The Benefits of Walkable, Mixed-Use Neighborhood Planning in Revitalizing American Downtowns


Material Information

The Benefits of Walkable, Mixed-Use Neighborhood Planning in Revitalizing American Downtowns
Physical Description:
Blake, Todd
Dr. E. Kent Malone
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Urban revitalization
mixed-use development
new urbanism
smarth growth
urban planning


Talented workers and innovative entrepreneurs are flocking to a few select cities, such as Portland, Oregon or New York City, and leaving their traditional hometowns behind. As these sociocultural forces affect the future of our cities’ economies, workforces, and populations, what can city planners, real estate professionals, and local authorities do to save their cities? The answer is to revitalize an urban core that appeals both to young talent and retiring baby boomers. Gone are the days of suburban sprawl and distinct land use zoning, which has destroyed our downtowns and created a dependency on the automobile.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Todd Blake. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


The Benefits of Walkable, Mixed Use Neighborhood Planning in Revitalizing American Downtowns Undergraduate Honors Thesis by Todd Blake Table of Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Part 1: Demographic & Sociocultural Shifts 2 Pa rt 2: The Problem 4 Part 3: A Model for Walkable Areas 7 Part 4: Implementation 16 A Comparison of Two Cities: Jacksonville, FL and Seattle, WA 20 Conclusion 25 Works Cited 29 Appendix A: Transportation Mode Share Statistics 34 Table A1: Transportation Mode Share Statistics in America's Biggest Cities in 2009. 34 Table A2: Percent Change in Transportation Mode Share in America's Biggest Cities, 2000 2009. 35 Appendix B: Jacksonville, Florida and Seattle, Washington Statistics 36 Table B1: Comparative Historic Decennial U.S. Census Population Data: Jacksonville, Florida and Seattle, Washington, 1950 2010. 36 Table B2: Adjusted Jacksonville Population Data Using the Pre Consolidation C ity Boundaries, 2000 2010. 36 Table B3: Gross Metropolitan Product of Seattle Tacoma Bellevue, WA and Jacksonville, FL, 2011 2014 (projected). 36


Blake 1 Abstract Talented workers and innovative entrepreneurs are flocking to a few select cities, such as Portland Oregon or New York City, and leaving their traditional hometowns behind. As these sociocultural forces affect the future of our cities' economies, workforces, and populations, what can city planners, real estate professionals, and local authorities do to save their cities? The answer is to revitalize an urban core that appeals both to young talent and retiring baby boomers. Gone are the days of suburban sprawl and distinct land use zoni ng, which has destroyed our downtowns and created a dependency on the automobile. Intro duction The places we choose to reside, work, eat, play, learn, and socialize greatly affect our lifestyle, happiness, health, and economic future. The city, especially the urban core, is the culmination of centuries of refinement towards creating the most productive, efficient, and enjoyable environment for humans to live in. Regardless of your personal disposition towards urbanity, often simplified into two opposing ca rtoon subgroups, the city mouse and the country mouse, the city is a remarkable force for economic progress and cultural achievement In the late 19 th century, the United S tates encountered a major socio cultural and economic shift from the agrarian societ y to the industrial society. Quickly, the city became the economic powerhouse, drawing in young workers seeking a better lifestyle through entrepreneurship and hard work Soc iety became more interconnected, transit was introduced, industry skyrocketed, and the U.S. economy began to accelerate. By the end of WWII, the United States was a world superpower, but sociocultural forces were shifting towards the new "American dream" of homeownership, the nuclear family, and ultimately suburbia. In the 1960's, 70's, and 80's, suburban sprawl development grew exponentially. American values towards cities and communities began to revolve around the suburban lifestyle. Suddenly, city


Blake 2 planning, traffic engineering, and real estate developm ent revolved around the automobi le the lifeblood that connects distinct land use developments to one another. As a result of this changing American value system downtowns, historic neighborhoods, and walkable mixed use areas were destroyed in favor of the parking garages, freeways, an d interchanges that fuel the automobile addiction. Now, America is facing new sociocultural pressures to restore the livelihood of the American downtowns as its citizens are leading an exodus from suburbia back into the urban core. Part 1: Demographic & S ociocultural Shifts Many Baby Boomers worked h ard to raise their families in safe, suburban env ironment s with A rated schools, little league ballparks, and corporate commuter jobs However, their children's generation often does not have the same dream. Many M illennials grew up desir ing that which they did not have an urban lifestyle. N ow that they are graduating from college and entering the workforce they ar e not moving back to suburban centered cities In fact, 77% of college educated Millenials plan to live in America's urban core s cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland 1 More importantly, 64 % of college educated young people are deciding where to li ve first and then looking for a job 2 To stay relevant, cities need to market themselves towards attracting and retaining Millenials. Why do talented young workers want to live in progressive cities with walkable urban areas? They want th e ability to live without a car the ability to walk, bike, or ride to wo rk. According to urban studies theorist, Richard Florida, n ot owning a car and not owning a house are seen by more and more [young people] as a path to greater flexibility, choice, and personal autonomy" 3 They also desire to join fast movin g entrepreneur ial companies, experience more culture, and meet other young people with the same ideals. Start up companies like Pinterest,, Square, Yelp, and Zynga realized this trend and setup headquarters in downtown San Francisco Manhattan's Silicon Alley' is now home to 500 new start up companies with household names like Kickstarter


Blake 3 and Tumblr Even large companies like Googl e, Microsoft, and are migrating from the suburbs to the city 4 Unfortunately, many American cities have lost their urban liveliho od to the automobile and suburb a n sprawl Without change they will lose the next generation of thought leaders, entrepreneurs, and economic drivers to forward thinking cities who offer ways to fulfill young peoples' unmet sociocultural needs These trends are no t just affecting Millennials. Aging Americans are quickly discovering that the suburban lifestyle is no longer desirable. Many Baby Boomers are downsizing their homes, getting rid of their cars, and realizing that life is more enj oyable outside of subdivisions where they can work, eat, and engage with others in walkable neighborhoods, towns, and cities. This generation of approximately 77 million Americans is finding freedom in urban areas that offer transit, cultural activities, a nd healthcare instead of socially isolating suburbs that requ ire monotonous home maintenance 5 These demographic trends become extremely significant when combined as Millenials and Baby Boomers together comprise nearly 50% of the American population 6 Cu rrently, these age groups are leading an exodus from the suburbs into walkable mixed use urban areas. According to Nielsen, "for the first time since the 1920s growth in U.S. cities outpaces growth outside of them" 7 More importantly, t hese trends are exp ected to continue over the next decade By 2025, 88% of the projected 101 million new households will be childless. This is a stark contrast from the 50% of ho useholds with children in 1970 8 Awareness of these changes can b e approached in one of two ways as a threat to the health of your city and community, or as an opportunity to become the location that draws in young talent and aging Baby Boomers. The cities that take the former route, will suffer more of the same empty downtowns, an inability to a t tract growing companies, continued sprawl development, and an un wieldy dependence on the automobile. Those that choose


Blake 4 to avoid that fate will be forced to take some tough but critical steps towards creating walkable, mixed use neighborhoods, districts an d downtowns. Part 2: The Problem In the name of reducing traffic congestion, American downtowns have been reamed out. Sidewalks were removed, street parking disappeared, and two way traffic replaced by one way grids. Previously walkable two lane roads w ere turned into four lane speedways. At the same time, expressways were blazed through peripheral neighborhoods and new parking lots replaced historic buildings. High volume highways became the o nly paths in and out of America n urban cores. What remains in many of our downtowns is awkward, unsafe, and most importantly empty. How have these efforts reduced traffic congestion? They hav e not In fact, numerous traffic studies show that any benefit from creating new road lanes is quickly negated by increa sed driv ers on the road This phenomenon known as induced demand "happens when increasing the supply of roadways lowers the time cost of driving causing more people to drive and obliterating any reductions in congestion" 9 Additionally, other suburban traffic problems arose from the surge in distinct land use developments. As n eighborhoods were separated from parks, offices, and shopping areas by a n expanse of highways, t he majority of suburban automobile trips began to follow predictable routes comm uters stuck in rush hour, soccer moms funneling into ball fields on Saturday mornings, and shoppers clogging mall entrances on the weekends. These c yclical traffic patterns led to far worse congestion as the number of routes to work, school, and recreation al activities were reduced by suburban highways. A s suburban sprawl made way for increased automobile trips cities began to focus land use policy decisions around satiating the automobile's massive parking needs. As a result, downtowns and urban areas de molished historic buildings to create surface lots and parking garages. Now, m any American downtowns are riddled with missing teeth the awkward empty lots in urban streetscape


