, and we have a beach volleyball tournament, and well have a St. Pa tricks Day celebration The mention of events and restaurants seemed very intentiona l and he was sure to make me aware of the positive and exciting things happening at Atlan tic Station, much as I had expected. It was interesting to hear that all of the events he mentione d were planned as a city-wide event. There was no mention of Atlantic Station community-specific events. He never referenced Atlantic Sta tion as whole as a community, but did acknowledge the presence of the many subs et community groups within specific buildings, such as Homeowners Associations. He believes that community groups should be organic and resident controlle d. He stated during the interview,

PAGE 71

62 [Community groups are] not controlled by the developer and that s really what we want. The sooner that other people take ownership in the brand and address, the better the integrityand sustaina bility of that address. It has been surprising to the developmen t group that Atlantic Station has become a place for Atlantans to go walk or hang out , which is not great for business. Weekend nights (especially during the summe r) at Atlantic Station attract people who want to see and be seen, but these people are not the type of clientele desired by the developer it seems. The developer skirte d around this issue and did not provide any specific characteristics th at make this nightlife crowd undesi rable, but he did state, Ybor City is probably the closest thing to where youre at [Tampa, FL] and sometimes on the weekend its probably a place you dont want to be . My assumption is that this crowd is younger and more of a party crowd than the developer had hoped for. The nightlife scene has detracted from Atlantic Station being fa mily friendly. The group is making efforts to make the neighborhood more family friendly and its getting better each year as we kind of tweak whats going on. The group is hopeful that the success Atlant ic Station has alrea dy seen will allow the neighborhood to grow and evolve over the next ten to fifteen years. They are currently working to complete a residential high-rise building in Th e District and have further plans for construction to complete the master plan, which is roughly fifty percent built out currently. When this construction is complete, $2 billion in new construction will be represented in the thr ee areas of Atlantic Station. These areas combined will provide: Six million square feet of class A office space

PAGE 72

63 3,000 5,000 residential units (for-sale and for-rent) Two million square feet of retail and en tertainment space, including restaurants and a movie theatre 1,000 hotel rooms 11 acres of public park s (Atlantic Station 2008) Level of Satisfaction of Atlantic Station Residents Interview subjects were difficult to iden tify due to reasons beyond my control, but I was able to conduct four reside nt interviews. It is importa nt to note that the respondents were self-selected and half of them were board members of the Atlantic Station Civic Association (ASCA). Three respondents we re white males, and one respondent was a white female. The ages of the respondents rang ed from early thirties to mid-fifties, with the female respondent being the youngest. Three of the respondents were married, but only one had a child at the time. Three respondents own a condominium, each in a different building and one male respondent ow ns a townhome. Each respondent has lived in Atlantic Station for an average of three years. The major themes presented from the f our respondents were the walkability of Atlantic Station, the formation of trusting relationships with neighbors over time, the involvement with specific build ings Homeowner Associations and the need to create a more family-oriented retail district. Walkab ility of Atlantic Stat ion was a major theme throughout each interview. Each respondent viewed the walkability of the neighborhood as a very positive feature, and this feature seemed to create a greater sense of belonging among respondents. Each respondent walks for a purpose within Atlantic Station multiple times a week, usually to visit Pub lix or Target. Statements made by the

PAGE 73

64 respondents on the walkability of the neighbor hood include we never have to use our car, we can walk to shopping, and walk to th e gym, and walk to the grocery store, I think what sets Atlantic Sta tion apart is being able to get to everything by walking, whichif youre living in a city [is] what you re really looking for, and, being able to combine errands with walking is nice. As mentioned earlier, a major design prin ciple of New Urbanism is to create a walkable community. Residents of a walk able, mixed-use neighborhood tend to have higher levels of social capital and a greater sense of community (Lund 2002) and are also more likely to know their neighbors, participat e politically, trust othe rs, and be socially engaged (Leyden 2003). It seems as though each respondent has crea ted at least one trusting relationship in the neighborhood. Each trusting relationship has been made within th e residents specific buildings. The idea that residents are making trusting relatio nships in the building in which they live strays from what the specifi c literature on New Urba nism in this paper discusses, such as the article by Donald Appleyard and Allan Jacobs, but the same principle still applies. Appleyard and Jac obs claim that buildings built close together help to define a space (1987). These spaces ar e more likely to draw people to them and promote social interactions between neighbors (Appleyard et al 1987). These spaces in Atlantic Station happen to be present within each large resi dential building as opposed to among multiple single-family homes. It is important to note that New Urbanism is applicable at all scales, from highdensity neighborhoods in large cities to small communities in the countryside. An example of a high-density New Urban nei ghborhood in a large city is Duany Plater-

PAGE 74

Zyberk & Companys Liberty Harbor North pr oject in Jersey City, New Jersey. This development is designed to have sixteen to th irty-two story buildings that have densities ranging from 100 to 160 gross dwellings per acre and two light rail stations. These types of urban neighborhoods are just as important as the small to wn model, according to New Urbanist theory (Ellis 2002). New Urba nism has long since moved beyond its first Greenfield projects into a wide range of inner-city infill development at unmistakably high densities (Ellis 2002, 267). Atlantic Sta tion is an example of such a project. In short, there are many smaller communities w ithin one large commun ity, but residents are experiencing a sense of community just the same. Figure 12 shows low-rise condominium buildings as well as a high-rise condominium building under construction. Figure 12. Residential buildings This concept of having many small comm unities within one large community is also illustrated through the different Homeowners Associati ons (HOA) within Atlantic Station. Each respondent is involved in th eir buildings HOA, but ha lf were unaware of 65

PAGE 75

66 any other community groups with in Atlantic Station. The other half only knew of the Atlantic Station Civic Association. Through these interviews it is clear to s ee that residents are experiencing a sense of community and there is also a level of so cial capital present. Social capital is composed of civic engagement and trust. Civic engagement is the degree to which citizens participate in activitie s that affect the political de cision making process at all levels (Rohe et al 1998, 63). Individuals who have high levels of so cial capital tend to volunteer in their community, in teract with friends and neighbors more, and be involved politically (Rohe et al 1998). The four resi dents interviewed are a ll civically engaged in their HOA, all have made trusting relationshi ps with neighbors, and are a part of the political decision making process in their buildings. Two respondents are a part of the political decision making process in the entire neighborhood, by having leadership roles in the Atlantic Station Civic Association. The final theme presented in the four resident interviews was that Atlantic Station needed to create a more family-oriented retail district. The responde nts believe the retail district is detracting from allowing residents to feel a true sense of community and belonging. One respondent stated, [T]heyre just trying to get the retail area under control and make it more of a family area and not somewhere a bunch of people come to party and cruise and stuff like that, because that takes away from people wanting to be there all the time. Another respondent stated,

PAGE 76

67 [M]uch of the activity at Atlantic St ation comes from [outside of] Atlantic Station. People come in to do someth ing in that sense theres no sense of community at all. [W]ere living up ag ainst all this great stuff, but we dont interact with it any differently than the people that are coming in. The respondents believe that if the retail district hosted more family-oriented and cultural community events, that it would give resi dents a greater chance to get to know other residents from outside of their building and build a greater sense of community. While having a vibrant retail district like Atlantic Station does is part of the idea of being a traditional neighborhood, I th ink residents did not realiz e Atlantic Station would become such a hotspot in Atlanta. While the developer is surely please with the foot traffic in Atlantic Station, it seems resident s would prefer a more family friendly area as opposed to the club scene the retail di strict has seemingly become. Communication and community activities are facilitated by the creation of public spaces, such as parks, coffee shop, and other great good places, pr oviding activities for meeting and acting on common interests. Wh ile Atlantic Station seems to have the infrastructure to support the types of events residents are asking for, there are few community-specific events taking place. Observations Observations of the design of Atlantic Station revealed the inclusion of many of the design principles discussed in Chapter 3, as well as some major components missing. The design principles of New Urbanism as la id out in Chapter 3 serve as a guide to describe the property. The streets within At lantic Station provide a continuous sidewalk network. The streets within The District are traffic calmed with stop signs, but are not

