Comparing apples with apples: How different are recent residential development patterns in Portland and Charlotte?

Journal of Urbanism

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 51-74

  Wilson, Bev ^a   Song, Yan ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

Charlotte (North Carolina); Comparative; Portland (Oregon); Residential development pattern

Indexed keywords

EID: 84980490644     PISSN: 17549175     EISSN: 17549183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17549170902833907     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abbott, C., 2002. “ Planning a sustainable city:the promise and performance of Portland's urban growth boundary ”. In Urban sprawl:causes, consequences and policy responses, Edited by:Squires, G.D., 207–235. Washington, DC:Urban Institute Press.
2. Anselin, L., 1995. Local indicators of spatial association–LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2):93–115.
3. Bagley, M.N., Mokhtarian, P.L., and Kitamura, R., 2002. A methodology for the disaggregate, multidimensional measurement of residential neighbourhood type. Urban Studies, 39(4):689–704.
4. Bengston, D.N., Fletcher, J.O., and Nelson, K.C., 2004. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space:policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69:271–286.
5. Berke, P.R., Godschalk, D.R., Kaiser, E.J., 2006. Urban land use planning, 5th edn, Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press.
6. Burchell, R.W., Lowenstein, G., Dolphin, W.R., 1998. Costs of sprawl–2000, Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
7. Burchfield, M., Overman, H.G., Puga, D., 2006. Causes of sprawl:a portrait from space. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2):587–633.
8. Carruthers, J.I., 2002. The impacts of State Growth Management Programmes:a comparative analysis. Urban Studies, 39(11):1959–1982.
9. Cervero, R., and Radisch, C., 1996. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods. Transport Policy, 3(3):127–141.
10. Cervero, R., and Wu, K.-L., 1998. Sub-centring and commuting:evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980–90. Urban Studies, 35(7):1059–1076.
11. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission (CMPC). 1997. 2015 Plan:planning for our future Adopted by the Charlotte City Council and Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners in November 1997. Available from:http://www.charmeck.org/NR/rdonlyres/e7kuokgcevamsmkimcgcwswxcon4uxskqvkd3vmbagycrcrx62hywnzxaui6kjb2ogovxlwaz43otqflb6ptsjivp6f/2015Plan.pdf [Accessed 18 February 2008]
12. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission (CMPC). 2003. General development policies Available from:http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Planning/Home.htm/
13. Cliff, A.D., and Ord, J.K., 1981. Spatial processes:models and applications, London:Pion.
14. Davis, Hibbitts, and Midghall, Inc. 2006. Regional attitudes toward population growth and land use issues:public opinion survey and report prepared for METRO Portland, OR Available from:http://www.metro-region.org/files/planning/dhm-publicopinionsurvey-report.pdf [Accessed 18 February 2008]
15. Downs, A., 1999. Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. Housing Policy Debate, 10(4):955–974.
16. Duany, A., and Talen, E., 2002. Transect planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3):245–266.
17. Edmonston, B., Goldberg, M.A., and Mercer, J., 1985. Urban form in Canada and the United States:an examination of urban density gradients. Urban Studies, 22:209–217.
18. Filion, P., and Hammond, K., 2003. Neighbourhood land use and performance:the evolution of neighbourhood morphology over the 20th century. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 30(2):271–296.
19. Friedman, B., Gordon, S., and Peers, J., 1994. Effects of neo-traditional neighborhood design on travel characteristics. Transportation Research Record, 1466:63–70.
20. Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M., 2001. Who sprawls most:how growth patterns differ across the United States, Washington, DC:Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution.
21. Gong, H., and Wheeler, J.O., 2007. Geographic changes in the metropolitan corporate South, 1995–2003. Southeastern Geographer, 47(1):155–169.
22. Hahs, A.K., and McDonnell, M.J., 2006. Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne's urban–rural gradient. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4):435–448.
23. Handy, S.L., 1996. Urban form and pedestrian choices:study of Austin neighborhoods. Transportation Research Record, 1552:135–144.
24. Hanley, P.F., and Hopkins, L.D., 2007. Do sewer extension plans affect urban development? A multiagent simulation. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 34:6–27.
25. Hayden, D., 2003. Building suburbia:green fields and urban growth, 1820–2000, New York, NY:Pantheon.
26. Heikkila, E.J., 1996. Are municipalities Tieboutian clubs?. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26:203–226.