Blake 5 resulting from tearing down buildings to create surface parking 10 These gap s make an urban area feel less walkable by reducing spatial definition the innate human tendency to feel comfortable walking in outdoor areas t hat are enclosed on either side 1 1 More disconcerting most parking lots are a huge loss of economic value to a city, especially when free or poor ly priced. Aside from the opportunity cost of forgoing development of land used for urban parking lots most parking lots are far from profitable One study of parking garages found annual operating revenue per parking sp ace to be only 26 to 36% of its annual cost 12 Nationally, the economic cost of parking is astronomical. Urban planner and parking expert, Donald Shoup, calculates the total cost of all parking spaces in the United States to be more than tw ice the value of all vehicles or almo st twice the value of all roads 13 As i t turns out, free parking and employer paid parking are not exactly free. Shoup summarizes this phenomenon by stating "initially the developer pays for the required parking, but soon the tenants do, and then their customers, and so on, until the price of parking has diffused every where in the economy" 14 This trickle down effect means that every time you or I buy something, a portion of the price pays for so called free parking While many shopp ing districts are wary of charging potential customers to park, improperly priced or free parking can lead to decreased shopper turnover and ultimately, fewer customers overall. Shoup suggests the solution to circling the block looking for parking is to se t the price at the point where the demand for parking equals the 85 % of the parking supply 15 With 15% vacancy and a fair market price, shoppers can quickly park but tend not to linger. Aside from pricing parking at market rates, recent developers have fou nd ways to creatively incorporate parking into our cities without hindering walkability. In Charleston, South Carolina, some new downtown parking garages are hidden from plain sight, appearing as historic buildings surrounded with ground floor r etail space plantation shutter lined sidewalls, and cleverly tucked away entries and exits 16 Other downtown parking garages are being incorporated into mixed use developments, combining grade level retail, several floors of office


Blake 6 space, high rise apartments or con dos, and parking neatly hidden in the interior. If we can incorporate creative parking solutions into our urban fabric, priced at market rates, we can retain automobile accessibility without becoming slave to it. By letting traffic engineers design our roa ds around the needs of an automobile, we have made them unsafe to pedestrians, bicyclists and bystanders In the name of safe ty standards traffic engineers have widened roads and created large crash recovery zones where street trees and yards once stoo d As a result, drivers are more inclined to speed as they feel safer at higher speeds on wider roads. City planner and smart growth advocate, Jeff Speck says, "it is undoubtedly clear that building wider lanes would cause drivers to speed if highways ha ve twelve foot lanes, and we are comfortable navigating them at seventy miles per hour, wouldn't we feel the same way on a city street of the same dimension? 1 7 The logic is clear, with six foot wide cars and twelve foot wide lanes, drivers can speed thro ugh local streets with less alertness to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other cars. These highway lane sta ndards are encroaching on small town streets, traditional shopping districts, suburban neighborhood arteries, and school zones. According to a former tr affic engineer, "wider, faster, treeless roads not only ruin our public places, they kill people. Taking highway standards and applying them to urban and suburban streets, and even country roads costs us thousands of lives every yea r" 1 8 Yet, these dangero usly wide roads continue to be created because they are the DOT standard. According to one transport ation research er "changes in infrastructure have resulted in about 1700 more fatalities [per year]. Of this, about 900 of these fatalities are associated w ith changes in lane widths" 1 9 As city planners, we need to question the goal of infrastructure changes as well as the potential outcomes. Our focus should be to create safe streets for our citizens regardless of the form of transportation they take We ne ed to challenge civil engineers and traffic planners to rise above the standards and fin d individual solutions for our city, town, and neighborhood streets.


Blake 7 The combination of increased highway construction, rampant parking growth and ubiquitous lane wide ning threatens the vitality of a walkable mixed use neighborhood. In many cases, we destroyed these valuable areas years ago during the height of automobile production; leaving behind vacant main streets, empty housing, and failing retailers. Perhaps ahead of his time, Lewis M umford warned of these dangers in 1963 stating "t he right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city" 20 The result of de signing our cities around the automobile is that no one wants to walk or live in today's typical American downtown. Without a walkable urban core, our downtowns lack livelihood and more importantly, local residents. Downtown economies cannot expect to surv ive off of weekday commuters and occasional weekend e vent goers If no one can realistically live downtown with out affordable housing places to work, access to food and consumer goods, and places to be entertained we cannot expect a local downtown eco nomy to emerge. We have seen that s uburban commuters cannot revive downtowns; they must be rebuilt from the inside out. Part 3: A Model for Walkable Areas Both major cities and small innovative towns are making the r ight decisions to attract human and financial capital. New York and San Francisco are obvious examples of massive economic growth with skyrocketing downtown real estate value s However, small cities like Portland, Oregon and Boulder, Colorado are attracting talented Millenials and fast comp anies at astonishing rates. According to research sponsored by the Portland Development Council, "Metropolitan Portland has proportionately more young adults than most lar ge metropolitan areas in the U.S ." and "its college educated young adult population g rew five times faster than the average for U.S. metropolitan areas in the 1990s 2 1 College educated Millenials are disproportionately choo sing to live within 3 miles of Portland's city center in ord er to live close to restaurants, shops, and jobs. The s ame report found


Blake 8 Portland's "urban fabric has special appeal, with participants citing the city's size, walkability, public transportation, bike friendliness, distinctive neighborhoods and independent businesses as contributing to a feeling of community, manageability and safety" 2 2 The good news for struggling American downtowns is there are cities, large and small, paving the path to downtown revitalization via walkable mixed use neighborhood design. By examining what they have done correctly and avoidin g others' pitfalls, we may have a distinct advantage to quickly rework our urban cores from the ground up. One of t he primary characteristic s of walkable urban areas is mixed use planning Mixed use development s combine residential, commercial, civic, and industrial zoning uses into a network of real estate within the confines of ci ties, towns, neighborhoods, or individual buildings. Former University of Florida professor, Grant Ian Thrall, Ph.D., identified three components that a mixed use development mu st contain: 1. Three or more significant revenue producing uses (such as retail, office, residential, hotel, and/or entertainment/cultural/recreation), which in well planned projects are mutually supporting 2. Significant physical and functional integration of project components (and thus a relatively close knit and intensive use of land), including uninterrupted pedestrian connections 3. Development in conformance with a coherent plan, which frequently stipulates the type and scale of uses, permitted densities, and related items 2 3 A notable factor of these revenue producing uses is their interdependency. Each use should create demand that overflows into the other uses within the mixed use development. These mixed uses act synergistically, creating more economic value together than they would have on their own. As mixed use developments are scaled up from the individual building to the walkable neighborhood or district, these principles remain. However, it becomes increasingly important to integrate each


Blake 9 separate use through a master plan. In order to be successful, this plan should include a comprehensive design that creates a sense of place with which residents and visitors can walk, bike, and take transit among the various uses. According to Jeff Speck, "if [c it ies] are to become whole again, [they] must not only reform their codes but must also earnestly labor to reestablish a proper balance of activities downtown" 2 4 In order to achieve this balance he believes t he more complex the zoning map, the better. Wit hin buildings, blocks, and districts there should be an array of complementary but separate uses When all aspects of life are within walking distance, o ur n eighborhoods and cities become more enjoyable, interesting, and successful. For planners, t his mean s re designing our downtown master plans with the main purpose of encouraging mixed use walkable cores. When creating this master plan, the first question should be: what is the proper balance of uses? While every city need s a wide array of uses to sati sfy the needs of its inhabitants, the land use most often found in short supply is housing 2 5 When considered with the growing dem and for housing in walkable urban areas it would seem t he key to building successful mixed use neighborhood s is to create mor e housing and build up local density As local density increases, the supply of housing increases, lowering rental rates and creating affordability. Critics may argue, what about dense areas like Manhattan where housing prices increased 185% f rom 1996 to 2006 26 ?' Most likely, t he exponential growth in demand for housing in walkable urban cores like Manhattan drov e up real estate values, not any increases in housing supply over the same period. If anything, additional housing supply in Manhattan has prevent ed prices from escalating even faster. The positive relationship between density and economic value is clear. As density increases, human capital flows into the city driving demand for retailers and creating new business. As these new inputs turn into econ omic outputs, t his beneficial supply shock in human and financial capital drives up economic value. To proliferate this effect, cities goals should be to maximize human capital and