PAGE 77

particularly narrow. This area is the most walkable in Atlantic Station. However, the street (17th Street) that runs through the middle of A tlantic Station is a major Atlanta road and does not feel particularly safe to walk on or cross. In order to reach the townhomes within The District, you must cross this busy road. In The Commons and The Village there is little on-street parking, and 17th Street is the main road to access these areas by walking. 16th Street, which is south of 17th Street, provides a mo re hospitable walking environment, but this street is also busy. Aside from retail section of The District, there are little to no design features (street trees on-street parking) th at serve as buffers between the pedestrian realm and motor vehicl es, leading to a blur red definition of the pedestrian right-of-way. Figur e 13 provides an illustration of the lack of any buffer on 17th Street. Figure 13. 17th Street 68

PAGE 78

The streets of Atlantic Station do ha ve a clear boundary between public and private space. In the residential areas, this is true because the apartment and condominium building all have gates off of the sidewalk in which you must have a key to enter. The retail area is entirely public, but the office building within this area has a security guard, which creates a privatized public space in which not everyone feels welcome. All building in Atlantic Stati on face the street whic h creates eyes on the street and the majority of the streets are used fairly continuously by strangers and residents alike. Atlantic Station does provide dense re sidential developmen t, but not in the traditional New Urban layout. The residential development is made up of multiple highrise condominiums, low-rise apartment build ings, attached townhomes, and very few single family homes. Traditional neighborhoo d developments are typically made up of many smaller buildings with compound arrang ements and relationships as opposed to a few large buildings. Atlantic Station is cer tainly made up of large buildings, with the exception of a handful of single-family homes and two rows of atta ched townhomes. Figure 14. Townhomes 69

PAGE 79

The buildings are built close toge ther and are close to the str eet which helps to define a space that facilitates social interaction between neighbors and others. In the case of the townhomes, there is an alley system that separates utility a nd garage access from sidewalks. The condominium and apartment bui ldings offer parking in a parking garage within the building. The few single-family hom es that exist within Atlantic Station are situated on the south boundary of the property and feel disconnected from the rest of the development. These homes do have an alley system, but there are no front porches which can lead to a disconnect between the public and private realms. Figure 15 illustrates the inclusion of apartment buildings (far right), low-rise condom inium buildings (left), and a high-rise condominium building. Figure 15. Dense residential development Atlantic Station has a mixed land use pl an in which people are able to conduct activities of daily livi ng without having to get into thei r car. There are many great good places including restaurants, a coffee shop, an d a bowling alley, but very few of these establishments are small, independently ow ned venues. The lack of independently owned venues could create a lacking interest ing and attractive street environment which encourages lingering and meeting people (Mehta 2009). It ap pears that these 70

PAGE 80

71 establishments are largely vi sited by non-residents, which could diminish the possibility of casual encounters between neighbors. Daily observations revealed that The District is a popul ar destination for Atlanta shoppers. The District offers mainly nationa l chain stores and functions as an outside mall. There is a very high retail occupancy le vel. There are less than five vacant retail spaces. During the week, even though it was chilly and cloudy outside, the retail area was relatively busy. People were shopping, going to movies, and eating at restaurants for lunch and dinner. There is a small greenspace in the center of The District which serves as Central Park. People use this space sparingly and it is quite small in comparison to the rest of the retail district. During the weekend, Saturday was extrem ely busy in the retail district. An unexpected number of peopl e were shopping, especially because it was overcast and drizzling that day. The Exhibition Center, which was hosting Dialogue in the Dark and Bodies, The Exhibit during th e observation period, was also extremely busy with a line forming outside of the entrance for most of the day. Around five oclock in the afternoon there was an obvious shift in clientele. People who had been shopping during the day began leaving the site and those coming to experience nightlife at Atlantic Station were starting to arrive. Weekend nightlife is also very busy. The restaurants were not completely full, but there were many people there. Many people were at the movies as well as a few bowling and having drinks at bars and restaurants. Figure 16 illustrated the walkability and foot traffic within The Dist rict. Please see Appendices B, C, and D for visual images of Atlantic Station.

PAGE 81

Figure 16. Saturday shoppers in The District 72

PAGE 82

73 Chapter Six: Amelia Park and West Park Village Methodology for Amelia Park and West Park Village Observations Observations are used to determine whet her design principles of New Urbanism have been incorporated into the development of Amelia Park and West Park Village. Other observations were made to understand ho w lively the development is and if people (residents and strangers) are utilizing the am enities Amelia Park and West Park Village has to offer. I was sure to be aware of positionality. Reflexivity was a major consideration; I was as objective in my observa tions as I could be. I tried not to bring my own assumptions and beliefs into my observati ons, and I believe I was successful. I used field notes for my observations. After comp leting my observations, I made notes on my field observations and then wrote my persona l feelings about what was uncovered in the observations. In order to provide a system atic approach to discussing the observation findings, I used the design principles of New Urbanism as laid out in Chapter 3 as a guide. Visual Images Visual images are also used in the form of pictures to illustrate the physical characteristics of Amelia Park and West Park Village. The majori ty of the photographs are used as a supplemental tool to allow the reader to visualize the design and layout of the property. Photographs were taken in the residential areas, open ar eas, and retail areas.

PAGE 83

74 This allows the reader to see naturally occu rring images and make their own assumptions about the landscape. Data Analysis, Categories, and Codes Three major themes exist throughout the re search: 1) social success, 2) economic success, 3) physical success, with social success being of the most importance in this study. Social success, as seen in the literat ure, is a fundamental goal of New Urbanism. Social success includes walkab ility of the neighborhood, safet y, access to needs of daily living, and how exciting the development is to be in. Economic success is a factor because the development is mixed-use, as traditional neighborhoods are designed to be, so there should be signs that people ar e living in the development and people are shopping and playing (residents and strangers) in the development. Physical success is directly paralleled with the literature in Ch apter 3. If the development is a successful New Urbanism community, one should see many of the design principles utilized in the layout. Amelia Park1 Background Amelia Park, located in the city of Fe rnandina Beach on Amelia Island, FL, is a 110-acre traditional neighborhood development. It was designed by town planners Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zybe rk and founded by HomeTown Neighborhoods 1 Joel Embry, the developer of Amelia Park, is my father and I have seen this development progress from the conceptual stages to where it is today. This f act presented many benefits: I am familiar with the development, I understand the motivation behind the development, I have a deep understanding of the goals of the developer, and I had easy access to data. Draw backs to using Amelia Park as a case study include a risk of lack of objectivity and favoritism. I have tried to overcome these drawbacks by using the same methods in my observations as in the other two case studies to produce fair and comparable results, being transparent with my father about negative results from my observation, and being as objective as possible. I believe I was able to be objective and keep my personal feelings out of my results and discussion.

