<%BANNER%>

Examining the & #34;Urban & #34; New Urbanism for Compatibility with the Evolving Patterns of the Traditional City

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021759/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the & #34;Urban & #34; New Urbanism for Compatibility with the Evolving Patterns of the Traditional City A Case Study of the Parramore Heritage District in Orlando, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (100 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wheelock, Jennifer L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: downtown, historic, infill, new, orlando, parramore, preservation, redevelopment, urbanism
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: New Urbanism has been lauded by some as the answer to many, if not all, of the problems urban planners face today: a way for regions to curb sprawl, promote equitable, diverse neighborhoods, support public transportation, foster a sense of community, build social capital, transform public housing projects, and reconnect present development patterns with those found in thriving historic neighborhoods. Although existing urban neighborhoods may retain much of the traditional character advocated by the New Urbanism, they no longer exist as pure 'traditional' development. The relationship between the New Urbanism and intact historic neighborhoods is relatively well-documented: this paper explores the relationship between the New Urbanism and neighborhoods that retain some, but not all, of their historic patterns. The case study of the Parramore Heritage District in Orlando, Florida, provides a context to examine the physical relationship between the patterns that the New Urbanism promotes, the historic patterns of the traditional city, and the current patterns left by a legacy of modernist planning. Located within downtown Orlando, the historic Parramore neighborhood reflects the negative effects of past planning efforts (including segregationist policies, unfavorable zoning, public housing projects, highway building, and urban renewal). Additionally, a Master Design Plan drafted by Dover, Kohl, and Partners in 1994 provides a theoretical tool for analyzing how New Urbanist principles could be applied to the redevelopment of the area. A methodology adopted from Emily Talen is used to rate the existing urban form on how well it represents the urban form advocated for by the New Urbanists. In general, the current patterns that scored the highest had changed the least from 1925 to the present. The current patterns that scored the lowest displayed a higher degree of change from the 1925 patterns. However, the areas scoring the highest tended to be residential areas while the low-scoring areas contained more industrial uses and large public buildings. These findings may indicate a bias in the methodology to favor residential areas over large-scale industrial and public use, or it may speak to a larger preference of the New Urbanism for certain types of traditional patterns that do not include industrial uses close to residential uses. While the New Urbanism's design principles are arguably a useful and powerful redevelopment strategy for existing urban neighborhoods, the amount of physical change a neighborhood has experienced in the 20th century may affect the ease with which comprehensive New Urbanist redevelopment is accomplished. The strength of the New Urbanism to be flexible and to respect not only local character and architecture, but to also incorporate existing uses creatively into redevelopment plans is essential for the success of the New Urbanism in existing urban areas. Dover, Kohl, and Partner's Master Plan for Parramore attempts to accomplish this through making strategic recommendations based on things that can realistically be changed (such as infill projects on vacant lots and the redevelopment of parking areas) without completely eliminating the industrial and large-scale public uses that are a fact of life in the neighborhood.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jennifer L Wheelock.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021759:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021759/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the & #34;Urban & #34; New Urbanism for Compatibility with the Evolving Patterns of the Traditional City A Case Study of the Parramore Heritage District in Orlando, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (100 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Wheelock, Jennifer L
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: downtown, historic, infill, new, orlando, parramore, preservation, redevelopment, urbanism
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: New Urbanism has been lauded by some as the answer to many, if not all, of the problems urban planners face today: a way for regions to curb sprawl, promote equitable, diverse neighborhoods, support public transportation, foster a sense of community, build social capital, transform public housing projects, and reconnect present development patterns with those found in thriving historic neighborhoods. Although existing urban neighborhoods may retain much of the traditional character advocated by the New Urbanism, they no longer exist as pure 'traditional' development. The relationship between the New Urbanism and intact historic neighborhoods is relatively well-documented: this paper explores the relationship between the New Urbanism and neighborhoods that retain some, but not all, of their historic patterns. The case study of the Parramore Heritage District in Orlando, Florida, provides a context to examine the physical relationship between the patterns that the New Urbanism promotes, the historic patterns of the traditional city, and the current patterns left by a legacy of modernist planning. Located within downtown Orlando, the historic Parramore neighborhood reflects the negative effects of past planning efforts (including segregationist policies, unfavorable zoning, public housing projects, highway building, and urban renewal). Additionally, a Master Design Plan drafted by Dover, Kohl, and Partners in 1994 provides a theoretical tool for analyzing how New Urbanist principles could be applied to the redevelopment of the area. A methodology adopted from Emily Talen is used to rate the existing urban form on how well it represents the urban form advocated for by the New Urbanists. In general, the current patterns that scored the highest had changed the least from 1925 to the present. The current patterns that scored the lowest displayed a higher degree of change from the 1925 patterns. However, the areas scoring the highest tended to be residential areas while the low-scoring areas contained more industrial uses and large public buildings. These findings may indicate a bias in the methodology to favor residential areas over large-scale industrial and public use, or it may speak to a larger preference of the New Urbanism for certain types of traditional patterns that do not include industrial uses close to residential uses. While the New Urbanism's design principles are arguably a useful and powerful redevelopment strategy for existing urban neighborhoods, the amount of physical change a neighborhood has experienced in the 20th century may affect the ease with which comprehensive New Urbanist redevelopment is accomplished. The strength of the New Urbanism to be flexible and to respect not only local character and architecture, but to also incorporate existing uses creatively into redevelopment plans is essential for the success of the New Urbanism in existing urban areas. Dover, Kohl, and Partner's Master Plan for Parramore attempts to accomplish this through making strategic recommendations based on things that can realistically be changed (such as infill projects on vacant lots and the redevelopment of parking areas) without completely eliminating the industrial and large-scale public uses that are a fact of life in the neighborhood.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jennifer L Wheelock.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021759:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EXAMINING THE URBAN NEW URBANISM FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EVOLVING PATTERNS OF THE TRADITI ONAL CITY: A CASE STUDY OF THE PARRAMORE HERITAGE DISTRICT IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA By JENNIFER LYNN WHEELOCK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 1

PAGE 2

2 2007 Jennifer Lynn Wheelock

PAGE 3

To Dad. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I want to thank my chair, Dr. Kristin Larsen, for all of her advice and support throughout this entire proce ss, my cochair, Dr. Ruth Steiner, for always asking the hard questions, pushing me to think about the bigger picture, and giving me a place to work, and committee member Dr. Ilir Bejleri for all hi s answers to my GIS and methodology questions. Additionally, I want to th ank Teresa Russin, for all of the late night laughter and constant moral support I would be much less sane had she not been there writing with me. Finally, I want to thank Kevin Johns for being there for daily quest ions about ArcMap and saving my data that time my computer crashed. No acknowledgement list would be complete without mentioning my family my parents, my brothers, and my husband. I wouldnt be writing this today without them. I want to thank my parents for always having high e xpectations and great advice, my brothers for pretending to be interested in my re search, and my husband, Rob, for hi s love, support, and understanding. Finally, because sometimes I need to be reminded to take a break, I want to thank Taylor Dupree for all the phone calls that helped break up all thos e nights spent thesising. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................1 0 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............11 CHAPTER 1 EXAMINING THE FOCUS OF THE NEW URBANISM ...................................................13 2 THE NEW URBANISM AND THE HISTORIC CITY ........................................................18 The Charter for the New Urbanism ........................................................................................18 The Roots of the New Urbanism ............................................................................................20 Utopian Visions: Turn-of-the-Century New Urbanist Roots ..........................................20 Urban Renewal, Highway Building, and S uburbanization: The Modernist City ............21 Post-modernism, Historic Preservation, and the Birth of the New Urbanism .................23 A Return to the City: The Sec ond Generation of New Urbanists ...................................25 Infill and New Urbanism: The Region, the Neighborhood, and the Block ............................26 The Region: Cities Adopt New Urbanist Initiatives ........................................................27 The Neighborhood: HOPE VI and Large-scale Infill Projects ........................................29 The Block: Investment Opportuni ties for Private Developers ........................................33 Reclaiming Urban Form .........................................................................................................35 3 A METHODOLOGY TO MEASURE AND COMPARE URBAN PATTERNS .................36 Categorizing the Current Land Use Patte rns: The General Urban Transect ..........................37 Layer 1: Enclosure ...........................................................................................................38 Layer 2: Lost Space .........................................................................................................38 Layer 3: Sidewalks ..........................................................................................................39 Layer 4: Public Space ......................................................................................................39 Layer 5: Incompatible Streets ..........................................................................................40 Layer 6: Lot Width ..........................................................................................................40 Layer 7: Proximity ...........................................................................................................4 1 Layer 8: Land Use Mix ....................................................................................................41 Composite Layer: Calculating the Final Values ..............................................................41 Using the Composite Layer to Guide Comparisons ...............................................................43 The New Urbanist Perspective: How do Infill Plans Relate? .................................................43 4 FINDINGS: THE CASE STUDY OF PARRAMORE ..........................................................46 5