Blake 10 investment by creating an environment that is attractive, efficient, and ef fective at turning inputs into outputs. Therefore, t he goal of city planners and officials should be to encourage the development of a ffordable housing within walking distance of workplaces restaurants, grocery stores, parks, entert ainment, places of wors hip and all other activities humans perform I n the wake of the recent Great Recession, our cities face a n immense challenge with lenders and developers who are hesitant to engage in large scale housing developments in our floundering downtowns. T he costs and challenges associated with resolving utility issues, easements, access challenges, and local opposition afflicting downtown properties hinder development of affordable housing The cities that can unite political support for revitalization and commit to an innovative, comprehensive plan will emerge as the next locations for economic growth. If our plan for downtown economic growth is to attra ct residents Millenials, Baby Boomers, and other New Urbanites who are looking for vibrant w al kable mixed use neighborhoods what walkable' factors are they looking for? One metric that has bee n studied recently is a city's W alk S core, an algorithm which "measures walkability on a scale from 0 100 based on walking routes to destinations such as grocery stores schools, parks, restaurants, and retail 2 7 As i t turns out, a property's value is highly correlated to its Walk S core According to research by Joe Cortright of CEO's for Cities, "in the typical metropolitan area, a one point increase in Walk Score was associated with an increase in [home] value ranging from $700 to $3,000 depending on the market 2 8 Realtors across the U.S. are realizing that a property's Walk Score is a critical component to its marketability. If this metric is so important to homebuye rs and renters, struggling cities ought to be p romoting affordable housing growth in mixed use developments in their urban cores. The more mixed use the zoning, the closer housing is to retail, office, and other uses. This walkability drives economic growt h and increases downtown real estate values. With the additional tax revenue from economic growth cities can continue to invest in walkability.


Blake 11 Aside from close proximity to a variety of land uses, walka bility depends on other factors often found in the t raditional neighborhood structure. In Suburban Nation Alexander Duany, Elizabeth Plater Zybek, and Jeff Speck identified six fundamental rules that distinguish a traditional neighborhood from suburban sprawl: 1. The center Each neighborhood has a clear cent er, focused on the common activities of commerce, culture, and governance. 2. The five minute walk A local resident is rarely more than a five minute walk from the ordinary needs of daily life: living, working, and shopping. 3. The street network. Because the s treet pattern takes the form of a continuous web [often], a grid numerous paths connect one location to another. Blocks are relatively small, rarely exceeding a quarter mile in perimeter. 4. Narrow, versatile streets. Because there are so many streets to accommodate the traffic, each street can be small Traditional streets, like all organic systems, are extremely complex, in contrast to the artificial simplicity of sprawl. 5. Mixed Use. In contrast to sprawl's single use zoning, almost all of [a traditional neighborhood]'s blocks are of mixed use, as are many of the buildings. 6. Special sites for special buildings. Finally, traditional neighborhoods devote unique sites to civic buildings, those structures that represent the collective identity and inspirations of the community. 2 9 In these neighborhoods, walkers, bikers, and drivers can take numerous paths to the same destination, reducing average trip time s and spreading out congestion Additionally small block size tends to lead to enhanced walkability. Accord ing to Jeff Speck, hig hly walkable Portland, Oregon downtown Walk Score of 100 has one of the smallest block lengths of any city in the United States at roughly 200 feet 30 As block lengths increase, pedestrians have fewer options to take alternate


Blake 12 rou tes. Unfortunately, this factor is near ly impossible to change in most American cities. However, there are other ways to increase walkability even with large block sizes. Narrowing roads is a simple and relatively inexpensive way to increase safety and ult imately, enhance walkability. As road lane widths decrease, drivers become more cautious and aware of their surroundings. In fact, researchers discovered that "the safety benefit of widening lanes stops once lanes reach a width of roughly 11 feet, with cra sh frequencies increasing as lanes approach and exceed the more common 12 foot standard" 3 1 Contrary to popular belief, the more obstacles you put in a drivers way, the safer they tend to drive. As drivers, we are more engaged when there are four way stops oncoming traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, street parking, street trees, crosswalks, and general bustle. Just think of how stressful driving through Manhattan can be. Smart cities that want to encourage walkability will consider creative ways to reduce c ars speeding through their downtowns. As a pedestrian, we tend to enjoy walks where we feel safe and interested. By placing barriers between cars and pedestrians, such as bike lanes, on street parking, and street trees, we can instill a feeling of safety f or our city's pedestrians. Moreover, they may actually be safer. A study of Toronto's downtown roadways found that the addition of roadside streetscape improvements such as trees or concrete planters d ec reased mid block crashes by up to 20% 3 2 As far as creating an interesting walking trip, we need to think about design. Most pedestrians want something enjoyable to look at during their walk like a variety of retail offerings live entertainment, or beautiful architecture The last thing they want to walk by is 300 feet of concrete wall, an empty parking lot or even a large grassy lawn On the same note, pedestrians want to feel a sense of enclosure in outdoor spaces previously defined as spatial definition To create spatial definition, a 1:1 ratio betw een the distance between buildings and the height of buildings is recommended, with additional height preferential over additional distance When the distance between buildings reaches six times the height of the buildings, the sense of enclosure is lost 3 3 While we need to create interesting, safe, and comfortable places to walk, i n order


Blake 13 to encourage walking, we need to design ways to easily extend pedestrian trips with transit or alternative forms of transportation. If our cities are to be truly walkable we need to be able to leverage pedestrian t rips, extending them through other forms of transportation. If our goal is to be walkable, our city residents should be able to live without a car. T his has important implications. I f we have only a few small spread out walkable areas, they need to be connected via transit nodes Furthermore, in order for our residents to live car free, they need to be able to access retailers, employers, housing, and entertainment through other form s of transportation than an automobile Unfortunately, for most U.S. citizens, transit is not a viable transportation option. The National Household Traffic Survey found only 1.5% of all trips in the U.S. are made by public transit 3 4 However, our nation's most dense urban areas attr act much more transit ridership New York ers choose to take transit 54% of the time Meanwhile, suburban sprawl plagues transit ridership in cities like Jacksonvil le, Nashville, and Fort Wor t h where only 1.7 % 2.2%, 1.5% of residents choose to take transit respectively A1 In order to increase transit ridership, we need to think about replacing cars. The reason? Overall, there is an inverse relationship between trips by automobile and trips by any other method of transportation walking, biking, transit, et c. As we create walkability and alternative transportation, car trips decrease and we move one step closer to car free cities. More importantly, we need to realize transit ridership is dependent upon walkability. Jeff Speck explains With rare exceptions, every transit trip begins and ends with a walk As a result, while walkability benefits from good transit, good transit relies absolutely on walkability 3 5 This means we need to be deliberate in the way we invest in transit. Dallas's multibillion dollar DART light rail system serves as an anecdotal warning. While having created the largest and most expensive light rail system in the United States, daily ridership averages only 60,000 of the city's 1.3 million residents about 4% of the city's population 3 6 In comparison, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Washington resi dents choose to take