PAGE 84

75 in 1998 (please see Table 2 for a complete timeline). It is permitted for 421 dwelling units in a variety of single-family and multi-fa mily styles. The Amelia Park master plan was constructed in ten construction units within two phases. These two phases are separated by Park Avenue, the central road within Amelia Park. The construction units were typically twenty to fort y dwelling units and were mixed to offer a diversity of living styles in each unit. Phase 1, Unit 2 was an exception with a con centration on the town square and town center uses. Phase 2, Unit 10 was an exception in its size, with approximately eighty dwelling units. The cost of the land and land development in Amelia Park was $14 million and homes a nd buildings cost a total of $70 million, totaling $84 million to date. Currently 320 ho mes exist within the development, with approximately 700 residents. There remain seventy residential lots to be constructed, as well as the majority of the town center. These areas will be developed when the adjoining 18 acres are deve loped, as shown in Table 8. The date of this continued development remains unknown (Embry interview). Table 8 Amelia Park Timeline Year Action 1992 Land acquisition, urban design ch arrette and regulatory approval (PUD) 1997 Master plan modification, PUD amendment and grounnd breaking for Unit 1 1998 Model homes open and marketing of single family homes and townhouses begins 2000 First Garden District lots constructed 2001-2002 Mixed-type phases 2003 Julie Sanford engaged as Town Architect 2006 Coastal District architectural charrette with Steve Mouzon and New Urban Guild 2007 Acquisition of adjoining 18.5 acres The Fernandina Beach Planning and Zoning Department was not seeking a plan for a mixed-use development at the time the proposed master plan for Amelia Park was submitted. The office was not well informed and was skeptical of the plan, but were

PAGE 85

76 accommodating with a basic education of the principles. Hometown Neighborhoods educated the planning office with a visu al preference comparison. A slideshow comparison of contemporary subdivisions in Fernandina Beach ve rsus the Fernandina Beach historic district was shown. The comparison of conditions underlying variances with the existing land development code were explained by example in the slideshow. Variances were achieved by comparing the propo sed plan of Amelia Park to the existing conditions in the historic distri ct in Fernandina Beach. The Amelia Park Town Center will accommodate 70,000 square feet of retail space with office, residential, and lodging permitted above. The McArthur Family YMCA, meeting facilities, Holy Trinity Anglican Church, and the Amelia Island Montessori School are located in the neighborhood. The town center currently hosts The Travel Agency, Serenity Hair Color & Design, and nine professional offices. Lakes, parks, and play fields are located thr oughout, including a unique Garden District providing pedestrian connectivity through natu ral garden walks. The Garden District provides neighborhoods of reside nces, which front a native landscape established before the development of Amelia Park. Garden District blocks were designed to take advantage of existing and mature landscape, preserving and enhanci ng the natural habitat and providing a pedestrian network that weav es its way through th e entire neighborhood. The Garden District includes homes fronting this landscape so that their architecture becomes part of the public realm (Amelia Park Brochure n.d.). Please see Appendix E for pictures of the Garden District. Amelia Park also has mail stations where residents retrieve their mail as opposed to having mail de livered to residence doors. This provides a place where neighbors can meet and experien ce the chance encounters Jane Jacobs

PAGE 86

77 speaks of (1961). All dwelling units lie within a 5-minute walk of Amelia Parks civic sites, retail stores, servic es and recreation facilities, giving residents pedestrian accessibility to all activities of daily living via the Garden District (Amelia Park Brochure n.d.). The objectives of Amelia Park, as laid out by the developer and president of HomeTown Neighborhoods, Joel Embry, were to create a neighborhood where residents could age in place, create a live-work-play neighborhood, offer price accessibility, offer superior value, and provide a model for a cohe rent local growth patte rn. Aging in place provides a community thats walkable, an in ter-generational mix of residents, in-home support and health care, accessible services within or near neighborhood, a continuum of housing types, and ease of c onnectivity with neighbors. Providing a live-work-play neighborhood includes creating a mix of residential, retail, office, and civic uses, advanced communications infrastructure, re gulatory approval of home businesses, a neighborhood work center, and support for teleco mmuters. In order for there to be price accessibility there is a mix of housing types a nd prices, a broad range of pricing options, mid-market pricing, and is competitive with conventional subdivisions. Superior value means that there is a superior urban environm ent within Amelia Park, there is consistent quality design and construction, and that ther e is a customer satisfaction goal of all creators. Finally, having Amelia Park sta nd as a model for a coherent local growth pattern it must reflect local historic ne ighborhoods, be a compact development, be walkable and mixed-use, have narrow, interconnected streets, and provide a neighborhood civic life (Amelia Park Objectives n.d.).

PAGE 87

The motivation of the developer to plan and develop Amelia Park was to build a product that satisfied the needs of residents at a higher level, to provide the opportunity of a higher quality of life, and to hopefully create an authentic sense of community. Another motivation of the deve loper was to increase the market share for Amelia Park versus the competitors conventional subdivi sions which were comparable to the six subdivisions the developer had develope d prior to undertaking a traditional neighborhood development (Embry interview). Amelia Park was chosen as a case stu dy for this research because it has been under construction for over ten years and has many residents, it is locate d in the center of Fernandina Beach, FL, and it is a traditi onal neighborhood development. Observations and visual images are used to understand and analyze whether Amelia Park has utilized the design principle of New Urbanism as laid out in the literature. Figure 17 Location of Amelia Park on Amelia Island, FL Amelia Par k http://www.visitameliapark.com/directions.shtml 78

PAGE 88

Figure 18. Amelia Park location in Fernandina Beach, FL 79 Amelia Par k Citrona Drive Park Ave. Provided by Joel Embry Figure 19. Amelia Park Master Plan Amelia Park Brochure

PAGE 89

Results Observations Observations of Amelia Park uncovered the utilization of many of the design principles discussed in Chapter 3, with the exception of one major component. The streets of Amelia Park provide a continuous sidewalk network. Every street is narrow and traffic calmed, mainly through the use of islands and curves. Every street includes street trees and on-street park ing, which serves as a buffer between the pedestrian realm and motor vehicles and provides a spatial definition to the pedestrian right-of-way. Figure 20. Traffic calming and buffers The streets have a clear boundary between pub lic and private space due to houses close to the street and the inclusion of front porches on the majority of homes. All buildings on the street face the street, which provides eyes on the street (Jacobs 1961). The streets are not used continuously as the majority of th e retail area, or town center, has not been developed and there are not a la rge number of residents as co mpared to the other two case studies observed. 80

PAGE 90

There is dense residential development with the inclusion of single-family homes, attached townhomes, live-work homes, and apar tments (many of the apartments have yet to be developed as they will be situated above retail locations). Buildings are placed so that they define public space between and ar ound them instead of si mply sitting in space and many smaller buildings with compound a rrangements and relationships exist as opposed to few large buildings. No buildi ng on the property exceeds two stories. All buildings within Amelia Park, including reta il buildings and reside ntial buildings, are built close together and close to the street to define a space that is more likely to draw people to them and promote social interactio ns between neighbors and others. There is a diversity of housing type throughout much of the development and all housing types are mixed, i.e. townhomes are adjacent to single-family homes. Figure 21. Single-family homes 81

PAGE 91

82 Figure 22. Townhome Throughout the development there are alleys to separate utility a nd garage access and all single-family homes have front porches with sidewalks close to facilitate connection between public and private realms. There ar e not many great good places as of today because the retail area has yet to be developed. It is the hope of the developer that one day such places will exist in Amelia Park (E mbry interview). There is a hair salon, but that is the extent of a pl ace that could be considered a great good place. Figure 23. Undeveloped retail area Amelia Park is planned with a mixed land use. As of now, residents are not able to conduct all activit ies of daily living with having to get into their car. Residents do have access to the McArthur Family YMCA, a place of worship, a salon, and a travel

PAGE 92

agency. There are plans for the Amelia Island Montessori School to be built in Amelia Park in the near future. Again, the retail di strict of Amelia Park is largely undeveloped, but the establishments that are there are all small, independently owned venues. One interesting difference between Amelia Park and Atlantic Station and West Park Village is the inclusion of the Garden District. This area provides a meandering walkway through a natural landscape with homes fronting the walkway. There are six blocks that make up the Garden District, tw o with larger two-stor y single-family homes, two with modest single-level cottages, and tw o with townhomes. Figure 24. Garden District Observations were made on a cool and overcast Tuesday at eleven oclock in the morning. My observations began at the YM CA where there were many people using the facility. Walking from the YMCA through the neighborhood it was very quiet. During my observations I saw four people walking, one person biking, and four people jogging. It may have been so quiet because it was a weekday or because Amelia Park has so few residents as compared to Atlantic Station a nd West Park Village. During a walk through one of the Garden Districts, a couple wa s having an early lunch on their porch and I stopped to talk with them. They were interested in what I was doing and what my 83