PAGE 6

6 An Introduction to Parramore .................................................................................................46 Historic Parramore: The Traditional Neighborhood .......................................................47 Modernist Planning in Parramore: Zoning, Urban Renewal, and Highway Building .....47 A New Urbanist Vision for Parramore ............................................................................50 Carver Park and HOPE VI ..............................................................................................51 Current Patterns: Measuring Good Urban Form ....................................................................52 Layer 1: Enclosure ...........................................................................................................52 Layer 2: Lost Space .........................................................................................................52 Layer 3: Sidewalks ..........................................................................................................53 Layer 4: Public Space ......................................................................................................53 Layer 5: Incompatible Streets ..........................................................................................53 Layer 6: Lot Width ..........................................................................................................54 Layer 7: Proximity ...........................................................................................................5 4 Layer 8: Land Use Mix ....................................................................................................54 Composite Layer: Calculating the Final Values ..............................................................55 Analysis Zones ........................................................................................................................56 Analysis Zones A and B: High-scoring Areas ................................................................57 Analysis Zones C and D: Low-Scoring Areas ................................................................58 Comparison of Past, Present, and Proposed Urban Form .......................................................59 Analysis Zone A ..............................................................................................................59 Analysis Zone B ..............................................................................................................59 Analysis Zone C ..............................................................................................................60 Analysis Zone D ..............................................................................................................61 Areas of Interest in Dover, K ohl, and Partners Master Plan .................................................63 5 RELATING PAST FORM TO PRESENT PRACTICE ........................................................91 The Changing City: From Traditional to Troubled ................................................................91 Measuring Up to the New Urbanisms Definition of Good Urban Form ...............................92 The Influence of the Pas t: Evidence of the New Urba nisms Traditionalism ........................93 Theoretical Relationships of the Master Plan .........................................................................94 Beyond Parramore: Opportunitie s for Further Research ........................................................95 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................100

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1: Layers for Analyzing Current Land Use Patterns ..................................................................45 4-1: Demographic Patterns in the Parram ore Heritage District Neighborhoods ...........................67 4-2: Scores by Percen t of Raster Layer ........................................................................................ ..68 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1: Study Area with Neighborhoods ............................................................................................ 69 4-2: Current Land Use in the Pa rramore Heritage District ............................................................70 4-3: Layer 1: Enclosure ..................................................................................................................71 4-4: Layer 2: Lost Space ................................................................................................................72 4-5: Layer 3: Sidewalks .................................................................................................................73 4-6: Layer 4: Public Space .............................................................................................................74 4-7: Layer 5: Incompatible Streets .................................................................................................75 4-8: Layer 6: Lot Width ....................................................................................................... ..........76 4-9: Layer 7: Proximity to Retail and Public Space ......................................................................77 4-10: Layer 8: Land Use Mix ................................................................................................... ......78 4-11: Final Composite Values for Ra ster Cells (Current Conditions) ...........................................79 4-12: Raster Cell Values for Composite Score Layer ....................................................................80 4-13: Analysis Zones ba sed on Composite Score ..........................................................................81 4-14: Analysis Zones and Dover, Kohl, & Partners Master Plan Close-Up Views .....................82 4-15: Raster Cell Values for Analysis Zones A and B ..................................................................83 4-16: Raster Cell Values for Analysis Zones C and D ..................................................................83 4-17: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone A ...............................................................................84 4-18: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone B ...............................................................................85 4-19: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone C ...............................................................................86 4-20: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone D ...............................................................................87 4-21: Dover, Kohl, & Partners Master Plan for Parramore: Special Areas ..................................88 4-22: Raster Cell Values for Dover, Kohl, & Partners Proposed Redevelopment Areas .............89 4-23: Raster Cell Values for Dover, Kohl, & Partners Design Intervention Areas ..................46 8

PAGE 9

9 4-24: Comparison of Dover, Kohl, & Partne rs Special Areas to High and Low Scoring Analysis Zones ...................................................................................................................90

PAGE 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CNE: Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterp rise (Chattanooga, Tennessee) CNU: Congress for the New Urbanism DKP: Dover, Kohl, & Partners GIS: Geographic Information Systems HOPE VI: Housing Opportunitie s for People Everywhere HUD: (Department of) Housing and Urban Development OOCEA: Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority SUN: Sustainable Urban Nei ghborhoods (Louisville, Kentucky) UDA: Urban Design Associates (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) 10

PAGE 11

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning EXAMINING THE URBAN NEW URBANISM FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EVOLVING PATTERNS OF THE TRADITI ONAL CITY: A CASE STUDY OF THE PARRAMORE HERITAGE DISTRICT IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA By Jennifer Lynn Wheelock December 2007 Chair: Kristin Larsen Cochair: Ruth Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning New Urbanism has been lauded by some as the answer to many, if not all, of the problems urban planners face today a way for regions to curb sprawl, promote equitable, diverse neighborhoods, support public transpor tation, foster a sense of comm unity, build social capital, transform public housing projects and reconnect present devel opment patterns with those found in thriving historic neighborhoods. Although existing urban nei ghborhoods may retain much of the traditional character advocated by the New Urbanism, they no longer exist as pure traditional development. The relationship be tween the New Urbanism and intact historic neighborhoods is relatively well-documented this paper explores the relationship between the New Urbanism and neighborhoods that retain some, but not all, of their historic patterns. The case study of the Parramore Heritage District in Orlando, Florida, provides a context to examine the physical relationship between the patterns that the New Urba nism promotes, the historic patterns of the traditional city, and the current patterns left by a legacy of modernist planning. Located within downtown Orlando, the histor ic Parramore neighborhood reflects the negative effects of past planning efforts including segregationist policies, unfavorable zoning, 11

PAGE 12

12 public housing projects, highway building, and ur ban renewal. Additionally, a Master Design Plan drafted by Dover, Kohl, and Partners in 1994 provides a theoretical tool for analyzing how New Urbanist principles could be applied to the redeve lopment of the area. A methodology adopted from Emily Talen is used to rate the existing urban form on how well it represents the urban form advocated for by the New Urbanists. In general, the current patterns that scored the highest had changed the least from 1925 to the present. The current patterns th at scored the lowest displayed a higher degree of change from the 1925 patterns. However, the area s scoring the highest tended to be residential areas while the low-scoring areas contained more industrial uses and large pub lic buildings. These findings may indicate a bias in the methodology to favor residential areas over large-scale industrial and public use, or it may speak to a larger preference of the New Urbanism for certain types of traditional patterns that do not include industrial uses close to residential uses. While the New Urbanisms design principl es are arguably a us eful and powerful redevelopment strategy for existing urban ne ighborhoods, the amount of physical change a neighborhood has experienced in th e 20th century may affect the ease with which comprehensive New Urbanist redevelopment is accomplished. The st rength of the New Urbanism to be flexible and to respect not only local character and arch itecture, but to also in corporate existing uses creatively into redevelopment plans is essential for the success of the New Urbanism in existing urban areas. Dover, Kohl, and Part ners Master Plan for Parramore attempts to accomplish this through making strategic recommendations based on things that can realis tically be changed such as infill projects on v acant lots and the redevelopmen t of parking areas without completely eliminating the industrial and large-sc ale public uses that are a fact of life in the neighborhood.