Blake 14 transit 17 % 32 % and 37 % of the time respectively A1 Worse, the percentage of Dallas residents taking transit decreased 28% between 2000 and 2009 A2 Dal las residents are no t using the system because transit nodes are not located in walkable areas Not only do riders drive and park to get on the system, once at their destination they can hardly get around without a car. Adding to the problem parking in downtown Dallas is am ple and cheap, incentivizing locals to drive to work instead 3 7 When executed properly, permanent transit systems such as light rail, subways, and streetcars increase real estate values around transit nodes. In a study of five metropolitan areas residenti al property values with easy access to transit increased 41.6% from 2006 to 2011 3 8 In general properties near well connected transit with frequent service see the largest increase s in real estate value. Because of the beneficial real estate value shock, local municipalities do not need to make investments in transit alone. Cities who work with private investors and real estate developers to plan neighborhood development along with transit investment can reduce their direct contribution. Much of Seattle's South Lake Union growth resulted from cooperation among Microsoft's Paul Allen, local landowners, state government, and city officials in connecting a trolley line to downtown The attrac tive investment opportunity left the city paying only $8.5 million of the $52 million project 3 9 The bottom line, investments in transit need to be purposeful; they must connect previously walkable areas or coincide with plans for development of walkable areas. One low cost method to extend walking t rips is through a commit ment to creating bicycling infrastructure Bicycling as a form of transportation is on the rise, increasing its share of all trips in major U.S. cities by 58.5% from 2000 to 2009 40 In general, the more bike friendly a city, the more walkable it is In maj or U.S. c ities where more than 2% of its residents bike, an average of 6.8% walk; in cities where more than 3 % bike, an average of 9.7% walk; but i n cities where less than 1% bike, an average of only 2.8% walk A2 Most likely, there are several reasons for this pattern. One may be that additional biking infrastructure creates safer roads. The reason for this is twofold. First, bike


Blake 15 lanes especially separated bike lanes create a barrier between cars and sid ewalks. This makes streets safer and more walkab le. Second, bicycle traffic makes drivers more cautious. In Manhattan, 200 lane miles of new protecte d bicycle paths have reduced injuries along project corridors by 56%, with up to 29% reductions in ped estrian accidents, and up to 57% reductions in cyclis t accidents 41 Bicycle paths, lanes, and markings provide a safe route for cyclists to travel between walkable neighborhoods. One recent advent, the bike share most notably Citi Bike in New York City provides a convenient option for tourists and local residents to rent a bicycle for transportation or tourism Bicycles can be unlocked' from one of 330 of stations around the c ity with a flat fee or membership, ridden for 30 to 45 minutes with minimal to no additional cost, and then returned to any stati on 42 Promoting bicycling as a form of transportation has many benefits including improving the health of cyclists, lowering environmental impact from carbon emissions, and increasing road safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. One important note on safety ; bicycling becomes safer as the number of cyclists increases, infrastructure increases, and driver awareness increases. Between 1991 and 2006, increased investment in bicycle infrastructure in Portland, Oregon reduced its bicycle crash rate by over 69 % w hile the number of bicyclists increased more than four times 43 Like other investments in transportation, increasing bicycle infrastructure must be approached purposefully along with a program to increase education and awareness among residents. While the growth of the automobile has harmed the walkability of our cities we can reduce our reliance on automobiles by changing how we let them access our cities and walkable areas. We will always have automobile traffic and commuters. Therefore, i t is important to note that making changes to promote urban walkable areas will not reduce congestion. The bottom line is congestion is unavoidable. Urban planers and traffic engineers should stop trying to alleviate congestion by increasing road lanes. Instead, they sho uld focus on creating meaningful destinations to arrive to urban areas that are walkable and mixed use. Despite this, there are a few incidences of induced


Blake 16 demand working in reverse congestion disappearing when highways and road lanes decrease. Jeff Sp eck coined the term reduced demand' to describe, "what happens when vital' arteries are removed the cities. The traffic just goes away He backs this theory up with historical events such as the collapse of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway and New Yo rk's West Side Highway. In both cases, the car trips did not appear as congestion els ewhere, they simply disappeared 44 Aside from removing major highways and arteries into our downtowns, we can reduce congestion by implementing tolls and other costs to dr iving. In 2003, London introduced a £11.50 charge for entering London on a weekday. The result was a 30% reduct ion in congestion and 14% reduction in trip time s The more than a billion pounds in revenue generated by the charge has been used to create alte rnative mass transit systems 45 A focus on increasing financial and time costs to driving can reduce congestion, but must be supported by investment for alternative forms of transportation which can replace automobile transport. Part 4 : Implementation Wi th a n understanding of the urban planning choices that have led us to our current state and the numerous alternatives to re scuing our downtowns, the question on everyone' s mind should be: where do we begin? While every city is different, the key is to pr ioritize municipal funds towards inexpensive projects that will have the most impact on walkability. In literally determining where to invest first, cities should start downtown. While other neighborhoods may be more walkable than our downtowns, every resi dent of our cities and surrounding suburbs share downtown. It is the one area in which all citizens have an interest. Furthermore, our downtowns typically have the most growth potential, existing infrastructure, and funding. Transforming our empty downtown s in to walkable mixed use centers for economic activity may seem far from realization or even unachievable Recognizing that revitalization is a slow, systematic process will help us to focus on small attainable wins, rather than tackling every problem at once.


Blake 17 Before we can attempt to resolve problems, we need to know what the problems are. The first step to revitalizing our downtowns is acquiring expert information about where our cities are failing. The key to this process is acquiring accurate informa tion. Awareness of bias is key to preventing poor investment decisions. Traffic engineers and consultants are going to be biased towards reducing congestion and following the DOT standards. As discussed previously, this is primarily why we have ended up wi th suburban sprawl. On the same note, any party with a conflict of interest, especially interested developers, investors, and contract bidders, are highly biased sources of information. The best bet is to bring in an unrelated, arms length consulting group preferably one with the same goals of increasing walkability, local density, and economic development. Another source of information is the public, the taxpayers. Cities should hold open forums and town hall meetings for discussion about revitalization. While third party information may be unbiased, local information may be the key to identifying the real problems. The key is to listen first, understand, and then take on the problems that are in the best interest of the city, all of its residents, and qu ickly attainable. After identifying the problems and narrowing them down to those that are feasible, cities need to develop a plan specifically a new master plan for downtown. While every city' s plan will be different, the overarching goal should be to bring people back downtown by encouraging walkability. This means identifying a core and building local density around it. This core most likely already exists and probably flourished at some point in the past. Revitalizing this core should be the first fo cus, d eveloping a plan focused around mixed use zoning following a traditional neighborhood structure. The most important thing to avoid in this planning phase is paralysis by analysis'. The cities that quickly recognize their problems, identify their cor e and make a plan to bring residents downtown again will attract the human and financial capital necessary for economic growth.


Blake 18 Once the planning phase is complete, communication, leadership, and cooperation will be the key to progress. While cities will have limited funding which must be prioritized, the speed of revitalization can be leveraged through cooperation with private interests. If the first goal is to spur housing growth, reducing barriers to development of downtown housing is crucial. Effective leadership on the zoning board can lobby to r emove unnecessary zoning restrictions that delay housing development. Additionally municipal leadership in favor of new urbanism and smart growth can help unite support for updating old building codes and work ing with the private sector to reduce red tape The cities that can act swiftly, innovate, and reconsider outdated standards will spur the most investment an d development. Those that are not open to reform and new ideas will lose the spark of private secto r reformers and visionary planners to other progressive thinking cities. As cities begin to prioritize their budgets, leaders need to look towards inexpensive reforms with large impact, easy implementation, and quick results. According to Jeff Speck, some of the cheapest and most effective investments are in streetscape bike lanes, on street parking, street trees, benches, planters, lane widths, and more 46 Without tearing up roads, completely altering downtown traffic patterns, or investing in mass tran sit systems, cities can take small steps towards improving walkability downtown. The first step is to choose a street that is most nearly walkable in our downtown core the same core we identified in our master plan. Aside from rallying support for privat e investment, city planners should look to improve this street's walkability by enhancing the streetscape. One effective investment is in planting deciduous street trees. They are relatively inexpensive, enjoyable to look at, reduce carbon emissions, cause drivers to slow down, protect pedestrians increase real estate values, alleviate drainage issues, reduce urban temperatures, and benefit the local economy 47 In Portland, Oregon, researchers concluded that street trees added $15.3 million in economic ben efit at a cost of only $1.28 million the city a payout ratio of 12:1 48 Another inexpensive renovation is to add on street parking. By removing a lane on both sides of a