PAGE 93

84 research was about. In the retail district it wa s extremely quiet, due to the fact that there are so few establishments. The park in th e town center was empty except for the lawn maintenance crew that was doing work. There was a sign on the green that was promoting a jazz festival that had occurred th e weekend before on the green. Traffic was fairly quiet throughout the development except for Park Avenue, the main thoroughfare, which serves as a cut-through between Citrona Drive and 14th Street and also is the road leading to the YMCA. I am unable to comment on the level of social capital and sense of community found in the neighborhood because I was unable to talk to residents of Amelia Park due to time restraints. Pleas e see Appendix E for more visual images of Amelia Park. West Park Village in Westchase Background Westchase, located fourteen miles northwest of Tampa, FL, is a 2,000-acre planned community that includes seventeen neighborhoods, or villages founded in 1991, when the plan was approved by the Hillsborough County Planning and Zoning Commission, as a PUD (Planned Unit Developm ent) (Westchase Community Association website). Within these seventeen villages there is an 18-hole gol f course, trails for walking and jogging and sidewalks for biking and skating, two park s and two swim and tennis centers, and West Park Village, wh ich serves as the to wn center (Terrabrook website). West Park Village serves as the case study site within Westchase. West Park Village is a 185-acre, 10.7-square-mile traditional neighborhood development that includes about 500 singlefamily homes, villas, and townhomes, over 600 apartments, and 41,000 square feet of retail space with 60 luxury apartments above

PAGE 94

retail (Mabe 2002). Terrabrook, a Dallas-base d development company and Westchases master developer, developed the residential and retail area of West Park Village and Gables Residential Trust Company developed the rental community (Bokun 1999). The residential section of West Park Village opened in February 2000 and the retail area opened in November 2001 and hosts thirty-two businesses (Stark 2000 and Pease 2001). The rental community was completed in 2003. Figure 25. Westchase Location Map Westchase http://www.terrabrook.com/proper ties/community_map.asp?id=034 85

PAGE 95

Figure 26. West Park Village Lo cation within Westchase #17. West Park Village http://www.westchase-real-estate.com/map.php Results Observations Observations of West Park Village revealed a developm ent planned fairly close to design principles of New Urbanism as discusse d in Chapter 3. The streets of West Park Village provide a continuous sidewalk networ k. The only traffic calming feature is the narrow roadways. There are street trees a nd on-street parking th at serve as buffers between the pedestrian realm and motor vehicl es and provide a spatial definition to the pedestrian right-of-way. Seve ral drivers take advantage of on-street parking, which can cause a back-up in traffic as witn essed the day of observations. 86

PAGE 96

Figure 27. Street view There is a clear boundary between public and pr ivate space. In the residential area, the sidewalk provides this boundary. All of the space in the reta il area is public, with the exception of apartments above retail locations. All buildings in West Park Village face the street, which allows for eyes to be upon the street (Jacobs 1961). The streets seem to be used fairly continuously, espe cially in the retail district. West Park Village provides dense resi dential development and utilizes a mixed land-use design. There is a dive rsity of types of homes, in cluding single-family homes, attached townhomes, and apartments. Buildings are placed so that they define the public space between and around them instead of si mply sitting in space. There are many greenspaces between and around buildings. Figure 28. Townhomes along Village Plaza Figure 29. Single-family home 87

PAGE 97

The development does include low-rise apartment buildings, but it is able to accomplish the feel of many smaller buildings with co mpound arrangements and relationships as opposed to a few large buildings. No building is higher than three st ories. All buildings in the development are built close together and are close to the street which helps define the space in which the building sits. Figure 30. Apartment building Within the mixed land-use plan, there are several great good pl aces, such as a coffee shop, a bagel shop, and several restaurant s within the retail dist rict. Many of these establishments are small and independently owned. The coffee shop is a national chain store, but the majority of s hops and restaurants are locally owned. Residents are able to conduct activities of daily livi ng without having to get into th eir car, except for grocery shopping. There is no market or grocer within West Park Village. 88

PAGE 98

Figure 31. Retail district Observations were made on a sunny and warm Saturday at eleven thirty in the morning. The retail district was very busy, with many people sitti ng outside enjoying coffee or an early lunch. I saw children playi ng in the water feature in the Village Plaza, as well as two people swimming in the pool pr ovided for apartment dwellers. There is quite a bit of greenspace in the retail district as well as the residential district. In the retail district townhomes and apartments surround the Village Plaza and in the residential district there is a block of homes which all face a greenspace. I am unable to comment on the level of social capita l and sense of community found in the neighborhood because I was unable to talk to residents of West Park Village due to time restraints. The residential district was very busy with cars and pedestrians. This is due in part to the community garage sale that was occurring duri ng my observations. There is an alley system that connects to most of the townhomes and single-family homes. Parking for apartments is within the buildi ng. Some single-family homes had personal garages in the back of the hous e, but connected to a front driveway. There was also a section of homes that had garages in the front of the house. Each street has on-street parking and drivers tend to fully take advantage of this feature. There were so many cars 89

PAGE 99

parked on the street that traffic was backed up and moving quite slowly. The entrance into the retail district was also very back ed up with vehicles. Parking for the retail district includes on-street park ing and parking lots in the ba ck of stores. Figures 32 and 33 show single-family garage options. Please see Appendix F for more visual images of West Park Village. Figure 32. Garage in back of home Figure 33. Garage in front of home 90

PAGE 100

91 Chapter Seven: Discussion Atlantic Station Crime Rate The data show that the decrease in crime in Zone 5 is consistent with city-wide trends, but does not show that Atlantic Sta tion is necessarily a safer place to live as opposed to other neighborhoods in Atlanta. The year 2001 serves as a baseline for crimes in the Zone 5 because the area was under constr uction at the time and there were no retail venues or residents. In short, there were not many opportunities for crimes to occur. In 2002, when the first residents and shops were present in Atlantic Station, each crime increased except for homicide and residential burglary, which decrea sed, and rape, which remained constant. It is interesting to see a decrease in residential burglaries, but this could be due to the fact that Zone 5 en compasses adjacent neighborhoods as well. The larceny and vehicle larceny inci dents occurring at Atlantic St ation are mainly confined to the retail district, which can be e xpected at any major shopping area. Comparing city-wide data to Zone 5 data shows that the most prevalent types of crimes as well as the general decrease of all crimes are consistent between the two. In other words, Zone 5 is experi encing crime trends that are being seen throughout the city of Atlanta. Zone 5 contributes no more than 27.2% of any crime to the greater Atlanta area. Zone 5 contributes 27.2% of larceny incidents in all of Atlanta. This could be due to the fact that Atlantic Station has a popular and large retail district.