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 1 EXAMINING THE FOCUS OF THE NEW URBANISM The planning movement known as the New Ur banism seeks to reverse the trend of suburban, auto-centric development by returning to a more traditional type of development that is walkable, transit-oriented, human-scale d, and mixed-use (Fulton, 1996, p.1). The New Urbanism finds much of its design inspiration in historic districts like Miamis Coral Gables, Chicagos Oak Park and Evanston, Cincinnatis Mariemont, New Yorks Forest Hill Gardens, Baltimores Roland Park, Kansas Citys Country Club District, Camdens Yorkship Village, Los Angeless Palos Verdes, Ladds Addition in Portland, Oregon, and others (Phillip Langdon quoted in Hamer, 2000, pp. 114-5). These historic districts exist as th e best examples of traditional urban form in part because of the special protection and reinvestment they have received because of their designation as histor ic districts (Hamer, 2000, p. 115). Struggling urban neighborhoods in many of Americas cities have not experienced the same levels of reinvestment and success. Although existing urban neighborhoods ma y retain much of the traditional character advocated by the New Urbanism, they no longer exist as pure traditional development. The relationship between the New Urbanism and int act historic neighborhoods is relatively welldocumented this paper explores the re lationship between the New Urbanism and neighborhoods that retain some, but not all, of their historic patterns. The New Urbanism is conceptualized at th ree levels: the regional level, the neighborhood level, and the block level (CNU, 2001, n.p.). At the regional level, infill development should be a priority, open space on the urban fringe should be preserved, historical patterns should be respected, and regional transit systems s hould be supported (CNU, 2001, n.p.). At the neighborhood level, development should be mixe d-use, pedestrian-friendly, have an interconnected street network, incorporate parks and green space, and allow daily activities to be 13

PAGE 14

14 accomplished within walking distance of the home (CNU, 2001, n.p.). Neighborhoods should include a mix of housing types and income levels, and their densities should support the regional transportation system (CNU, 2001, n.p.). At the block level, architectural design should reflect the unique history of that place, accommodate automobiles while maintaining the pedestrianoriented character, promote safe and secure places, and provide inhabitants with a clear sense of location, weather, and time (CNU, 2001, n.p.). Hist oric structures shoul d be preserved, and civic buildings should be designe d to stand out as sp ecial places that anchor the neighborhood (CNU, 2001, n.p.). New Urbanism has been lauded by some as the answer to many, if not all, of the problems urban planners face today a way for regions to curb sprawl, promote equitable, diverse neighborhoods, support public transpor tation, foster a sense of comm unity, build social capital, transform public housing projects and reconnect present devel opment patterns with those found in thriving historic neighborhoods (Bohl, 2000; CNU, 2001; CNU & HUD, 2000; Ellis, 2002; Leyden, 2003; Poticha, 2000; Talen & Ellis, 2002) However, the New Urbanism has also received criticism over the disparities between the lofty ideals that The Charter for the New Urbanism espouses and the actual developments bei ng labeled as New Urbanist communities. Critics dismiss the New Urbanism as simply another form of upper-middle-class suburban development, a naive attempt to solve social problems through design, a movement based in nostalgia for a past that never existed, or a contrived imitation of thriving historic neighborhoods lacking any real elements of ch aos or urbanity (Ellis, 2002; Ha mer, 2000; Marshall, 2000; Upton, 2000). The Charter for the New Urbanism reads like a manifesto, projecting lofty goals and idealist visions about what good urban form should be and how it can help to solve problems of

PAGE 15

disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricu ltural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of societys built heritage (CNU, 2001, n.p.). The Char ter sees the decline of the central city and the occurrence of sprawl development as part of one inter-rela ted community-building challenge (CNU, 2001, n.p.). Many of its central goa ls involve redevelopment and reinvestment in urbanized areas (CNU, 2001, n.p.). Yet, some cr itics fault the New Urba nism for catering to upper-income, large scale suburban projects ra ther than focusing on the redevelopment of struggling neighborhoods in the urban core (Pyatok, 2000; Upton, 2000; Marshall, 2000). A new generation of New Urbanists, however are beginning to shif t the focus of New Urbanism to where it arguably belongs: in the central city and inner-ri ng suburbs. Dover, Kohl and Partners (DKP), a design firm based in Coral Gables, Florida, focuses on ending the suburbanization of cities, retrof itting existing suburbs to be mo re like traditional towns and neighborhoods, and revitalizing places that have maintained their traditional qualities (Dover, 1993). While DKP designs new neighborhoods on gr eenfield tracts, they also emphasize the application of New Urbanist desi gn principles to already devel oped places like main streets, downtowns, older in-town neighborhoods, suburbia, and strip malls in order to revitalize and increase livability of thes e areas (DKP homepage, 2007). While already urbanized areas do not offer th e clean slate and freedom that greenfield projects can, urbanized areas have assets not found in greenfield settings: Cities are the places that have the greatest opportunity to make a difference in urban settlement patterns. Cities have tremendous a ssets that are too often overlooked. They are the home of great medical centers, colleges and universities, cultural facilities, government buildings, employment centers and the basic in frastructure of streets, utilities and public transportationthese resources are struggling against the forces that draw people and investment away from the core. The resu lt has been a tremendous flight of middle Americans chasing the American Dream If the goal of the New Urbanism is to rekindle the American Dream (admittedly an ephemeral and spiritual goal) by building 15

PAGE 16

settlements that encourage community, livability, convenience, decent housing and preservation of the environment, then a signi ficant thrust of this movement must focus on the existing core city. (Gantt, 1998, n.p.) The urban applications of the New Urbanism may provide planne rs with opportunities to build upon the assets found in existing urban places. The New Urbanisms social goals become relevant in the context of the urban core because the greatest social problems of the country are those found in the inner cities (Teitz, 1997, p. 575). Since the New Urbanism supports infill development, equitable social goal s, and a return to past ways of designing cities, historic areas of the city that have experience d disinvestment and decline in the past century will prove a vital landscape for the New Urbanists to understand. Understanding the physical way in which the New Urbanist design principles rela te to and can be applied within the patterns of the historic city will allow planners to ma ke better decisions about redevelopment options in troubled neighborhoods. This study examines the physical relationship be tween the patterns that the New Urbanism promotes, the historic patterns of the traditional city, and the current patterns left by a legacy of modernist planning in existing urban areas. A methodology developed by Emily Talen will be used to assess the current patterns found in th e historic neighborhood of Parramore in downtown Orlando, Floida. The methodology emphasizes a Ne w Urbanist definiti on of good urban form and is designed to be applied in existing urba n neighborhoods. Four char acteristics are analyzed: (1) spatial enclosure, (2) the public realm, (3) spatial suitability, and (4) spatial diversity or mix versus homogeneity (Talen, 2005, p. 210). Then, ba sed on the results of the analysis of the existing conditions, specific areas are compared to the historic patterns th at once existed and the proposed infill development found in the New Ur banist master plan drafted by DKP for the neighborhood in 1994. Through these comparisons, the author seeks to provide insight into the priorities and practice of the New Urbanism in existing neighborhoods. 16

PAGE 17

17 The Parramore neighborhood exists as an idea l place to examine and the suitability of historic neighborhoods for infill New Urbanism. Located within downtown Orlando, the area is rich in history and has been negatively affected by past planning efforts including segregationist policies, unfavorable zoning, publ ic housing projects, highway building, and urban renewal. Orlando is a city that has shown co mmitment to New Urbanist principles, and has adopted an urban design element and a downtown master plan that incorporate New Urbanism. Orlando has also shown a commitment to redeve lopment and revitaliza tion of the Parramore neighborhood over the past few decades. DKP was hi red by the city to create a master plan for the area in 1992 (published in 1994). Almost th irteen years of rede velopment projects and general investment in the nei ghborhood provide an inte resting context to ev aluate how the New Urbanism works on the ground. Modernist planni ng and design efforts in the community have resulted in suburban infill that is disconnected socially, economically, and spatially from the historic community of Parramore. However, the historic fabric has not ye t been lost entirely. This document consists of five chapters. Chap ter One introduces the re search and provides justification for the research. Chapter Two disc usses the history behind both the New Urbanist movement and the shift from m odernist to post-modern ist planning, the ideas and claims of the Charter for the New Urbanism, and examples of infill New Urbanist projects on various scales. Chapter Three describes the met hodology used in this study. Chapter Four presents the research findings. Chapter Five evaluates and analyzes the results and makes suggestions for further research.

PAGE 18

CHAPTER 2 THE NEW URBANISM AND THE HISTORIC CITY This chapter provides a review of the literat ure pertaining to the Ne w Urbanism movement. The focus will be primarily on the infill applications of New Urbanism in existing historic neighborhoods. The literature review will begin w ith an examination of the Charter for the New Urbanism, and its support of infill development. Then, the planning movements of the past century are discussed to provide th e reader with a context of the theories that led both to the New Urbanism and to the patterns of development th e New Urbanism claims to be reacting against. The chapter will conclude with examples of how infill projects have incorporated New Urbanism on three levels the region, the neighborhood, and the block. The Charter for the New Urbanism The Charter of the New Urbanism states that the New Urbanism supports four major goals: The restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions; The reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts; The conservation of natural environments; and The preservation of our built legacy (CNU, 2001, n.p., formatting added ) To accomplish these goals, the Congress for the New Urbanism advocates changes in public policy and development practice that will support mixed use, diverse populations, pedestrianand transitfrie ndly design, defined public space s and community buildings, and locally relevant and historica lly compatible architecture and landscaping. The Charter contains the caveat that we recognize that physical so lutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems (CNU, 2001, n.p.). However, it goes on to state that physical design represents one essential aspect in an a pproach to solve modern problems (CNU, 2001). 18

PAGE 19

19 The Charter lists 27 individual principles to guide public policy, development practice, urban planning, and design (CNU, 2001, n.p.). The prin ciples are divided into three scales for application: the region, neighborhood and block. At the regional scale, the Charter promotes metropolitan regions that have a clearly delineat ed center and edge, and attests that farmland should be preserved on the outskirts of the re gion and infill is a desirable and preferred alternative to building on the urban fringe. Histor ical patterns should be respected and preserved, and affordable housing should be equita bly distributed throughout the region. At the neighborhood level (which is defined to include neighborhoods districts, and/or corridors), mixed-uses, mixed-incomes, and mi xed housing types are all encouraged, along with a pedestrian friendly environment, inter-connect ed street network, and access to transit. The neighborhood level is also where the Charter suggests design codes be enacted to serve as predictable guides for change (CNU, 2001, n.p.). At the block level (including the building and the street), the Charter emphasizes that public spaces must be designed to indicate they are for shared use this includes the accommodation of automobiles and pedestrians. P ublic buildings should stand out as special spaces, and all buildings should provide their inha bitants with a clear sense of location, weather, and time (CNU, 2001, n.p.). Reinforcing this idea is the principle that safety and security are essential to revitalization, and building design should suppor t safe environments without compromising accessibility or openness. At the block level individual buildings must be seamlessly linked to their surroundings and histor ic buildings should be preserved or renewed rather than be demolished in the name of progress (CNU, 2001, n.p.).