Blake 19 four lane street, two rows of on street parking can be added. This parking can be pr iced at market rate and payments can be used to recuperate construction costs. Additionally, road safety and walkability will increase from the physical barrier s created. To take things one step further, separated bicycle lanes can be added between on stre et parking and sidewalks to add safe alternative transportation routes, further protecting bicyclists and pedestrians. Overall, a one way four lane speedway downtown can be quickly and inexpensively converted into a walkable, bike friendly, boulevard with on street parking. Convincing developers to build up local housing den sity through mixed use developments will be much easier with municipal investments that increase pedestrian traffic to retailers, offices, and housing. Working together with the private sector on developing these walkable cores is essential. Synergy among developers, investors, and city officials is the goa l. Permanent investments in downtown transit system s and streetscape increase real estate values in surrounding areas. These increasin g property values create opportunities for the private sector to invest in new mixed use developments. Developments that create affordable housing, downtown office space, and urban retail locati ons will attract new residents seeking the vibrant city lifest yle. As these cores develop, local densit y increases and property values rise, increasing tax revenue for the city. The additional tax revenue can then be used to further invest in making our downtowns walkable and car free. Suddenly, large investments in mass transit and traffic re engineering are possible with larger municipal budgets, investor enthusiasm, and economic growth. In general, our desire is to make our downtowns inhabitable again. Much of this process must happen organically, but it will foll ow effective leadership and careful planning. In order to make our cities more enjoyable we must seek ways to engage the culture of our local residents. Affordable housing, mixed use developments, street improvements, and transit systems alone will not rev ive our downtowns. The cities that can engage the community with a rts, activities, culture,


Blake 20 entertainment, and safety alongside redevelopment will be successful. Without the human component, cities will merely dump municipal funds into a n urban desert. Th e key then is to find leaders who can inspire the existing community to invest themselves in revitalization and take ownership of their downtowns. A Comparison of Two Cities : Jacksonville, FL and Seattle, WA While generalities about implementation serve a purpose, actually revitalizing American downtowns has proven to be quite difficult for most cities. However, smart growth and new urbanism have been well under way for many years now. The aforementioned progressive cities have already taken the risky st eps towards discovering how to restore our downtowns. Years of trial and error have paved the way to a formula' for smart growth for those cities that have been left behind. The cities that can learn and implement the formula' will be the next to attain massive economic growth. Therefore, this section will compare the outcomes of two cities that have been undergoing the process of rev italization for the past thirty or so years: Jacksonville, Florida and Seattle, Washington. I chose these two cities for c omparison for several reasons. One, both Seattle and Jacksonville are major port cities, with a history of shipping and military influence 49, 50 Second, both cities' downtowns, like many downtowns, are separated from sprawling suburbs by bodies of water a nd massive highway networks Third both cities have a relatively similar size workforce A1 Fourth, bo th cities have similarly sized urban cores with nearly identical block lengths 51 Most importantly, each city has followed a different growth plan since t he rise of the automobile in p ost WWII society. While both cities began to expand outwards into suburban sprawl, Jacksonville chose to consolidate into a city county in 1968 under pressure to capture tax revenue from middle class whites that fled to the su burbs in the 1950's and 60's 52 Consolidation changed Jacksonville overnight from a dense 30.2 square mile downtown area into a sprawling 750+ square mile city county which remains the


Blake 21 largest city by land area in the continental U.S. today 53 In the post WWII economic slump and suburban flight, Seattle chose instead to host the Century 21 Exposition and the World's Fair in 1962. This early downtown revitalization led not only to the creation of iconic downtown stru ctures like the Space Needle, M onorail a nd Seattle Center but also a suburban highway system riddled with congestion 54 By the late 1970's and early 1980's both of the cities were experiencing exponential growth in the suburbs. Seattle's economy began to improve as Microsoft located in the neigh boring suburb of Bel levue creating 40,000 new jobs. Unfortunately, Microsoft's location also had the effect of increasing sprawl highway development 55 By the 1990's, Jacksonville's population had outgrown Seattle 's, experiencing 17.4% growth between 1980 and 1990 B1 However, Jacksonville's massive population growth figures are deceiving, as much of the growth in the last thirty years has been in the suburbs 56 During this period, downtown Seattle and downtown Jacksonville have taken entirely different path s. Seattle has made smart growth decisions to reel' in the suburban sprawl while Jacksonville has struggled to combat its urban flight. According to U.S. Census population statistics, Jacksonville has grown an averag e of 15% every decade since 1980 B1 Yet, most of this growth has been in increasingly distant suburbs, far from downtown Jacksonville. Figure 1, on the left, shows the population


Blake 22 change and density in census blocks in Jacksonville between 2000 and 2010. The important aspect to note is the red line showing the pre consolidated city boundaries. While there has been slight growth in the immediate downtown core in last 10 years, many of the neighborhoods within the pre consolidated city boundaries have experienced 10% to 20% population decl ines, some more than 20% Additionally, many of downtown neighborhoods have densities less than 5,000 persons per square mile, including the urban core 57 Using the original pre consolidation boundaries, Jacksonville's population in 2010 is only 104,047 pe rsons, a 7.7% decrease from 2000, and a net loss of 96,983 persons since the 1960 census, before consolidation 58 B2 These numbers show a much more accurate view of Jacksonville's urban exodus since the 1950's and 60's. On the contrary, Seattle has buil t density in downtown, primarily near the urban core. Figure 2, on the left shows urban densities well over 5,000 persons per square mile in Seattle in 2010, many neighborhoods with densities with between 10,000 and 125,000 perso ns per square mile 59 Overall the c ity has achieved an average 8.5% population growth rate


Blake 23 since 1990 B1 In the past thirty years, Seattle's economy, population, and infrastructure have grown with help from the success of the tech, coffee, and biotech ind ustries. While some companies, like Microsoft have located in the suburbs, the city has been able to build density in its urban core. Seattle has chosen smart growth initiatives, investing in transit, bicyclin g infrastructure, and parks while focusing on b uilding density downtown, preserving historic sites, and encouraging development in its walkable neighborhoods. This downtown growth is mainly the result of cooperation among the local residents, city government, and private sector. Today, Se attle is th riving with a highly educated workforce consisting primarily of young adults 25 to 34 60, 61 Housing units have grown 14% from 2000 to 2009, outpacing the impressive 9% growth rate of the 1990's 62 Median incomes are well above the national average, with p er capita income 49% higher than the U.S. national average 63 Over 97% of Seattle's population is within mile of a transit stop and the city ranks 6 th out of the 50 largest cities in the U.S. for walkability 64 In four years, the city's Bicycle Master Pl an has led to 129 miles of bike lanes and sharrows 98 miles of signed routes and 2,230 bike parking spaces 65 The city's growth shows no signs of slowing with the release of its Comprehensive Plan, a 20 year roadmap for sustainable growth including, "d ecisions on where to build new jobs and houses, how to improve our transportation system, and where to make capital investments such as utilities, sidewalks, and libraries d irecting growth to existing urban centers and villages, contributing to the vibran cy of our neighborhood centers, and reinforcing the benefits of City investments in transit, parks, utilities, community centers, and other infrastructures 66 Wh en compared to Jacksonville, transportation mode share statistics help to explain Seattle's ur ban growth In Jacksonville, 92.5% of all trips are made by car compared to only 62.5% in Seattle A1 In Jacksonville, it is nearly impossible to live car free, with most of downtown's daily activity consisting of suburban automobile commuters. On the contr ary, urban Seattleites are finding