27. Hill, E.W., Brennan, J.F., and Wolman, H.L., 1998. What is a central city in the United States? Applying a statistical techniques for developing taxonomies. Urban Studies, 35(1):1935–1969.
28. Huang, J., Lu, X.X., and Sellers, J.M., 2007. A global comparative analysis of urban form:applying spatial metrics and remote sensing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82:184–197.
29. Jun, M.J., 2004. The effects of Portland's urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting. Urban Studies, 41(7):1333–1348.
30. Lassiter, M., 2006. The silent majority:suburban politics in the Sunbelt South, Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
31. Lee, S., Seo, J.G., and Webster, C., 2006. The decentralising metropolis:economic diversity and commuting in the US suburbs. Urban Studies, 43(13):2525–2549.
32. Lopez, R., and Hynes, H.P., 2003. Sprawl in the 1990s:measurement, distribution, and trends. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3):325–355.
33. Maoh, H., and Kanaroglou, P., 2007. Geographic clustering of firms and urban form:a multivariate analysis. Journal of Geographical Systems, 9(1):29–52.
34. Martin, K., 2002. A city transformed:a Latin flavor in Charlotte, North Carolina. Planning,:14–19.
35. McCann, B.A., and Ewing, R., 2003. Measuring the health effects of sprawl:a national analysis of physical activity, obesity and chronic disease, Washington, DC:Smart Growth America.
36. Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). 2002. 2025 Long range transportation plan Available from:http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Transportation/Roads/2025.htm [Accessed 18 February 2008]
37. Milligan, G.W., 1981. A Monte Carlo study of thirty internal criterion measures for cluster analysis. Psychometrika, 46(2):325–342.
38. Milligan, G.W., and Cooper, M.C., 1986. A study of the comparability of external criteria for hierarchical cluster analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21:441–458.
39. Northwest Environment Watch. 2004. The Portland exception:a comparison of sprawl, smart growth, and rural land loss in 15 U.S. cities Available from:http://www.sightline.org/research/sprawl/res_pubs/portland04 [Accessed 18 February 2008]
40. Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling alone:the collapse and revival of American community, New York, NY:Simon & Schuster.
41. Sharma, S., 1996. Applied multivariate statistics, New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons.
42. Shen, Q., 2000. Spatial and social dimensions of commuting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1):68–82.
43. Sohmer, R., and Lang, R., 2001. Downtown rebound, Washington, DC:Fannie Mae Foundation. Fannie Mae Foundation Census Note Number 03. Available from:http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/census_notes_3.html [Accessed 18 February 2008]
44. Song, Y., and Knaap, G.-J., 2004. Measuring urban form:is Portland winning the war on sprawl?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2):210–225.
45. Song, Y., and Knaap, G.-J., 2007. Quantitative classification of neighbourhoods:the neighbourhoods of new single-family homes in the Portland metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Design, 12(1):1–24.
46. Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). 2005. Clean air for Charlotte:an action agenda, Chapel Hill, NC:SELC. Available from:http://www.southernenvironment.org/publications/charlotte_air_report.pdf [Accessed 14 February 2008]
47. Southworth, M., 1997. Walkable suburbs?:an evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1):28–44.
48. Southworth, M., and Owens, P.M., 1993. The evolving metropolis:studies of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3):271–287.
49. Speir, C., and Stephenson, K., 2002. Does sprawl cost us all? Isolating the effects of housing patterns on public water and sewer costs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1):56–70.
50. Srinivasan, S., 2002. Quantifying spatial characteristics of cities. Urban Studies, 39(11):2005–2028.
51. Stone Jr, B., 2008. Urban sprawl and air quality in large US cities. Journal of Environmental Management, 86:688–698.
52. Thomas, D. S. K., and Furuseth, O.J., 1997. The realities of incorporating sustainable development into local level planning:a case study of Davidson, North Carolina. Cities, 14(4):219–226.
53. Timm, N.H., 2002. Applied multivariate analysis, New York, NY:Springer.
54. Wheeler, S.M., 2003. The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto:implications for sustainability planning. Local Environment, 8(3):317–336.
55. Wheeler, S.M., 2008. The evolution of built landscapes in metropolitan regions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27:400–416.
56. Yin, M., and Sun, J., 2007. The impacts of state growth management programs on urban sprawl in the 1990s. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(2):149–179.