PAGE 20

The Roots of the New Urbanism In 1996, New York Times architectural critic Herbert Muschamp referred to the New Urbanist movement as the most important pheno menon to emerge in American architecture in the post-Cold War era (Herbert Muschamp quoted in Bohl, 2000, p. 761). Although the term New Urbanism was not commonly us ed until the formation of the CNU in the early nineties, the ideas associated with the move ment have been gaining recogn ition and support since the 1970s. While at its core the New Urbanism is a postmodern reaction against Modernism, Euclidean Zoning,1 and post-World War II suburban design, ma ny of the planning concepts that New Urbanists support have their roots in late nineteenth and early tw entieth century utopian planning movements (Fulton, 1996). Utopian Visions: Turn-of-the-Ce ntury New Urbanist Roots At the turn of last century, architects a nd urban designers began to envision various utopian alternatives to the often dirty, overcrowded life of the industrial city. These alternatives sought to recreate an idea of hu man-scale, community-based village life that had been lost in the big city (Fulton, 1996, p. 7). New Urbanist s have borrowed and recycled some of the concepts and ideas that gained popularity during this time, such as the importance of parks and public spaces of the C ity Beautiful Movement (Fulton, 1996) The designs of the streetcar suburbs built between 1890 and 1920, while not a formal movement, often reflected City Beautiful ideas and utilized gridde d street patterns oriented toward s transit stops another design concept the New Urbanists support (Fulton, 1996). 1 Euclidean Zoning refers to zoning that calls for a geographic separation of land uses, usually specifically allowing only one type of use in a given area (for example, single family residential). The term comes from the 1926 Supreme Court case Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. which established the constitutionality of this type of zoning. 20

PAGE 21

In the 1920s, urban designers like John Nolen attempted to use a prescribed set of design standards to create neighborhoods that functioned on a human scale their aim was to create an updated, contemporary vision of village life in a modern urban setting. John Nolens designs have been cited as the prototype for the designs of todays New Urbanist communities, echoed in the work of notable designer Andres Duany (F ulton, 1996, p. 8). Clarence Perry developed his concept of the neighborhood unit during this deca de as well. Perrys neighborhood unit called for some of the elements supported by the New Urbani sts each unit should have residential uses, neighborhood schools, commercial uses, and re creational space (Keating & Krumholz, 2000). Another movement of this time period was known as the Garden City movement and was supported by the Regional Planni ng Association of America. The Garden City movement aimed to create new towns as an altern ative to the crowded i ndustrial cities. The movement claimed this goal could be realized through features such as green space, curvilin ear streets, and the separation of the automobile from pedestrian tra ffic. Leading American designers Clarence Stein and Henry Wright wanted to create a village atmosphere, accommodate the automobile, and incorporate farmland and natural areas into their designs which appears to echo the desires, if not the methods, of the New Urbanists (Fulton, 1996, p. 8). However, the Garden City concept of new towns located on the urban fringe and surrounded by zones of green space manifested itself in America as auto-dominated suburbs the dominant form of suburban development beginning in the 1920s (Fulton, 1996, p. 9). Urban Renewal, Highway Building, and Suburbanization: The Modernist City In theory, the federal urban renewal program (established by the Housing Act of 1949) provided funding for the removal of slums and the development of decent housing for lowincome residents (Frieden & Sagalyn, 1992). In practice, the urban renewal program enabled cities to remove low-income and minority residents from desi rable land in and near central 21

PAGE 22

business districts which could be redeveloped for more profitabl e uses and relocate the lowincome residents to large, of ten isolated public housing comp lexes (Frieden & Sagalyn, 1992). The program gave cities the power to consolidat e large tracts of land relatively easily, resulting in large downtown projects spanning severa l city blocks (Frieden & Sagalyn, 1992). The freedom to design new projects in large spaces en abled project planners [to make] a deliberate break with the conventional city layout, which they considered obsolete. Instead of siting the new buildings along established st reets, they set them far apar t from one another in open, parklike settings (Frieden & Sagalyn, 1992, p. 41) The high-rise modernist architecture and designed isolation from surrounding neighborhoods proved disastrous for the families who inhabited the new public hous ing projects (Hall, 2002). As supported in the federal Urban Renewal program, the broader modernist emphasis on open space, tall buildings, and expressways for auto mobile traffic carried with it the assumption that preexisting development ought to make way for the new, and that the same kind of urbanism is appropriate in both city and county (Barnett, 2003, p. 28). In the suburbs, modernists had a blank canvas in which to develop separate f unctional areas for office space, commercial buildings, and residences facilitating and necessitating the use of the private automobile (Barnett, 2003). However, in already urbanized areas, demolition was necessary to accommodate the towering buildings and open space prescribed by modernist designs (Barnett, 2003). Emphasis and belief in modernist design a nd planning principles combined with heavy government subsidies for highway building und er the Eisenhower administration led to Americas interconnected system for urban renewal/removal and suburban growth/sprawl, both resulting in a wasteful consumption of re sources and negative consequences for families, whole communities, and the environment. Both efforts primarily served the interests of citizens who appeared to pay their own way, although major government subsidies heavily assisted bot h enterprises. Both efforts created less than admirable consequences for the poor and working poor. (Pyatok, 2000, p. 805) 22

PAGE 23

Though the slums cleared through Urban Renewal c ould be so neglected or poorly constructed that the buildings were not wort h saving, the idea that within the boundaries of a given district there was nothing worth saving, and that preserving an older building would interfere with the best new design for the area resulted in a pla celess sterility that was the subject of much criticism (Barnett, 2003, p. 34). The critics of Ur ban Renewal and modernist planning and design principles would lay the groundwork for the New Urbanism movement. The Modernist movement has left a legacy on planning and design that can be seen today in the Euclidean zoning practices that continue to be used not only in the suburbs, but in the central cities as well. Urban Renewals ability to erase traditional block patterns through demolition and redevelopment comb ined with the adoption of zoning codes that mandated separation of land uses and allowed for large areas of open space result ed in a break from historic land uses and site de sign in the central city (Barnett, 2003). These types of zoning codes make the traditional development patterns advocat ed by the New Urbanists illegal even in the historic city where they were once the standard; Euclidean zoni ng codes are still the standard used by most cities and towns toda y (Barnett, 2003; Ellis, 2002). Post-modernism, Historic Preservation, and the Birth of the New Urbanism In 1961, Jane Jacobs published the groundbreaking book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. In it Jacobs asserted that life in mixed-use, bus tling neighborhoods and streets of the city which modernists saw as disorganiz ed and chaotic was actually superior to the sprawling suburbs and to the useless open spaces of Urban Renewal projects. Jacobs claimed that the street, dominated by pedestri ans rather than by automobiles, served as a meeting place and activity center for the residents and helped to create a sense of co mmunity (Fulton, 1996). The destruction of older, urban neigh borhoods and communities by Urban Renewal and highway building led to the recognition that some thing was needed to maintain and strengthen 23