Blake 24 it easier to replace the car with transit, bicycling, and walking. Additionally, the compact urban core of Seattle is much more walkable, with high local density and numerous places to eat, work, live, and play This may be on reason that 7.7% of all trips in Seattle are walked comp ared to only 1.7% in Jacksonville A1 Seattle has outperformed Jacksonville in public transportation offering an array of rail, bus, streetcar, and ferry service. From 2000 to 2009, trans it trip s in Seattle are up 10.9% compared to an 18.5% decline in Jacksonville A2 In 2010 19.5 % of all trips in Seattle were made on transit while only 1.7% of trips were made on transit in Jacksonville A1 The most obvious differentiator between the two cities is bicycling investment and infrastructure. As a result, bicycling as a form of transportation increased 59% in Seattle while decreasing 4.1% in Jacksonville from 2000 to 2009 A2 All of these trends in Seattle highlight a shift away from reliance on the auto mobile and indicate an increase in downtown density and vitality. Furthermore, t hese smart growth decision s have created mass appeal for the city. D espite raining an average of 140 days each year, Seattle attracted $5.9 billion tourism dollars in 2012 mor e than twice that of Jacksonville at $2.2 billion 67, 68, 69 These trends are correlated with Seattle's increasing urban density and ultimately, economic growth Since 1990, Seattle's downtown population has increased by 25,876 residents an impressive 76% 7 0 According to 2010 census data, only 3,097 residents were estimated living in downtown Jacksonville compared to 58,980 in downtown S eattle Additionally, i n 2009, there were over 202,000 jobs in downtown Seattle, representing over 45% of the city's tota l workforce 71 72 In Jacksonville, downtown employment fell 15% between 1990 and 2010 leaving downtown with 51,000 jobs total of which only 18,000 were located in the cities urban core 7 3 In 2012, per capita income in Seattle was $42,280 62% higher than Jacksonville at $26,088 74 7 5 Since 2011, both cities metropolitan statistical areas have experienced economic growth, Seattle averaging 4.9% GDP growth a year and Jacksonville averaging 4.5% B3 However, in 2014, Seattle's M etropolitan Statis ti cal


Blake 25 Area ( MSA) ranked 12 th largest in GDP output at $281 billion compared to Jacksonville at 49 th with only $68.2 billion B3 Some of this difference can be attributed to larger size of the Seattle Tacoma Bellevue MSA, encompassing three downtown cores However, I be lieve the primary reason s for the MSA's outstanding economic output is high urban density and a well p erforming business environment with companies like Costco, Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, and Nordstrom. Jacksonville is a classic example of an American downtown dominated by the growth of the automobile and suburban sprawl. While its population statistics appear to show encouraging growth, a visit to downtown will cause you to wonder where all of these people live. When the city consolidated to prevent lo sing its tax base, it also lost the ability to focus on its urban core. As suburban sprawl growth increased, the city's inhabitants pushed further and further from downtown chasing the newest, cheapest housing and shopping developments on the periphery. To day, Jacksonville has very few walkable neighborhoods separated by miles of complex highway infrastructure. Overall, the city has a Walk Score of 26, ranking 49 th of the 50 largest cities in the U.S. 7 6 Despite this, the city has made progress in recent ye ars sparking development and revitalization downtown. It remains to be seen if these plans will reach completion and how effective the city will be in building urban density. While far from perfect, Seattle serves as an example of the economic growth that can be attained by creating a vibrant, walkable urban core that attracts young college educated workers, fast growing companies, and cultural creatives. Conclusion Since the rise of the automobile, the nature of American downtowns has changed. As suburban sprawl has pushed increasingly outward m any cities' urban co res have lost their vitality in order to satisfy the needs of automobile commuters. As younger and older generations are more frequently choosing to walk instead of drive, these cities are in a poor position to attract future population and economic growth. The cities that have built local density, encourage d mixed use


Blake 26 traditional neighborhoods, and develop ed alternative forms of transportation are appealing to this massive demographic segment. Millenials, Baby Boomers, and other New Urbanites combined are a large population, now outnumbering child rearing suburbanites. Th is massive population group is moving into walkable, urban areas at rates unseen for nearly a hundred years. They are largely rejecting the responsibilities and risks of vehicle and home ownership, seeking to live car free and flexibly. They are s eeking new cultural experiences, sustainability, healthy living, and innovative business offerings. Now, t hese Americans are flocking f rom the distinct land use suburbs in which they have grown up and resided The rampant growth of suburban sprawl has led to massive highway development and infrastructure changes related to increas ed automobile traffic. In an attempt to alleviate congesti on, traffic engineers and transportation experts' massively expanded highway systems, at a significant cost to taxpayers, our downtowns, and our environment. As they have added road lanes to fix the problem, induced demand has immediately negated any bene fit. Ultimately, our society has traveled further to work, but not been any more efficient in commuting. With more cars arriving into downtowns, cities have had to accommodate parking by tearing down historic buildings or developing multi level garages. Th e demands of parking have tarnished our cities appearance s leaving some cities nearly unwalkable Furthermore, the expectation of free parking' has proven a hidden economic drain on our society, incorporated into everyth ing we purchase and unavoidable, even by choice. As the traffic engineering field attempted to improve the safety of our roads, widening lanes and removing any fixed objects in sight, drivers have felt safer speeding through neighborhoods, distracted and unengaged. Ultimately, changing ou r environment to accommodate the automobile has ruined our downtown economies and threatened many cities' livelihoods for years to come.


Blake 27 Fortunately, select small and large cities around the nation have been making smart growth decisions and attracting yo ung college educated workers and retiring Baby Boomers alike. These cities are a complex mixture of interdependent and synergistic land uses. At their urban core, growing cities have built up local density by amassing affordable housing. These cities are h ighly walkable, with restaurants, offices, grocery stores, entertainment, parks, and special sites within extendable walking distance. The traditional neighborhood structure has proven a model for growth with its organic network of streets and interesting mixed uses within a five minute walk of its center. Smart cities are enhancing walkability by improving pedestrian s afety, creating interesting sights, and offering alternative transportation. Deliberate investments in reliable and accessible transit that extend s walking trips are driving up property values and fueling economic growth. These progressive' cities are d eveloping bicycling infrastructure that reduces reliance on automobiles and increases road safety. Some of the most walkable and dense cities are alleviating congestion by enacting tolls and tearing down commuter highways. Ultimately, the cities that are focus ed on building a vibrant, dense urban core with access to alternative forms of transportation are drawing in human and financial capital For struggling cities looking to revitalize their urban core, it seems the first step is to recognize the true problems. Obtaining accurate, unbiased information from third parties and local interests can help to identify where to start. Most often, the p lace to start revitalization of the downtown core is developing a new master plan. The cities that can remove unnecessary barriers to development and investment will emerge on the forefront. I nexpensive first step s towards revitaliz ation for many municipal ities are in small investments like street trees, road narrowing, bicycle paths, and on street parking. These improvements in walkability can lead to economic growth and financial inflows that fund larger projects.


Blake 28 The different city planning decisions an d development paths taken by Seattle and Jacksonville in recent years have yielded different outcomes in population and economic growth. Since consolidating into a city county in 1968, Jacksonville's downtown population has fled into the suburbs following an expanding network of suburban sprawl. While threatened by suburban growth, Seattle has made smart urban growth decisions to attract college educated young workers, fast growing companies, and cultural creatives. As a result, the size and strength of Sea ttle's urban population and economy far surpass Jacksonville's. Seattle's growth demonstrates some of the choices struggling cities can make to achieve urban growth over the next decade. While example cities, such as Seattle, provide a potential roadmap' for success, it may be too late for some cities to catch up The one flaw with analyzing historical data and previously reported sociocultural trends is the lack of predictability. Forecasting into the future naturally contains some level of risk and it r emains to be seen whether the successes of smart growth and new urbanism will continue into the future. While many of these demographic trends are projected to hold until 2025, the sociocultural shift towards urban life may dissipate As Millenials age and begin raising children some of the desire to avoid home and vehicle ownership may diminish If urban schools cannot improve and outperform suburban schools, Millenials may find themselves lea ving the urban lifestyle for the suburban school districts Add itionally, as Baby Boomers age into late retirement, it remains to be seen whether they will continue to enjoy the bustle of urban living. However, these potential trends do not affect the true purpose of our cities to provide an efficient, economic cen ter for activity. This can only be achieved by continuously reducing time and economic inefficiencies such as work commutes, vacant real estate, bureaucratic red tape and health and safety hazards As such, our cities goals should be to reduce reliance on the automobile and seek ways to make the most productive, enjoyable, safe, and efficient environment downtown.