PAGE 101

92 Jane Jacobs notion of eyes on the street (1961) seems to play a part in Atlantic Station, but not fully. Jacobs argues that in order to create a safe street, three qualities must exist on a specific street: 1) have a clear boundary between public and private space; 2) have eyes upon the street; and, (3) the street should be used fairly continuously (Jacobs 1961). While the streets of Atlantic Station seem to possess each of these qualities, it is interesting to see Zone 5 contribute more than its share of total Atlanta crimes in five crime categories (homicide, rape, robbery, non-residential burglary, and larceny). As me ntioned above, these numbers, es pecially in the case of non-residential burglary and lar ceny, could be due to the larg e number of retailers in the area. Within larceny, vehicle larceny is in cluded. Parking for the retail district of Atlantic Station is underground w ith little to no security, so th is may be a factor in the high number of larceny events in the area, specifically vehicle larceny. The number of vehicle larceny events within Atlantic Stati on appears to contribute to a quarter of all larceny events. Looking specifically at the crime data within Atlantic Station between December 14, 2008 and February 2, 2009, it appear s that this data is consis tent with the trends seen in Zone 5 and the greater Atlanta area. In this small span of time, larceny was by far the most prevalent. Residential burglary was the second most prevalent crime, with aggravated assault and auto theft tying for third. Overall, Zone 5 crime data and Atlan tic Station specific data are typically consistent with city-wide data. Because of this consistency, Atlantic Station has not been proven to be a safer place to live and play as opposed to other pa rts of Atlanta. Transportation

PAGE 102

93 Atlantic Station residents and employees appear to travel less vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and utilize non-single occupa ncy vehicles (SOV) mo re often than the average Atlanta resident and employee. Resident s of Atlantic Station travel an average of 19.8 miles less than residents of Atlanta as a whole. Employees of Atlantic Station travel an average of 7.05 miles less than employees in the greater Atla nta area. Atlantic Station residents and employees are also using non-SO V modes of travel 12% more than other Atlantans. As indicated by Appleyard et al in the discussion of New Urbanism and traditional neighborhood developments, New Urbanism aims to create communities in which you can live, work, shop, and play in the same place. These walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods tend to reduce the de pendence on vehicles (Appleyard et al 1987). The data show that the placement and design of Atlantic Sta tion, as well as access to alternative modes of travel are decreasi ng the dependence resident and employees of Atlantic Station have on thei r personal vehicles, as well as single occupancy vehicles altogether. This indicator has shown success in reducing resident and employee commute times and increasing the use of a lternative modes of transportation within Atlantic Station. Level of Satisfaction of Developer and Atlantic Station Residents The respondent from the development gr oup as well as the resident respondents all believe that the walkability of Atlantic Sta tion is one of the most successful features of the development. I believe that is the main contributor to residents sense of belonging. As discussed in the observations section below, I felt vulnerable to cars and traffic when walking down 17th Street and half of the respondents also mentioned the large amount of

PAGE 103

94 traffic that can make the walk to the retail district more challenging. Atlantic Station has created the infrastructure to make the neighborhood walkable, and it seems as though residents view the walkability as a key component to their quality of life. It is interesting to hear respondents describe the community within their buildings, but only one respondent spoke of having a sens e of community outside of their building. The respondent who does feel a sense of comm unity outside of their building is also a board member of the Atlantic Station Civi c Association. The general belief of New Urbanism is that it is a tool to create the sm all town experience, but as pointed out in the results of the resident interv iews, New Urbanism can be applied to neighborhoods of all scales. Even with the absence of singlefamily homes and the typical look of a New Urbanist neighborhood with front porches lining the street, re sidents are still able to experience a sense of community. While resi dents will not experience casual encounters while they work on their lawn or sit on their front porch, they are ab le to experience these casual encounters within their dense resi dential buildings (Duany et al 2000). As explained in the results section, there seems to be a level of social capital within specific residential buildings. Each respondent is involved in a community group within their building. As Putnam claims, social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and soci al trust that facil itate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam 1995) I believe that each respondent is involved in a social organizat ion that does facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit by being a part of their buildings HOA. Members of the HOA work together to ensure requests and comments fr om residents of the building are heard and considered.

PAGE 104

95 I believe if the residents request for more community activities was fulfilled, an enriched sense of community and sense of community identity would be seen (Duany et al 2000). While there are many events that take place for all Atlant ans to enjoy, I think the neighborhood would benefit from events meant for the residents of Atlantic Station. While the developer quite obviously is pleased with the success of th e retail district and the high turnout of city-wide events, I think it would be beneficial for the community if the developer and management group also in cluded community-specific events. I do not believe that the development and manageme nt group needs to decrease the amount of city-wide events taking place by any means, just simply add events that involve the community specifically. It is interesting and encouraging the note that the respondent from the development group also hopes to have more community-specific events. It was interesting to see the parallel of themes betw een the respondent from the member of the development group and the re sident respondents. I believe that the developer of Atlantic Stati on, as well as most New Urba nist developers, created a traditional neighborhood developm ent and provided an array of tools to in hopes of residents creating an authentic community. Authentic community is the fruition of knowing neighbors, communicating among ne ighbors, involvement in community activities, and a long term sense of belonging. Traditi onal neighborhood developments create the urban patterns that foster this community maki ng. The tools developers use include the design features spoken of in Ch apter 3, basically the infrastructure, but residents themselves are the ones who are able to create authentic community the developer does not have this power. As opposed to contemporary subdivisions, New Urbanist developers, such as the Jacoby Group, make a conscious decision to provide

PAGE 105

96 these tools to create a trad itional neighborhood and they hop e residents continue on to create authentic community within the traditional neighbo rhood development. Observations Looking specifically at the design of Atlantic Station as compared to the discussion of the design principles of New Urbanism as laid out in Chapter 3, it is clear that Atlantic Station is lacking some key principles that could potentially make this development more in line with the principles of New Urbanism. While Atlantic Station has a continuous sidewalk netw ork, the entire development is not particularly walkable and does not minimize the negative impacts of automobiles on pedestrians. The retail district is comfortable to walk in, but The Commons and The Village has a large amount of traffic. While walking down 17th Street myself, I felt quite vulnerable to the large amount of traffic and the lack of any buffer to create a spatial definition to the pedestrian right-of-way. It felt much like walking down a busy road in Atlanta, which it is. The retail district is equipped with crossing guards that ensure ve hicles stop for pedestrians. It would be a much more walkable neighborhood if pedestrians felt this safe throughout Atlantic Station. Not that crossing guards are needed, but if the st reets outside of The District were narrow and traffic calmed. In term s of crime, the streets of Atlantic Station do feel safe. All of the buildings face the street giving a sense of eyes on the street (Jacobs 1961). I never felt nervous wh ile walking through Atlantic Station. Atlantic Station is made up of many larg e buildings with many of them seemingly sitting in space instead of placed in a way that defines public space between and around them. As shown by Appleyard et al (1987) an important design principle of New Urbanism is that there should be many smaller buildings with compound arrangements

PAGE 106

97 and relationships as opposed to a few large build ings, especially in residential areas. The majority of the residential development is high-rise condominium buildings, low-rise apartment buildings, two rows of townhomes, and lofts and apartments above retail. Even though there are only a ha ndful of single-family homes a nd Atlantic Station is made up of many large buildings, residents seem to still experience a sense of community, just in a different way than traditionally thought. Instead of having chance encounters with neighbors as they sit on their front porch, these encounters occur while entering the building or in the halls of the building. The District seems more like an outside mall than a village center. As mentioned, there are very few small, independently owned venues. I walked into most stores and restaurants in The District and found the area to be much more generi c than expected. As Vikas Mehta claims, the liveliest settings on a street have a very high number of stores that are one of a kind (Mehta 2009). This is so mething that Atlantic Station is lacking. Overall, Atlantic Station has a very succe ssful retail district in terms of visitors, liveliness, and vendor occupancy level. The residential district, however, seems disjointed and does not incor porate many of the design principles of New Urbanism. This case study diverged from the design princi ples of New Urbanism more than any of the case studies observed. I think using Atla ntic Station as a case study showed that New Urbanism is applicable at all scales. While this neighborhood is made up of large buildings with very few single-family homes, an authentic community seems to have been established. Amelia Park Observations