PAGE 24

the physical fabric of neighbourhoods (Ham er, 2000, p. 111). In 1960, Kevin Lynch published The Image of the City to address this concern by calling for the recognition of distinctive districts emphasizing nodes, landmarks, edges, and paths that had homogeneous character, recognized by clues which are continuous throughout the district and di scontinuous elsewhere (Lynch quoted in Hamer, 2000, p. 111). Lynchs writings on how to define an urban district were influential in the recognition and no mination of distinct urban distri cts to the National Register of Historic Places (Hamer, 2000). The ideas about historic preservation a nd the definition of distinct historic districts w ould influence the way the New Urbanists thought about the ideal characteristics of a neighborhood (Hamer, 2000). From an urban design standpoint, the post-m odern movement emerged during the 1970s, focusing on adapting historic forms to modern use. Combined with the growth of the historic preservation movement and Jacobs criticisms in the previous decade, the atmosphere was ripe for discussion about a new way to develop that retu rned to past traditions rather than sprawling suburbs and modernist convictions (Fulton, 1996 ). In 1979 Alexander Cooper and Stan Eckstut revealed their plan for a Manhattan infill project named Battery Park City. The plan for Battery Park City included a grid street pattern and desi gn guidelines aimed at re creating the traditional neighborhoods that existed in other parts of the city (Fulton, 1996). The design guidelines were incorporated in the purchase agreement for indivi dual properties, so that owners were required to adhere to the design guidelines rather than a zoning code (Barnett 2003). Although the design standards were largely successful within Battery Park City, the pr oject still lacked features to connect it to the rest of Manhattan (Fulton, 1996 ). While not distinctly identified as a New Urbanist project, the ideas pres ent in Cooper and Eckstuts plan represent a fledging beginning for the movement. 24

PAGE 25

In 1981 and 1982 Andres Duany and Elizabet h Plater-Zyberk designed the town of Seaside, Florida to utilize and test the fle dgling ideas behind the New Urbanism. In 1989, two west coast thinkers (architect Peter Ca lthorpe and designer Doug Kelbaugh) published The Pedestrian Pocket Book a small booklet describing a new kind of suburban development one that was mixed-use, pedest rian-friendly, and linked to regi onal transit (Fulton, 1996, p. 9). Terms such as neotraditional planning, neotra ditional development, traditional neighborhood development, transit-oriented development, and pedestrian pock ets all describe the concepts behind this new urbanism. The term New Ur banism became part of the planning lexicon with the formation of the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) in 1993 (Fulton, 2006, p. 10). In 1996, the CNU adopted an official Charter of the New Urbanism that expanded the ideas of traditional neighborhood design to the regional level and gave the movement a standard set of goals, ideals, and claims (Fulton, 1996, p. 10). A Return to the City: The Second Generation of New Urbanists Described as urban New Urbanism by some, infill New Urbanist projects receive less attention than suburban New Ur banist projects as they are often smaller in size and not advertised or reported on by the media (Da y, 2003, p. 83). However, many second generation New Urbanists are focusing on existing urban area s rather than greenfield sites. DKP is one example of a New Urbanist design firm committe d to applying the New Urbanism to existing urban places the federal department of H ousing and Urban Development (HUD) is another entity supporting urban applic ations of the New Urbanism. HUDs Housing Opportunities for People Ever ywhere (HOPE) VI program explicitly requires the use of New Urbanist design principles in the rede velopment of its public housing stock to support a mix of incomes and tenures and reconnect the si tes to the surrounding neighborhoods (Bohl, 2000). Major goals of the HOPE VI program include the reduction of 25

PAGE 26

concentrated poverty by providing mixed-use, mi xed-income public housing projects and the improvement of the overall design of public housi ng often this entails a reduction in density and a retreat from the high-rise modern public housing projects of th e past (Bohl, 2000, p. 765). Through the HOPE VI program New Urbanism is undergoing an extensive inner-city road test (Bohl, 2000, p. 767). Infill and New Urbanism: The Region, the Neighborhood, and the Block New Urbanism faces great challenges for infill development. Public policies such as urban renewal, highway building, and high-rise public housing projects have created pockets of poverty, further concentrated by the abandonment of urban cores by the middle class and an overall disinvestment in the central city. Privat e practices such as re d-lining, blockbusting, and neglect have also contributed to the problem s of the central city (Ellis, 2002, p. 271). The New Urbanism can and has been applied to infill revitalization projects. These projects include public housing sites, brownfield sites, transit-oriented devel opment projects, and both small and large private infill endeavors (Bohl, 2000). The highest profil e New Urbanist urban projects are those of the HOPE VI public housing revitalizati on program (Day, 2003). While some expensive inner-c ity neighborhoods have already experienced reinvestment making gentrification the major concern, ma ny more inner-city areas struggle with disinvestment, concentrated poverty, and aba ndoned buildings (Bohl, 2000). Arguably, these places represent opportunities to cr eate more desirable, better quality housing without fear of large-scale displacement of residents given the tendency of these areas to be undercrowded (Bohl, 2000, p. 772). However, New Urbanism may not be suitable for all infill settings, particularly those with an existing culturally diverse population with va rying ideas about what constitutes a livable neighborhood (Day, 2003). 26

PAGE 27

The challenges and opportunities for New Ur banism in urban places will differ from suburban applications and from each other (D ay, 2003, p. 83). The challenges of creating a community of diverse income levels in an inner-city application differs greatly from a greenfield project: In suburban greenfield settings, supporti ng diversity involves accommodating lower middleor working-class reside nts in what are essentially middleor upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Recommended housing options in clude single-family homes, town homes, grannie flats, and accessory apartments .In contrast, in HOPE VI public housing renovations, supporting diversity involves a ttracting middle-income professionals to stigmatized and marginalized poor communities. (Day, 2003, p. 84) Additionally, urban infill projects that ai m to support economic development through a mixture of housing types and price ranges ofte n run the risk of gentrification (Larsen, 2005). New Urbanist projects that result in gentrification run contrary to the goals of such projects to promote equity and diversity in neighborhoods. Research in Pittsburgh has identified three fairly distinct applications of New Urbanism in central cities: community, neighborhood, and s cattered site (Bohl, 2000, p. 772). These types align with the three scales specified in the Charter of the New Urbanism (region, neighborhood, and block). While the Charters regional scale focuses more on the importance of maintaining the boundaries of the metropolitan area, when looki ng at strictly urban applications, the region can be equated to a comprehensive vision for redevelopment across individual central city neighborhoods. As applied to infill sites, the neighborhood level and the bl ock level equate more directly to the broa d principles outline d in the Charter. The Region: Cities Adopt New Urbanist Initiatives Across the country, cities have been a dopting New Urbanist guidelines to support revitalization efforts in their distressed neighborhoods. New Urbani sm makes sense for inner-city neighborhoods in places like Winter Park, Florid a because the bones are there: We have an 27

PAGE 28

urban neighborhood, 50-foot wide lots, walkable blocks, short door yards, odd-shaped lots and sizes (Merrill Ladika, Director of Winter Park Redevelopment Agency, quoted in Bohl, 2000, p. 776). Unlike urban renewal efforts of the past that allowed lots to be combined to accommodate more characteristically suburban projects, New Urbanism allows cities to protect and enhance the historic qualities that support place-ma king and urban character. Additionally, New Urbanism allows densities that may help support the transit that often alr eady exists in the city (Bohl, 2000). Unlike greenfield applications, in which private developers often initiate new development (Larsen, 2005), revitalization efforts often reflect the plans and desires of local governments. Louisville, Kentuckys Sustainable Urba n Neighborhoods (SUN) initiative includes New Urbanism as part of a comprehensive appro ach towards neighborhood re vitalization. The plan supports five goals: human development, econom ic development, housing, crime prevention, and planning and communications, altho ugh New Urbanism is most easily applicable to the last three (Bohl, 2000). SUN views New Urbanism as compatib le with the characte r and quality of the existing history of the neighborhoods (Bohl, 2000). De sign charrettes have been used to promote the planning and communication goals of the SUN initiative in an attempt to promote a bottomup community-based planning process even though th e SUN initiative calls for the application of the New Urbanism (Bohl, 2000). In Chattanooga, Tennessee, the Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise (CNE) has hired private developers to create mixed-use, mixed in come plans for declining areas around its central business district. CNE aims to attract private de velopers to fully implement their redevelopment plan by financing successful demonstrati on projects (Bohl, 2000). The CNE favors New Urbanism for these projects as it can be adopted to the historic scale of the city (many of the 28