Blake 29 Works Cited 1. Doherty, Patrick C., and Christopher B. Leinberger. "The Next Real Estate Boom." Washington Monthly. November/December 2010. http :// leinberger. html 2. The Segmentation Company. Attracting College Educated, Young Adults to Cities Report. 2006. Educated%20A dults%20to%20Cities.pdf. 3. Florida, Richard. "The Great Car Reset." Creative Class (blog), June 04, 2010. great car reset/. 4. Florida, Richard. "The Joys of Urban Tech." The Wall Street Journal. August 31, 2012. 5. Doherty, Patrick C., and Christopher B. Leinberger. "The Next Real Estate Boom." 6. Ibid. 7. Nielsen. "Millennials Prefer Cities to Suburbs, Subways to Driveway s." Nielsen Insights. March 04, 2014. prefer cities to suburbs subways to driveways.html. 8. Leinberger, Christopher B. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream Island Press, 2009. 89 90. 9. Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012. 82. 10. Ibid, 214 215 11. Ibid, 215. 12. Ibid, 117. 13. Shoup, Donald C. The High Cost of Free Parking Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2005. 209 210. 14. Ibid, 2. 15. Ibid, 297 299. 16. Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time 238. 17. Ibid 170.


Blake 30 18. Marohn, Charles. "Confessions of a Recovering Engineer." Strong Towns (blog), November 22, 2010. ht tp:// of a recovering engineer.html. 19. Noland, Robert B. "Trafc Fatalities and Injuries: The Effect of Changes in Infrastructure and Other Trends." Accident Analysis & Prevention 35, no. 4 (July 2003): 608. Traffic_Fatalities_and_Inj uries.pdf. 20. Mumford, Lewis. The Highway and the City New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963. 23. 21. Impresa, Inc., and Coletta & Company. The Young and the Restless: How Portland Competes for Talent. Report. Accessed July 30 2014. 4. http://www.globalurba 22. Ibid. 23. Thrall, Grant Ian. Business Geography and New Real Estate Market Analysis Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 216 17. 24. Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time 106. 25. Ibid. 26. The Furman C enter for Real Estate and Urban Policy. Trends in New York City Housing Price Appreciation Report. State of New York City's Housing & Neighborhoods. 2008. 15. 27. "Walkability, Real Estate, and Public Health Data." Accessed July 25 2014. 28. Cortright, Joe. "Walking the Walk." CEOs for Cities. 2009. the walk/. 29. Duany, Andres Elizabeth Plater Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream New York: North Point Press, 2000. 15 16. 30. Speck, Jeff. "Walkability in the Urban Planning Process." Lecture, Downtown Development Power B reakfast, Omni Jacksonville, Jacksonville, December 10, 2013. 31. Dumbaugh, Eric, and J. L. Gattis. "Safe Streets, Livable Streets." Journal of the American Planning Association 71, no. 3 (2005): 285. doi:10.1080/01944360508976699. 32. Ibid. 33. Duany, Andres, Eliz abeth Plater Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream 78. 34. U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey Report. Wash ington, DC, 2003.


Blake 31 01_national_household_travel_survey/pdf/entire.pdf. 35. Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time 140. 36. Freemark, Yonah. "An Extensive New Addition to Dallas' Light Rail Network Makes It America's Longest." The Transport Politic. December 05, 2010. extensive new addition to dallas light rail network makes it americas lo ngest/. 37. Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time 146 150. 38. American Public Transportation Association, and National Association of Realtors. The New Real Estate Mantra Location Near Public Transportation. Report. Marc h 2013. 39. Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time 153. 40. Freemark, Yonah. "Transit Mode Share Trends Looking Steady; Rail Appears to Encourage Non Automobile Commutes." The Transport Politic. October 13, 2013. mode share trends looking steady rail appears to encourage non automobile commutes/. 41. Lord, Hayes. "200 Lane Mile Commitment." U.S. Dep artment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2010. 42. "How It Wor ks." Citi Bike. Accessed July 30 2014. it works. 43. Rails to Trails Conservancy. Activ e Transportation for America Report. 2008. 44. Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time 94. 45. "London Congestion Char ge." Wikipedia. Access ed July 30 2014. 46. Speck, Jeff. "Walkability in the Urban Planning Process." Lecture, Downtown Development Power Breakfast, Omni Jacksonville, Jacksonville, December 10, 2013. 47. Speck, Jeff. Walkable Ci ty: How Downtown Can save America, One Step at a Time 223 233. 48. Donovan, Geoffrey H., and David T. Butry. "Trees in the City: Valuing Street Trees in Portland, Oregon." Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 5. .pdf.


Blake 32 49. McNamee, Gregory Lewis. "Seattle (Washington, United States)." Encyclopedia Bri tannica Online. Accessed July 30 2014. 50. The Editors of Encyclopdia Britannica. "Jacksonville (Florida, United S tates)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed July 25, 2014. 51. "Seattle, Washington." and "Jacksonville, Florida" 2014. Google Maps. Accessed July 30 2014. 52. "Jackson ville's Consolidated Government." The Jacksonville Historical Society. Accessed July 25, 2014. 53. Davis, Ennis. "Census 2010: Urban Jacksonville In Decline." Metro Jacksonville. March 31, 2011. http://www.metrojacksonvil mar census 2010 urban jacksonville in decline. 54. Casey, Chris. "Seattle History ." Accessed July 30 2014. 55. Ibid. 56. Davis, Ennis. "Census 2010: Urban Jacksonville In Decline." 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. Ne wton, Chad. "Census 2010: City of Seattle Population Density Map." Build the City (blog), March 19, 2011. 2010 city of seattle population density map/. 60. "Prosperity Quick Statistics ." Acces sed July 30 2014. /default.htm. 61. "Population & Households Quick Statistics ." Accessed July 30 2014. graphics/aboutseattle/populatio n/default.htm. 62. "Housing Quick Statistics ." Accessed July 30 2014. default.htm. 63. "Prosperity Quick Statistics."


Blake 33 64. "Land Use Quick Statistics ." Accessed July 30 2014. efault.htm. 65. "Bicycle Program." Seattle Department of Transportation. Accessed July 30 2014. http://www. 66. "Seattle's Comprehensive Plan ." Accessed July 30 2014. hy/default.htm. 67. Is Seattle Really The Rain Capital Of Th e U.S.? KOMO News Network. March 13, 2008. 68. Visitor Statistics. Visit Seattle. Accessed July 30 2014. Us/Facts And Figures.aspx 69. Clark, Jessica. Tourism generates $2.2B in revenue for Jacksonville First Coast News March 21, 2014 tourism revenue gains/6719285/ 70. Downtown Seattle Association Peer City Review: A Comparison of Downtown Seattle to Eight Peer U.S. Cities Report. 2011. 2 3. 71. City of Jacksonville Office of Economic Development, and Downtown Vision, Inc. State of Downtown 2012 Progress Report Report. 2013. 10. NAL_WEB.sflb.ashx. 72. Downtown Seattle Association Peer City Review: A Comparison of Downtown Seattle to Eight Peer U.S. Cities Report. 2011. 3 73. Downtown Vision, Inc. Turning the Corner: Rethinking and Remaking Downtown Report. 2010. 3. aper.sflb.ashx. 74. Seattle, Washington City Accessed July 30, 2014. eattle Washington.html 75. Jacksonville Florida Household Income. Department of Numbers. Accessed July 30, 2014. 76. "Living in Jacksonville." Accessed July 30 2014. http://www.walkscore .com/FL/Jacksonville.