PAGE 107

98 There is a clear connection between the discussion of the design principles of New Urbanism as laid out in Chapter 3 and the design of Amelia Park. As pointed out by Dumbaugh, Amelia Park provides a continuous sidewalk network and streets are narrow and traffic calmed. There are also street tr ees and on-street parking on every street that serve as buffers between the pedestrian realm and motor vehicles. Walking around Amelia Park, I felt very safe from traffic or any type of crime. This is due in part to the walkability of the neighborhood, as well as the lack of tra ffic and pedestrians during the observation period. The residential development in Amelia Pa rk offers a variety of housing types and a variety of styles of architecture. Ever y home (townhomes and single-family homes) has an alley system connected to separate utility and garage access from sidewalks. Every single-family home has a front porch with sidewalks close to facilitate connection between public and private realms. The apartments above retail have yet to be built, but parking will be available behind th e retail locations. As mentioned in the results, there is no building higher than two stories. There are many smaller buildings as opposed to a few large buildings. There is an integrat ion of activities near each other and these activities will only increase in number as the development nears completion. The retail district has yet to be completed which is causing less traffic flow into Amelia Park. There also remains 18.5 resident ial acres to be devel oped. A major factor in the stall of development is the economy. It will be interesting to visit Amelia Park after the retail district and remaining resi dential property has been developed. The amount of people visiting Amelia Park is ma rkedly less than Atlantic Station and West Park Village. This is obviously due in part to the underdeveloped retail district, but

PAGE 108

99 perhaps also due to the size of Fernandina Beach, the city in which Amelia Park is located. Atlanta boasts a population of over 500,000 residents and Tampa has over 300,000 residents, whereas Fernandina Beach has just over 11,000 residents and Amelia Island (on which Fernandina Beach is located) has 20,000 residents. The inclusion of the Garden Distri ct added something different to the development that the other two case studies did not have. This seemed to add some originality and made the development not seem as generic or cookie cutter as the other two. If further research were to be conducted, it would be interesting to observe how many people use the Garden District as a walk way to get to one part of the development to the other. Overall, Amelia Park follows the design principles laid out in Chapter 3 quite closely. With the exception of the undeveloped retail district and residential acreage, Amelia Park was an interesting development and seemed quaint and organic when compared to the other two case studies. West Park Village Observations As with Amelia Park, there is a clear connection between the discussion of the design principles of New Urbanism as laid ou t in Chapter 3 and the design of West Park Village. The community provides a continuous sidewalk network that provides buffers from vehicles in the form of street trees and on-street parking. During my walk around West Park Village, I felt safe from traffic and crime. This is due in part to the large number of pedestrians in the reta il district as well as the resi dential district. Much of the foot traffic in the development was due to the semi-annual community-wide garage sale

PAGE 109

100 that was occurring during the observation period. It would be interesting to visit on a different Saturday and even during the week to see if there are less visitors. There is dense residential development a nd a variety of housing types exist within West Park Village. The apartment buildings are exclusively to the west of the retail district and within the retail district with townhomes to the east of the retail district and single-family homes east of the townhomes. There are streets that include both townhomes and single-family homes, but in general the types of housing are separate. There are many smaller buildings as opposed to few large buildings. All buildings are built close together and are close to the street, which helps the pedestrian to feel safe and engaged in their surroundings. Most of the single-family homes are conn ected to an alley system that separates utility and garage access from sidewalks. Ther e is an area, however, that includes houses that have garages on the front of the house as we ll as houses that have parking in the back or side of the house with access through a priv ate drive. The majority of homes have front porches with sidewalks close which facilitates a connection between public and private realms. The retail district of West Park Village appears to be quite vibrant in terms of number of visitors and retail occupancy level. I did not notic e any retail vacancies. As opposed to Atlantic Station, the re tail district in West Park Village feels more like a small village than an outside mall. This could be due to the fact that there are many small and independently owned venues. This adds what Vikas Mehta calls a uniqueness and character (Mehta 2009, 53) that makes the area more interesting and lively as compared to The District in Atlantic St ation and certainly Amelia Park.

PAGE 110

101 One major problem I noticed with West Park Village is that it is located outside of Tampas city center. While it provides a walkable and functional neighborhood alone, I imagine most residents drive to work and th e commute could be considerable. It would be interesting to see how a new developmen t like West Park Village would fare in Tampas city center. Overall, West Park Village is a functional traditional neighborhood development. Out of the three case studies, We st Park Village seems to be closest to the design principles discussed in Chapter 3. In terms of residential development, Amelia Park most closely follows the literature, but be cause of the lack of a retail district, West Park Village is the most comprehensive traditional neighborhood development. Preference and Profitability of New Urbanism Profitability of New Urbanism and prefer ence of citizens of New Urbanism have a major role in a developers motivati on to create a traditional neighborhood development. While it was not possible to understand the profitability of each case study due to time constraints, there is some interesting general data to understand the preference and profitability of New Urbanism. In 2007, GfK Roper Consulting, the world s fourth largest market research company, conducted a marketing study on the preference of New Urbanism by homebuyers in the United States among ot her things, called Modern Communities. This study found that Americans value neighborhoods and local connections more they did than twenty years ago. Desirable neighborhoods now have more to do with knowing neighbors and less to do with exclusivity or social status. The study also found that New Urban communities are the most desirable ar eas in which to buy homes because they

PAGE 111

102 monitor sprawl, foster walkable amenities, and strike a development balance between homes, schools and businesses. The re-emergence of front-porch socializing, main streets and corner stores are key to America's most popular neighborhoods (Jefferson 2007, 1). The most popular New Urban communities tend to have common space, traditional architecture that includes home s with front porches, and treelined sidewalks. The study found that the popularity of the neighborhoods revolves arou nd a feeling of belonging, being joined by a common interest, and being pa rt of something bigger. According to the study, more than 90 percent of Americans c onsider the ideal nei ghborhood to be one where people live near one another, are friend ly with one another, and have easy access to churches and transporta tion (Jefferson 2007, 1). A 2003 University of Maryland study published in the Journal of Urban Economics found that buyers pay a 15.5% premium for elements like a continuous sidewalk network, smaller bloc ks, increased pedestrian acces s to shops, and proximity to light rail. Also the latest data show that 30% of Americans would consider living in a traditional neighborhood development (C ongress for the New Urbanism 2007). Perhaps the traditional neighborhood deve lopment is the preference of only 30% because of the fact that general awareness of New Urbanism if just now on the rise as opposed to conventional subdivisions whic h are plentiful and well known. However, appreciation tends to rise faster in traditional nei ghborhood developments than in conventional subdivisions because the rising awareness of New Urbanism is creating a greater demand, but there is still a comparably low supply to conventional subdivisions. Subdivisions are the greater preference, but the greater supply has not allowed the conventional subdivision to appreciate as much as traditional neighborhood

PAGE 112

103 development. Perhaps the current market will benefit New Urbanism in the long run. This market hiatus will leave potential homebuyers with more time to carefully consider a move and more time for awareness of New Urbanism to grow. Limitations The three case studies chosen do not by any means, represent traditional neighborhood developments as a whole. These are three isolated examples and there are several other successful and unsuccessful examples throughout the United States. The interviews performed with the me mber of the Jacoby Group and the four residents of Atlantic Station are not repres entative of all members of the development group or residents. It was difficult to access re sidents to interview due to the actions of the president of the Atlantic Station Civic Associat ion. These interviews provide supplemental information to the rest of the research of Atlantic Station. Observations made of all three case studies were a single event and do not represent every day life in these neighborhoods I observed each cas e study on different days, which could lead to misleading results. I also had more information available to me for the background of Atlantic Station and Amelia Park. This could lead to a misrepresentation of the backgr ound of West Park Village. Future Research There are many opportunities for future re search on this topi c. The three case studies can be studied over time to note changes and developments within all three neighborhoods. During the observation peri od, a new high rise condominium building was being built in Atlantic Station. Also, ther e were numerous residential unit vacancies. When the economy improves, it would be inte resting to research whether the number of

PAGE 113

104 residents has increased and also if the ne w condominium building was able to sell units or if they have become rental properties. Mo re interviews from a wider array of residents would be revealing. It would be helpful to interview a representative sample of residents and to not have self-selected respondents. This would create a more sound argument and statistically valid results. It would be interesting to note the vibrancy of Amelia Park once the project is completed. One can assume that traffic within Amelia Park will increase after the retail district is completed and o ccupied. Also, it would be he lpful to research another traditional neighborhood developmen t that incorporates Garden Districts to be able to compare design and success of these areas. Also, a literature review on the design and purpose of Garden Districts would be helpful. Further observations could be made on all three case studies. It would be helpful to observe the properties on the same day of the week and time throughout the observation period. A lengthi er observation period is needed to gain a better understanding of how the neighborhoods operate on a daily basis. Along with further interviews with Atlantic Station residents, the same type of qualitative data could be collected from Amelia Park and West Park Vi llage residents. This would provide a more thorough look at the social success of these developments. The same quantitative data could be collected for Amelia Park and West Park Village as was collected for Atlantic Stati on to have a more thorough comparison of the three case studies. Also, furt her indicators could be evalua ted along with crime rate and transportation data, such as market demand and changes in property value over time. Further research is needed to understand the demographics of all three neighborhoods.