PAGE 29

targeted neighborhoods already have grid patterns and existing lots) while stil l increasing density that may help support transit and attract more retail to the city (Bohl, 2000). Orlando, Florida has adopted an Urban Design Element as a part of their state-mandated comprehensive plan that reflects New Urbanist design principles. The Urban Design Element identifies the sections of Orlando that existed pr ior to World War II as the traditional city and prescribes design standards that require new deve lopment within those areas to be consistent with the existing pattern (Larsen, 2005). These standards help encourage infill development on small lots by allowing them to be developed in a manner consistent with their character rather than in a suburban manner that requires larger lo ts. The entire district of Parramore falls within the boundaries of the traditional city of Orlando and will be discussed in detail in Chapters Four and Five. While New Urbanism supports the goals and visions many cities have for revitalization projects, some critics have concer ns and reservations about the e ffects of these projects on lower income residents. As the Chattanooga plan indi cates, revitalization effort s often aim to attract private investment to certain target areas of th e city. Greater investment in distressed areas can lead to positive outcomes for the city such as increased tax revenues, greater economic diversity, improved roads and public facilities, and new comme rcial and cultural resour ces, but it can also result in the gentrification of areas formerly inhabited by lower income residents (Larsen, 2005). Without proactive planning to re tain or provide affordable hous ing, equity goals of the New Urbanism may not be realized in revitalization efforts (Larsen, 2005). The Neighborhood: HOPE VI and Large-scale Infill Projects New Urbanism supports a mix of housing types th at can be adapted to serve mixed-income neighborhoods. The HOPE VI program explicitly requi res the use of New Urba nist principles in the redevelopment of its public housing stock partly for this r eason (Bohl, 2000). Major goals of 29

PAGE 30

the HOPE VI program include the reduction of concentrated poverty by providing mixed-use, mixed-income public housing projects and the improvement of the overall design of public housing often this entails a redu ction in density and a retreat from the high-rise public housing projects of the past (Bohl, 2000). Many HOPE VI redevelopment projects aim to demolish the worst of public housing (often barracks-style and tow er-in-the-park high rises) in cluding infamous projects like Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Ho mes, and Henry Horner Homes. The physical deterioration and social failure of these types of housing projects have come to symbolize the failure of housing and welfare policies in America (Bohl, 2000, p. 767). Since the failure of these projects often is blamed on the physical plans and designs (Bohl, 2000), the New Urbanism seems a fitting if not ironic solution given its em phasis on physical design. In the mid 1990s, the CNU worked with HUD to tailor New Urbani st principles to specifically apply to the inner-ci ty, benefiting from the publicity and funding associated with the HOPE VI program. By 1999, close to 300 grants in 124 communities equaling $3.5 billion dollars and involving roughly 53,000 public housi ng units had been approved (Bohl, 2000, pp. 765, 767). While funding has been cut in recent years, the program continues to provide funding for the redevelopment of distressed public housin g using the principles of the New Urbanism. Just as opportunities for infill a nd redevelopment in the private sector vary greatly, so do the public housing projects that have been targeted for HOPE VI redevelopment. The projects vary in the number of units, physical design, vacancy rates, an d condition, and these variations shape what form the redevelopment will take. Approaches range from the complete demolition of existing projects to the rehabilitation and retrofitting of existing buildings and infrastructure, the preservation of historic buildings, and the addition of new sections to existing 30

PAGE 31

neighborhoods (Bohl, 2000, p. 770). Some projects ev en use a combination of approaches, such as the Fourth Ward Revitalizat ion Plan in Houston (Bohl, 2000). Lafayette Courts and Lexington Terrace, two 1950s high-rise public housing complexes in Baltimore, Maryland, typify the problems often a ssociated with public housing projects. Out of synch with their surroundings (the two high-rise buildings towered above the typical row houses of the city), they stood out as public housi ng to anyone passing by (Bohl, 2000). Built on super blocks, they were also isolated from the surrounding city. They each displayed a typical pattern of decline, largely abandoned by the time they were slated for demolition in 1994 through the HOPE VI program. The redevelope d projects included ground re lated town homes and row houses, mixed-uses in the form of day care centers, recreation centers, community centers, and a range of housing tenures. While Lafayette Courts (now called Pl easant View Gardens) stayed primarily rental with only a few units target ed for home ownership, the Baltimore Housing Authority designated 100 of the 303 reconstr ucted units in Lexington Terrace for home ownership (Bohl, 2000, p. 768). Lexington Terrace al so incorporated more mixed-use than Lafayette Courts with 30,000 square feet of office and retail space (Bohl, 2000, p. 769). In Washington, DC, one HOPE VI project (Ellen Wilson Home s) has focused largely on respecting the historic character of the nearby Capitol Hill district. The design incorporates LEnfants plan2 for that part of the city, and preserve s four historic town homes on the property (Bohl, 2000). The redevelopment utilized a divers e mix of nearly 30 different facades on five building types that mimic Capitol Hills historic housing styles while adding modern amenities and creating Americans with Disabilities Actaccessible units (Bohl, 2000, p. 769). The 5.3-acre 2 Pierre-Charles L'Enfant designed a master plan for Washington DC in the 1790s that is considered to be one of the greatest examples of a master plan for a city in the United States. 31

PAGE 32

project included market-rate, submarket, Section 8,3 and fully subsidized units, as well as units designated for ownership. The profit made from the sale of the 20 homeownership units will be reinvested back into the project to fund community support services (Bohl, 2000). Another example of a demolition project can be found in Louisville, Kentucky in the Park DuValle (formally known as Cotter and Lang) project. This single project demolished 1,100 public housing units on 130 acres an d replaced them with 1,200 units representing more than 600 apartments, 450 units for homeownership, indepe ndent-living for seniors, a school, a health center, and a 25,000 square foot town center with plans for big box and smaller-scale retail and office uses and apartments on the second floor (Bohl, 2000, pp. 769-70). Park DuValle exists as a good example of a truly mixed-use public hous ing redevelopment its large scale and promotion of mixed use make it stand out among other HOPE VI projects (Bohl, 2000). Demolition and complete reconstruction is not required for a HOPE VI project. A notable example of a HOPE VI project aimed at rehabi litation rather than demolition can be found in Diggs Town (Norfolk, Virginia). The change s made through the HOPE VI program to Diggs Town focused on improving the defensible space a nd territorial definiti on in the neighborhood through landscaping and exterior changes to the barracks-style buildings (Bohl, 2000. p. 770). Landscaping efforts included the creation of front and back yards out of previously anonymous outdoor public space and the introduction of through streets for increased accessibility and visibility (Bohl, 2000, pp. 770-1). Arch itectural changes to the exteri or of the buildings included front porches, windows, fences, patios, and storag e sheds aimed at changing the projects easily identifiable public housing faade the porch es and picket fences, although reduced to a 3 Section 8 housing choice vouchers are a part of a federal program for very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford hous ing in the private market. 32

PAGE 33

clich by New Urbanisms criticswere requested by the residents themselves for the express purpose of improving opportunities for social contact (Bohl, 2000, p. 771). Despite the seemingly positive improvements made to the public housing projects described above, the HOPE VI redevelopments ha ve not been without setbacks and unintended consequences. Despite the changes made to Diggs Town, its isolated lo cation made it impossible to fully integrate the project in to the city. It remains physically separated due to its location on the opposite side of the Elizabeth River. Addition ally, the through streets that were intended to make the interior of the project safer and mo re accessible created a problem with a drivethrough drug trade that [had to be] countered by stationing a community po lice officer within the neighborhood (Bohl, 2000, p. 771). Diggs Town represents an instance where physical improvements could not reverse the social or economic problems of the neighborhood on their own (Bohl, 2000). HOPE VI projects are not the only large-scale infill New Urbanist projects happening in cities. In Pittsburgh, the City Urban Redevelopment Authority hired Urban Design Associates (UDA) of Pittsburgh to redevelop a 20.5-acre site that had been cl eared for urban renewal in the late 1950s and early 1960s, displacing approximately 8,000 African-American residents. In 1991 UDA of Pittsburgh began a visionin g process to develop a resi dent-sanctioned plan for a redevelopment project, Crawford Square. Crawford Square follo ws New Urbanist principles, includes both rental and owner-occu pied housing (50 percent of the units are subsidized), and incorporates amenities like a swimming pool, f itness center, parks, and playgrounds (Bohl, 2000). The Block: Investment Opportunities for Private Developers Small-scale applications of New Urbanism r eceive less attention than their large-scale cousins in part because the CNUwants larger pr ojects to achieve real impact and to provide 33

PAGE 34

demonstrations it thinks are wort h emulating. So the CNU, with only a few exceptions, gravitates toward larger-scale sponsors (Pyatok, 2000, p. 806). While large sponsors such as HUD, private suburban developers, and redevelopment agencies tend to garner the most attention from the CNU, some small-scale efforts by non-profit deve lopment corporations have also embraced the New Urbanism (Pyatok, 2000). Ideally, all New Urbanist projects should be planned so that multiple architects design buildings, promoting variety while following the st rict architectural code and design guidelines the CNU promotes. The resulting developments th eoretically reflect the same piecemeal qualities of older neighborhoods that develope d slowly due to many different builders filling in one or two lots (Ellis, 2002). Small-scale New Urbanist proj ects may realize this goal without the need for multiple architects, as they will include only a few buildings in the area and will not need to manufacture a diverse streetscape. Daniel Solomon, a founding member of the CNU, has concentrated his own work on small-scale infill projects in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles (Bohl, 2000, pp. 774-5). Since he works on small lots (some are less than one acre), he often us es higher densities to make the most of the space and layers of subsid y programs to make the units affordable to a range of incomes. While the projects are not mi xed-use, some (like Vermont Village in Los Angeles) are located near commercial developm ents. Many of Solomons projects use leftover lots that were cleared through urban renewal programs but never redeveloped (Bohl, 2000). Another California example of a smaller scale project involves the redevelopment of an out-dated strip mall near a new commuter tran sit station by Calthorpe Associates. The new development was mixed-use and mixed-income, a nd included single-family homes, town homes, 34