Blake 34 Appendix A: Transportation Mode Share Statistics Table A1: Transportation Mode Share Statistics in America's Biggest Cities in 2009. City Total workers Total Auto Total Non Auto Driving Alone Carpooling Transit Biking Walking Aus tin 428 979 83.1 8.3 72.7 10.4 5.0 1.0 2.3 Baltimore 267 185 70.3 25.2 60.7 9.6 17.0 1.0 7.2 Boston 338 393 44.7 50.8 37.0 7.7 34.5 2.1 14.1 Charlotte 348 699 87.8 6.0 76.6 11.2 3.5 0.2 2.4 Chicago 1 271 744 60.7 33.6 50.8 9.9 26.5 1.1 5.9 Columbus 37 9 681 90.0 5.7 82.4 7.6 2.4 0.7 2.6 Dallas 599 034 89.1 6.0 78.5 10.7 3.9 0.1 1.9 Denver 307 556 79.8 13.3 69.4 10.4 7.8 1.8 3.7 Detroit 262 217 82.8 12.5 71.4 11.4 7.6 0.5 4.5 El Paso 255 875 90.1 5.0 79.8 10.3 2.4 0.2 2.5 Fort Worth 331 894 92.3 2.8 80.6 11.7 1.5 0.1 1.2 Houston 1 058 450 88.4 6.6 75.6 12.8 3.9 0.4 2.3 Indianapolis 364 749 92.0 4.5 82.4 9.6 2.0 0.5 2.0 Jacksonville 378 090 91.6 3.8 79.6 12.0 1.7 0.4 1.7 Las Vegas 245 685 88.8 6.3 77.9 10.9 3.4 0.3 2.6 Los Angeles 1 748 419 77.6 15.7 67.1 10.5 11.3 1.0 3.4 Louisville 256 223 89.1 6.8 79.2 9.9 4.1 0.5 2.1 Memphis 271 801 90.9 4.6 78.7 12.2 2.8 0.0 1.9 Milwaukee 264 010 83.1 13.8 70.4 12.6 8.4 0.6 4.7 Nashville 298 121 90.8 3.7 80.6 10.1 2.2 0.1 1.4 New York 3 731 917 28.7 65.8 23.5 5.3 54.9 0.6 10.3 Philadelphia 616 150 59.8 35.8 51.3 8.5 24.9 2.2 8.7 Phoenix 688 643 88.0 6.1 74.5 13.5 3.2 0.9 2.0 Portland 289 700 70.1 22.9 61.6 8.5 11.5 5.8 5.6 San Antonio 606 446 90.2 5.5 78.8 11.5 3.3 0.1 2.0 San Diego 626 126 84.9 7.4 76.5 8.4 3.7 0.8 2.9 San Francisco 437 073 46.4 45.1 38.9 7.4 31.8 3.0 10.3 San Jose 442 980 88.5 6.0 76.4 12.2 3.2 0.9 1.9 Seattle 354 740 62.5 30.2 52.9 9.6 19.5 3.0 7.7 Washington 291 083 43.1 50.4 36.5 6.7 37.1 2.2 11.1 Source: Freemark, Yonah. Transit Mode Share Trends Looking Steady; Rail Appears to Encourage Non Automobile Commutes." The Transport Politic. October 13, 2013. mode share trends looking steady rail appears to encourage non auto mobile commutes/.


Blake 35 Table A2: Percent Change in Transportation Mode Share in America's Biggest Cities 2000 2009. City Total Auto Total Non Auto Driving alone Carpooling Transit Biking Walking Austin 5.1 4.5 1.2 25.2 12.0 11.9 11.4 Baltim ore 0.5 6.6 11.0 37.1 12.7 200.6 0.7 Boston 11.9 9.7 10.9 16.4 6.9 117.7 8.4 Charlotte 3.7 24.3 1.6 16.2 8.5 3.6 59.4 Chicago 6.0 4.1 1.4 31.5 1.6 129.2 4.7 Columbus 0.3 24.0 4.3 29.1 39.7 107.3 18.6 Dallas 0.6 20.8 10.8 40.0 28.1 9. 3 2.3 Denver 2.4 3.3 1.7 23.3 7.5 89.8 15.5 Detroit 3.3 7.8 4.1 33.1 12.0 192.4 58.4 El Paso 2.4 14.4 4.3 35.0 2.5 47.8 26.5 Fort Worth 1.5 16.4 4.7 29.9 1.5 18.2 31.5 Houston 0.7 23.5 5.3 19.8 33.0 17.9 0.4 Indianapolis 0.3 2. 6 3.0 21.8 17.1 129.1 1.1 Jacksonville 1.1 11.3 0.4 10.4 18.5 4.1 4.7 Las Vegas 0.1 13.7 5.5 27.5 28.5 10.7 18.7 Los Angeles 3.6 9.2 2.0 28.7 10.7 63.8 4.2 Memphis 1.5 7.9 2.7 22.2 7.8 78.7 4.0 Milwaukee 0.9 10.1 2.4 7.2 18.1 90.3 0.4 Nashville 1.3 13.4 2.8 24.9 21.7 23.3 39.5 New York 12.6 3.3 5.6 34.3 4.0 28.8 1.1 Philadelphia 3.5 1.2 4.3 33.5 2.1 150.7 4.0 Phoenix 1.2 3.5 3.9 22.3 1.4 4.6 9.8 Portland 7.2 18.6 3.3 28.1 6.4 230.0 6.3 San Antonio 0 .6 9.9 4.2 24.6 12.0 11.7 6.2 San Diego 1.5 13.2 3.5 31.4 12.4 14.6 19.6 San Francisco 9.6 6.2 3.9 31.0 2.0 50.2 10.5 San Jose 2.1 2.1 0.0 13.3 21.3 43.1 32.8 Seattle 7.7 12.5 6.5 14.1 10.9 59.0 4.4 Washington 12.7 9.3 5.1 39.3 12.0 86.2 5.9 Source: Freemark, Yonah. "Transit Mode Share Trends Looking Steady; Rail Appears to Encourage Non Automobile Commutes." The Transport Politic. October 13, 2013. mode share tren ds looking steady rail appears to encourage non automobile commutes/.


Blake 36 Appendix B: Jacksonville, Florida and Seattle, Washington Statistics Table B1: Comparative Historic Decennial U.S. Census Population Data : Jacksonvi lle, Fl orida and Seattle, Washington 195 0 2010 Year Jacksonville, FL Seattle, WA Population Land Area (sq. miles) Density (avg. pop. per sq. mi.) Decennial Population Change (%) Population Land Area (sq. miles) Density (avg. pop. per sq. mi.) Dece nnial Pop. Change (%) 1950 204,275 30.2 6,772 18.0 467,591 70.8 6,604 27.0 1960 201,030 30.2 6,657 1.6 557,087 88.5 6,295 19.1 1970 528,865 766.0 690 163.1 530,831 83.6 6,350 4.7 1980 540,920 759.7 712 2.3 493,846 83.6 5,907 7.0 1990 635,230 758.7 837 17.4 516,259 83.9 6,153 4.5 2000 735,617 757.7 971 15.8 563,374 83.9 6,715 9.1 2010 821,784 757.7 1,141 11.7 608,660 83.9 7,255 8.0 Source s : (1) U.S. Census Bureau. (2) Campbell Gibson, Population of the 100 largest Cities and other Urban Places i n the United States: 1790 to 1990", Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C. June 1998 Table B2: Adjusted Jacksonville Population Data Using the Pre Consoli dation City Boundaries 2000 2010. Year Jacksonville, FL Population Land Area (sq. miles) Density (avg. pop. per sq. mi.) Decennial Population Change (%) 2000 112,753 30.2 3,734 2010 104,047 30.2 3,445 7.7 Source: Davis, Ennis. "Census 2010: U rban Jacksonville In Decline." Metro Jacksonville. March 31, 2011. mar census 2010 urban jacksonville in decline. Table B3 : Gross Metropolitan Product of Seattle Tacoma Bellevue, WA and Jacksonville FL, 2011 2014 (projected). Seattle Tacoma Bellevue, WA Jacksonville, FL Year GM P (US$, Billions) Change (%) GM P (US$, Billions ) Change (%) 2011 243.8 59.8 2012 258.8 6.2 62.3 4.2 2013 268.5 3.7 65.1 4.5 2014 281 .0 4.7 68.2 4.8 Avg. 263.0 4.9 63.9 4.5 Source : IHS Global Insight. Outlook Gross Metropolitan Product, with Metro Employment Projections Report. U.S. Metro Economies. United States Conference of Mayors, 2013. 2 3. report.pdf.