PAGE 114

105 Because each neighborhood was under development when the 2000 Census took place, revisiting this issue after the results of the 2010 Census are published would be revealing and add a different elemen t to the research.

PAGE 115

106 Chapter Eight: Conclusions The hope of this research is to provide an explanatory and exploratory study of New Urbanism that notes how New Urbanist pr inciples have or have not been incorporated into the three case studies presented. It is hypothesized that New Urbanism may pave the way for recapturing commute time for time with family, creating authentic and successful communities, and engaging with neighbors. Furthermore, by utilizing the design principles of New Urbanism, tradi tional neighborhoods that re-integrate the activities of daily living may be possible. In short, this resear ch explores whether incorporating the design principles of New Ur banism can create walkable and successful communities that promote community-making with urban patterns that facilitate knowing neighbors, communication among neighbors, comm unity activities, and a long term sense of belonging. Atlantic Station departs from some of th e principles of New Urbanist design, but residents feel a sense of community, nonethele ss, and residents and employees of Atlantic Station have decreased their commute as comp ared to the average Atlantan. A walkable neighborhood was illustrated that fostered a sense of community for residents. Atlantic Station does not look like a typical New Urban community because of the lack of singlefamily homes and the majority of housi ng is lowand highrise condominium and apartment buildings. From the few interviews performed, there appears to be a level of social capital present in the neighbor hood through commitments to Homeowners

PAGE 116

107 Associations and the Atlantic Station Civic A ssociation. Residents a ppear to trust each other and feel a mutual sense of obligati on towards one another, a key component of social capital. Critics claim that even though traditional neighborhood developments are meant to reduce trip generation, residents and employees are still commuting and as dependent on cars as they would be living anywhere else. The transportation data gathered on Atlantic Station shows a decrease in dependen ce on cars and increase in the use of alternative tran sportation as opposed to Atlantans outside of Atlantic Station. The resident interviews also show that reside nts are willing to walk for a purpose within Atlantic Station. Atlantic St ation is the only case study loca ted within a large city, so some of the alternative transportation was al ready in place before the development of Atlantic Station, such as th e Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tr ansit Authority (MARTA). Looking specifically at my hypotheses, Atlantic Station ha s lessened commute time for residents and employees. This time ha s the potential to be recaptured for time with family. However, Atlantic Station does not appear to be a safer neighborhood as compared to other areas of Atlanta. There ar e some crime categories, such as larceny, in which Zone 5 appears to be contributing more th an its share to all Atlanta crimes in that category. The other two case studies, Amelia Park and West Park Village, are examples of developments that have utilized the principl es of New Urbanism, almost exclusively, to create walkable communities that have the potential to be auth entic communities in which residents know and communicate with thei r neighbors, have the infrastructure in place to participate in commun ity activities, and have a long term sense of belonging.

PAGE 117

108 There is access to the needs of daily living in West Park Village and it is just a matter of time before Amelia Park offers the same amenities. In all three case studies, the population appears to be mainly white and affluent. This assumption is based on observations of the three neighborhoods. A major criticism of New Urbanism is that New Urban comm unities tend to cater to the upper-middle socio-economic class. While there may be a slight mix of incomes, studies show that there is little evidence of racial mixing and segregation by class, race, and ethnicity is perpetuated. The case studies presented do not prove that New Urban communities succeed in crossing class or race boundaries From studying Atlantic Station, Amelia Park, and West Park Village, it seems as t hough New Urban design prin ciples can help to overcome some barriers to community, such as social isolation, but not all barriers, such as lack of diversity in race and income. As mentioned, Atlantic Stat ion diverges from some of the design principles of New Urbanism, but residents appear to be experiencing a sense of community. Amelia Park and West Park Village include most of the design principles of New Urbanism, yet there is a chance that residents and employees are just as dependent on automobiles as they would be living in a different neighborhood. As can be seen by the three case studies pr esented, there are certain tradeoffs with different types of projects. In the case of Atlantic Station, an attr active retail center was developed and residents and employees are able to be less dependent on automobiles, but the neighborhood does not appear to be any safe r than other neighborhoods in Atlanta. In the case of West Park Village, a vibrant retail center seems to have been created, but most residents most likely have to commute to wor k. Many of these tradeoffs have to do with

PAGE 118

109 the location and scale of developments. For example, Atlantic Station is located in downtown Atlanta, where MARTA was establ ished before the development of the neighborhood so there was an existing transporta tion alternative before the first resident moved to the community. In the case of Ame lia Park, Fernandina Beach is a small city where commute time may be minimal, but it is obvious that most people living within the community must commute to work due to the lack of a developed retail center. As opposed to Atlantic Station, though, Amelia Pa rk is most likely sa fer than Atlantic Station due to the loca tion of the project. Through this exploratory study, I belie ve I have shown the strengths and weaknesses of the three case studies presented, as well as New Urbanism in general. I hope that New Urbanism becomes a successful tool used to revita lize city centers and simply create neighborhoods that are exciting to live in. I hope to see Americans having a preference for this way of living and traditional neighborhood developments continue to rise in number. New Urbanism is a poten tial way to bring back the traditional values of community knowing your neighbors, expe riencing a long term sense of belonging, and enjoying neighborhood life.

PAGE 119

110 References Amelia Park. Amelia Park Brochure. F iles of HomeTown Neighborhoods (n.d.): 1-16. Amelia Park. Amelia Park Objectives. Files of HomeTown Ne ighborhoods (n.d.): 1. Amelia Park, undated website, http://www.visitameliapark.com/ Atlanta Journal Consti tution, undated website, http://projects.ajchomefinder.com/atlantahome-sales-report/ detail/Fulton/30363/#loop Atlanta Police Department, undated website, http://www.atlantapd.org/ Atlantic Station. Project XL Report. (2009): 1-13. Atlantic Station. Redevelopm ent Overview. (2008): 1-3. Atlantic Station, undated website, http://www.atlanticstation.com/home.php Appleyard, Donald and Allan Jacobs. T oward an Urban Design Manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association 53 (1987): 112-120. Avila, Guadalupe Milian and Marie Lessard. A Contributio n to Urban Sustainability: Analco, a Historic Neigh bourhood in Pueblo, Mexico. URBAN DESIGN International 10 (2005): 39-50. Bebbington, Anthony. Social capital and de velopment studies 1: critique, debate, progress? Progress in Development Studies 4.4 (2004): 343-349. Bokun, Jane. Developer offers help for center. St. Petersburg Times 13 Aug 1999: North of Tampa 6. Burman, Sheri. Civil Society and th e Collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics 49.3 (1997): 401-429. Biddulph, Mike. Villages Dont Make a City. Journal of Urban Design 5.1 (2000): 6582. Carothers, Thomas. Civil Society. Foreign Policy 117 (1999): 18-29.