PAGE 35

row houses, and apartments (Bohl, 2000). The lo cation provides shopping and transit within walking distance something greenfield sites rarely can provide outside the actual development. For over 30 years, Dan Camp has been workin g in Starkville, Missi ssippi, to revitalize the historic Cotton District. His work may represent New Urbani sms practicality in the longterm, incremental transition of inner-city neighborhoods (Bohl, 2000, p. 775). Using a combination of approaches, Camp has rehabili tated and redeveloped properties representing various sizes, prices, and tenures. While Camps de facto New Urbanist approach may have been accomplished on a small-scale, site-by-site basis, its long-term larger scale success makes it a prominent case to argue for New Urbanisms ability to leverage the enduring value and flexibility of traditional urban neighborhoods and buildings (Bohl, 2000, pp. 775-6). Reclaiming Urban Form New Urbanism redevelopment of neighborhoods and districts has the potential to allow cities to reclaim traditional block patterns that may have been lost through urban renewal, highway building, public housing developments built on super blocks, and the general suburbanization of the central city. Especially for public hous ing developments and troubled neighborhoods, the New Urbanism may allow the targeted areas to be connected to the surrounding city rather than exis t in isolation. However, as evidenced by Diggs Town, this element does not guarantee positive outcomes. The Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority did not try to integrate a mixture of incomes into the Diggs Town neighborhood but rather aimed to use design to lessen the stigma attached to public hous ing. This resulted in a continued concentration of poverty isolated fr om social and economic opportunities (Bohl, 2000, p. 771). The next chapter introduces the methodology that will be us ed to explore the relationship between the evolving ph ysical patterns of the Parramor e District in Orlando, Florida, and the design standards of the New Urbanism. 35

PAGE 36

CHAPTER 3 A METHODOLOGY TO MEASURE AND COMPARE URBAN PATTERNS This chapter describes the methodology that will be used to analyze and evaluate the case study area. Three different patter ns are examined in the case study neighborhood: (1) the existing patterns (the major sources of da ta being aerial photography and tax assessor parcel data), (2) the historic patterns before the in troduction of zoning (the major source of data being Sanborn maps from 1925), and (3) the proposed New Urbanist redevelopment patterns, as described in DKPs Master Plan for Parramore (1994). Because of vari ations in the form and availability of data associated with each set of development patterns it was not possible to apply the same intensity of analysis for all three scenarios. The current patterns are categorized according to how well they meet the standards for good urban design in a gen eral urban transect1 as described by Talen (2005). General urban transects have the following characteristics: Generalized, but primarily reside ntial, habitat of a community. Buildings consist of single-famil y, detached houses and rowhouses on small and medium-sized lots. Limited office buildings and lodging are permitted. Retail is confined to designated lots, typically at corners. Buildings are a maximum of three stories. Open space consists of greens and squares. (Duany & Talen, 2002, p. 255) 1 Transect planning is an adaptation of the New Urbanism that divides environments into six transects based on physical characteristics (Rural Preserve, Rural Reserve, Suburban, General Urban, Urban Center, and Urban Core). The idea is that while good urban design is always walk able and human scaled, the el ements necessary to achieve good place-making vary from transect to transect, so varying guidelines fo r urban form are established in each transect (Duany and Talen 2002). 36

PAGE 37

37 While the study area may not directly meet all of the above characteristics of general urban transects, the area fits the desc ription of general ur ban transect better than other types of transects. The next step in the methodology involves a comparison of the current patterns to what historically existed in the st udy area and to what the new urba nism master plan proposed for future development in the neighborhood. The me thodology described here is intended for smallscale application in neighborhoods that existed prior to World War II and meet the description of a general urban transect. The concepts could potentially be modified and expanded to apply to other transects or larger areas of land, but those applications are beyond the scope of this study. Categorizing the Current Land Use Patte rns: The General Urban Transect The methodology used to classify the curren t development patterns in the study area is largely adapted from Talens (2005) approach of using a geographic information system (GIS) to measure good urban form through variables de rived from two-dimensional data. The methodology uses GIS layers to represent various aspects that good urban form (as described in the Charter for the New Urbanism) should display. Four categories are cons idered: (1) spatial enclosure and definition, (2) the public realm, (3) spatial suitability, and (4) spatial diversity (Talen, 2005, p. 210). Each of the four categories has tw o layers associated with it, resulting in eight variables or la yers for analysis. The variables m easure aspects of the pedestrian experience of the city, consistent with the Charter for the New Urbanisms focus. These eight layers and the process by which they were crea ted are described in detail below and summarized in Table 3-1 A final step converts the eight layers into raster layers and combines them into a

PAGE 38

single layer representing high, me dium, and low scoring sections of the study area. All of the data processing is done usi ng ESRIs ArcGIS Version 9.2.2 Layer 1: Enclosure Talen (2005) defines enclosure as the degr ee to which buildings or landscape elements define the public environment (214). Using road way centerlines and tax assessor parcel data, an enclosure area is defined as the 45 feet around each block. The enclosur e area does not extend into the street, but rather include s the first 45 feet of each proper ty parcel. While 45 feet is an admittedly permissive measure of enclosure for the traditionally small residential parcels in Parramore, the prevalence of vacant lots and the practice of combining parcels into larger lots presents a situation where a permissive definition still returns many par cels that do not provide definition to the pedestrian envi ronment. Using aerial photographs, each parcel is classified as either contributing to enclosure (w hen structures or trees occupied the first 45 feet of the lot) or non-contributing to enclosure (when open space or pa rking lots occupied th e first 45 feet of the lot). For larger parcels or parcel s on corners, the parcel is classi fied as contributing to enclosure if the majority of the enclosure area is occupied by struct ures or trees. Layer 2: Lost Space Lost space describes space in an urban environment that does not contribute to the pedestrian experience. Related to enclosure, lost space does not contribute to the volumetric quality of urban spaces. Parking lo ts, open areas without landscaping or trees, and vacant lots are examples of spaces that are lost from a pede strian perspective. While some overlap exists between the lost space layer and the enclosure layer, th e two layers measure separate variables. For example, while trees surrounding parking lots or on vacant lots may contribute to the 2 ArcGIS 9.2 is a collection of GIS software products designed to integrate data organization, manipulation, visualization, and creation. The software enables us ers to visualize data stored in attribute tables. 38

PAGE 39

enclosure of the street as defined in this methodology, parking lots and vacant lots do not contribute to the volumetric quality of the space. To create the lost space layer, all of the tax assessor parcels with a land use description of V acant (commercial, industrial, institutional, or residential) are selected and cl assified as lost. Then, the aerial photography for all non-vacant parcels is examined. For residentia l uses, the only areas classified as lost are parking lots located in front of buildings, excluding driveways for si ngle-family homes. For non-residential uses, any part of the parcel not covered by a building or st ructure is considered lost space, except when located behind the building and bordered on all sides by buildings or structures on adjacent parcels. Parking garages are not classified as lost space, since they are structures. Layer 3: Sidewalks Sidewalks are an important part of the pe destrian experience, and the hierarchy of sidewalks is reflected here. The most desirable sidewalks will offer the pedestrian protection from the automobile activity on the street through a buffer such as planting strips, shade trees, or on-street parking. However, even non-buffered side walks still offer the pedestrian safety from the street traffic and are considered more desirable than no sidewalks at all. This layer uses aerial photography to classify each pa rcel into one of three groups:3 parcels with sidewalks buffered from the street, parcels with sidewalks, and parc els with no sidewalks. For any parcels with more than one side adjacent to a st reet, the conditions of the longe st side are used to assign a classification. Layer 4: Public Space This layer represents the defined public spac es of the study area. Wh ile large open tracts of land may be desirable and valuable in a rural transect, this analysis does not consider them 3 For the composite layer, only two groups are consider ed; parcels with sidewalks an d parcels without sidewalks (both buffered and non-buffered si dewalks receive the same value). 39