PAGE 120

111 Cattell, Vicky. Having a Laugh and Mucking in Together: Using Social Capital to Explore Dynamics Between Structure and Agency in the Context of Declining and Regenerated Neighborhoods. Sociology. 38 (2004): 945-963. Chavis, David and David McMillan. Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14.1 (1986): 6-23. Congress for the New Urbanism. (2007, March 23). Shifts in Consumer Preferences Help New Urbanism Weather Real Estate Storm http://www.cnu.org/node/923 Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zybeck, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream New York: North Point Press, 2000. Dumbaugh, Eric. Safe Stre ets, Livable Streets. Journal of the American Planning Association 71.3 (2005): 283-300. Edwards, Bob and Michael Foley. T he Paradox of Civil Society. Journal of Democracy 7.3 (1996): 38-52. Ellis, Cliff. The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals. Journal of Urban Design 7.3 (2002): 261-291. Embry, Joel. Email interview, 2009. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), undated website, http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/ Filmanowicz, Stephen J. (2007, March 23). Shifts in Consumer Preferences Help New Urbanism Weather Real Estate Storm. Congress for the New Urbanism GfK Roper Consulting, undated website, http://www.gfk.com/group/se rvices/instruments_and_services/contact_dates/0014 2/index.en.html Gordon, Peter and Harry W. Richardson. A Cr itique of New Urbanism. Presented at the Meeting of the American Collegiate Schools of Planning (Pasadena, CA) (1998): 1-6. Greene, Sherwin. Cityshape: Comm unicating and Evaluating Community Design. Journal of American Planning Association 58 (1992): 177-189. Guest, Avery and Susan Wierzbicki. Social Ties at the Neighborhood Level: Two Decades of GGS Evidence. Urban Affairs Review 35.1 (1999): 92-111.

PAGE 121

112 Hargreaves, Andrew. Building Commun ities of Place: Habitual Movement Around Significant Places. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 19 (2004): 49-65. Harvey, David. The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap. Harvard Design Magazine Winter/Spring.1 (1997): 68-69. Intown Atlanta Real Estate Specialists, undated website, http://www.intownelite.com/ Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Jacoby Group, undated website, http://www.thejacobygroup.com/ Jefferson, Elana Ashanti. Americans are Leaving Gated Communities. The Denver Post.com. 16 Mar 2007. http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5418726 Kulynych, Jessica and Stephen Samuel Smith. It May Be Social, but Why Is It Capital? The Social Construction of Social Capital and the Politics of Language. Politics & Society 30.1 (2002): 149-186. Leyden, Kevin M. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 93.9 (2003): 1546-1551. Lund, Hollie. Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21.3 (2002): 302-312. Lund, Hollie. Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association 69.4 (2003): 414-429. Mabe, Logan D. Communal bliss. St. Petersburg Times 5 Apr 2002: North of Tampa; City Times 1;1. Mabe, Logan D. Developer plans dinner, shopping, short walk home. St. Petersburg Times 3 Jun 2001: North of Tampa 12. Mabe, Logan D. Neo-traditional bu ilding phase of Westchase booms. St. Petersburg Times 3 Dec 1999: North of Tampa 7. Maclaren, Virginia. Urban Sustainability Reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association 62.2 (1996): 184-202.

PAGE 122

113 Mehta, Vikas. Look Closely and You Will S ee, Listen Carefully and You Will Hear: Using Behavior Mapping and User Pe rceptions to determine Urban Design Characteristics that support Social Behavior on Streets. Journal of Urban Design 14.1 (2009): 29-64. Melissa DATA Corporation, undated website, http://www.melissadata.com/ Navarro, Vicente. A Critique of Social Capital. International Journal of Health Services 32.3 (2002): 423-432. Oldenburg, Ray. The Great Good Place New York: Paragon House, 1991. Pease, Mike. Awaiting customers. St. Petersburg Times 9 Nov 2001: North of Tampa 11. PolicyLink, undated website, http://www.policylink.org/EDTK/Brownfields/ Porta, Sergio and John Luciano Renne. Li nking Urban Design to Sustainability: Formal Indicators of Social Urban Sustainability Field Research in Perth, Western Australia. URBAN DESIGN International 10 (2005): 51-64. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: Am ericas Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy 6.1 (1995): 65-78. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and R evival of American Community New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Rohe, William and Kenneth Temkin. Soc ial Capital and Neighborhood Stability: An Empirical Investigation. Housing Policy Debate 9.1 (1998): 61-88. Seeman, Teresa. Social Ties and Health: The Benefits of Social Integration. Annals of Epidemiology 6.5 (1996): 442-451. Shibley, Robert G. The Complete New Urbanism and the Partial Practices of Placemaking. Utopian Studies 9.1 (1998): 80-102. Sorensen, Jens F.L. and Gunnar Svendsen. T he socioeconomic power of social capital: A double test of Putnams civic society argument. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26.9/10 (2006): 411-429. Squires, Gregory D. Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 2002. Stark, Judy. Apartments, townhomes come to neotraditional suburb. St. Petersburg Times 11 Nov 2000: Floridian 1D.

PAGE 123

114 Stark, Judy. Return of the village concept. St. Petersburg Times 19 Feb 2000: Floridian 1D. Stedman, Richard C. Is It Really Just a Social Construction?: The Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place. Society and Natural Resources 16 (2003): 671-685. Talen, Emily. The Problem with Community in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature. 15 (2000): 171-183. Terrabrook, undated website, http://www.terrabrook.com// Westchase Community Asso ciation, undated website, http://westchasewca.co m/cms/index.php?option=comfrontpage&Itemid=1 Westchase Real Estate, undated website, http://www.westchase-real-estate.com/map.php

PAGE 124

115 Appendices

PAGE 125

Appendix A: Atlantic Station District Map 116

PAGE 126

117 Appendix A (Continued)

PAGE 127

Appendix B: Photographs of The District Corner of Atlantic Drive and 18th Street Group of students in Central Park Vacancy on Atlantic Drive Stairwell and elevator to underground parking garage 118

PAGE 128

Appendix B (Continued) Security officer Cirque Du Soleil on event space Retail at street level with lofts above The Atlantic high-rise in the background Market Street Twelve Hotel and Residences 119

PAGE 129

120 Appendix B (Continued) Alley system of townhomes

PAGE 130

Appendix C: Photographs of The Commons State and 17th Street looking towards The Commons Pond in The Commons The Commons looking back towards The District 121

PAGE 131

Appendix D: Photographs of The Village IKEA with apartments across 16th Street Taken from IKEA parking lot Free Ride Shuttle in The Village Shuttle stop 122

PAGE 132

Appendix E: Photographs of Amelia Park McArthur Family YMCA Holy Trinity Anglican Church One entrance into Amelia Park Path along lakefront Garden District 123

PAGE 133

Appendix E (Continued) Garden District Mail station Townhomes Single-family homes Playground Alley 124

PAGE 134

Appendix E (Continued) Single-family home Townhomes Traffic calming Village green in town center Townhomes bordering village green Undeveloped retail area 125

PAGE 135

Appendix E (Continued) Existing retail Existing vacant retail with apartments above Entrance into Town Center Existing retail Undeveloped residential land adjacent to Town Center 126

PAGE 136

127 Appendix E (Continued) Single-family homes Undeveloped Garden District Park Avenue Garden District Single-family homes

PAGE 137

Appendix F: Photographs of West Park Village Village Plaza in Town Center Water feature in Town Center Entrance into West Park Village, retail area Retail Retail with apartments above Village Plaza 128

PAGE 138

Appendix F (Continued) Alley Apartment Pool Alley Single-family homes surrounding green Single-family home Street view, on-street parking 129

PAGE 139

130 Appendix F (Continued) Alley Entrance into West Park Village