PAGE 40

appropriate for an urban sett ing (Talen, 2005, p. 216). Defined pub lic space includes all public buildings and the landscaped areas that surround them. Parking garages are considered defined space, but parking lots and unlandscaped open spaces are not. Lakes surrounded by landscaping and paths are considered defined public places but lakes in their na tural state are not. First, all the property assessor tax parcels that have a classification indicating public ownership are selected (other counties, other m unicipal, other federal, orphanages, and public schools). Then, aerial photography is examined for each of the parcels. Parcels that are vacant are classified as entirely undefined. For parc els with both defined areas (buildings and landscaping) and undefined areas (parking lots an d open space), the parcel is split into new polygons for classification. Layer 5: Incompatible Streets This layer looks at the type of streets residential parcels are located on. First, all residential parcels are selected and exported to create a new layer. Then, re sidential parcels bordered on any side by a major road are selected and classified as incompatible. Roads classified by the Florida Geographic Data Library as highway s, collectors, or arterials are considered to be incompatible for residential uses. While the actual design speed or roadway width may provide a more accurate measure of incompatible streets, that data was not available for the study area at the time of this writing. Layer 6: Lot Width The desirable lot width in a general urban transect has been defined as 36 to 72 feet (Talen, 2005, p. 218). The width of the parcel is m easured at the edge of the lot line adjacent to the street. For parcels that transv erse an entire block and ther efore have lot lines adjacent to more than one street the smallest width is used. For parcels locate d on block corners, the orientation of the building is used to determ ine which street to measure the width along. 40

PAGE 41

However, in cases where the orientation of the bui lding could not be determined using the aerial photography, the smallest width is used. Layer 7: Proximity This variable uses a raster layer4 to measure proximity of re sidential parc els to public space and retail. First, a raster layer for resident ial parcels is created. Th en, Spatial Analyst is used to generate a raster laye r representing proximity of reside ntial parcels to public space and retail. For public space, only the defined public spaces from layer 4 are considered. For retail, the distance to the actual structur es (not the lost space of the parking lot) is used. Layer 8: Land Use Mix This layer represents the level of land use mix in the study area. First, the parcel layer is converted into a raster layer based on the land use classifications. Some land use classifications are excluded from the analysis because they do not contribute to a desirable level of land-use mix (centrally assessed land, rights-of -way, utilities, mineral proce ssing, industrial storage, and parking lots are given no value). Using Spatia l Analyst, neighborhood statistics are generated that give each cell a value that is a function of the value of th at location plus the values of surrounding locations (Talen, 2005, p. 221). Higher values represent a higher level of land-use mix and lower values represent a more homogeneous land use distribution. Composite Layer: Calculating the Final Values After the eight separate layers are created, they are combined into a single composite layer. This composite layer is used to identify which sections of the study area most represent a New Urbanist definition of good urban form and whic h areas do not. To create the composite layer, the first step is to convert all of the eight layers described above into rast er layers. For layers 7 4 Raster layers use a grid of uniform cells (similar to pixels ) that each have a single value. In this case, the value of each cell is the distance the cell is away from defined public space and retail. 41

PAGE 42

and 8, this step is not necessary as they are already raster layers. A ll the layers are then reclassified into a common scale. For this research, all layers are considered equally important and therefore are not weighted. A binary coincide nce scoring is used, where positive traits in each layer receive a value of and nega tive traits receive a value of (see Table 3-1 ). The benefit to using the binary coincidence scoring is that all the layers ar e scored using the same scale, and the final value represents the number of elements present at any given cell a score of one indicates one element is pres ent, a score of two indicates two elements are present, and so on. However, for variables that are not dichotomous (for example, proximity to public space and retail), this method of scoring removes the ability of the assigne d value to be sensitive to the varying degrees of positive tr aits present in each cell. The final value for each cell is established by ad ding the values of individual cells in the eight raster layers together. An analysis mask is used when creating the composite layer to normalize the results. Space in the study area occ upied by right-of-ways and water bodies are scored differently depending on each layer, so cells located in these areas are given null values in the analysis mask. Additionally, all cells locate d outside the enclosure area from Layer 1 are given null values in the analysis mask. This si mplifies the resulting composite layer the values of the remaining cells represent t hose that most contribute to th e pedestrian experience of the space. Natural breaks are used to di vide the cells into three cate gories: low-scoring, mid-scoring, and high-scoring. The lowest scoring cells represen t areas of land that ar e the least likely to represent good urban form, as defined by the New Urbanists. The mid-sc oring cells represent areas of land that are neutral in terms of good urban form. Finally, the highest scoring cells represent areas of land that best conform to the standards for good urban design in a general 42

PAGE 43

urban transect. Because natural breaks are used to classify the values rather than equal intervals, high-scoring cells represent cells that score high compared to the other cells in the study area. Depending on the overall values for the study area cells classified as high-scoring may not necessarily be meeting all eight elements of good urban form. Using the Composite Layer to Guide Comparisons The classifications described above (low-scori ng, mid-scoring, and hi gh-scoring) are used to identify portions of the study area as analysis zones for co mparison with historic patterns and New Urbanist design proposals. Other considerations also in fluence the choice of analysis zones. Most importantly, appropria te data sources must be available for the analysis zones. Sanborn insurance maps are used to represent the historic patterns of the study area because they show parcel outlines, building footprints, and th e location of roads. However, Sanborn insurance maps are not always available for all places and da tes. The analysis zones must also be easily related to DKPs New Urbanist proposals for the study area. Therefore, analysis zones are delineated based on three considerations: (1) the uni formity of the cell values (either mostly lowscoring or mostly high-scoring), (2) the availability of Sanborn ma ps, and (3) the relationship of the boundaries to those used in DKPs proposed Ne w Urbanist design plan for the area. Analysis zones representing both highand lowscoring areas are used so that comparisons can be drawn between analysis zones as well as between historic, current, a nd proposed patterns. The New Urbanist Perspective: How do Infill Plans Relate? The last element the methodology explores is the relationship between areas specifically targeted for redevelopment or d esign intervention in the master design plan and the scores for those areas based on the above rating system. Using the drawings in the ma ster plan, a GIS layer is created that corresponds to the general areas targeted. The scores from the composite layer are then calculated for the specific areas, a nd compared to the area as a whole. 43

PAGE 44

44 The methodology described above represents a way to quantify and rank urban patterns, but the comparisons made between past, present, and proposed plans is largely qualitative. The methods used in this study are intended to guide the discussion of the evolution of urban form in the case study and how that evolution affects the ability of New Urbanist infill development to fit into the neighborhoods current deve lopment patterns. In order for the results generated by the processes described above to be meaningful, an understanding of the history of the area is necessary. Chapter Four provides the reader with the historical c ontext for the current urban form found in the case study before applying the met hodology described in this chapter to the case study.

PAGE 45

Table 3-1: Layers for Analyz ing Current Land Use Patterns Description Binary Coincidence Scoring for Raster Layer 0 1 1. Enclosure Parcels are scored based on the presence of trees or structures in the enclosure ar ea (the first 45 feet of each parcel). No enclosure Structures or trees located in the enclosure area 2. Lost Space All vacant parcels or areas of parcels that are not dedicated to a structure or landscaped area, excluding areas located behind buildings. Polygons of Lost Space All other areas 3. Sidewalks Parcels are scored based on the existence and type of sidewalk adjacent to the parcel Sidewalks that are buffered from the street score higher than sidewalks that are not buffered from the street. No sidewalk Sidewalk 4. Public Space Public space is defined as all parcels with a land use description that implies pub lic ownership. Defined public space (structures or landscaped areas) is scored higher than undefined public space (open land or parking lots). All other parcels Defined public space 5. Incompatible Streets Parcels located adjacent to major roads are selected and scored negatively for compatibility with streets. Residential parcels adjacent to major roads All other residential parcels 6. Lot Width Any parcel wider than 72 fe et is selected and scored negatively for lot width. All parcels wider than 72 feet All parcels narrower than 72 feet 7. Proximity* Residential Parcels are scor ed based on their proximity (using a straight-line distance) to both defined public spaces (from layer 4) and retail uses (excluding lost space from layer 2). All other areas Residential areas within 1/8 mile 8. Land Use Mix* Using Neighborhood Statistics, a ll parcels except for heavy industrial uses are scored based on how different they are from the parcels surrounding them. All other cells Cells having a high land use mix Source: Adopted from Talen, 2005, p. 213 *Created as Raster Layer 45

PAGE 46

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS: THE CASE STUDY OF PARRAMORE In this chapter, the methodology described in Chapter Three will be applied to the Parramore Heritage District in Orlando, Florid a. The chapter begins by giving a geographic, demographic, and historic context for the study area. Second, the current development patterns are discussed. Third, comparisons are made betw een the development patterns in the area in 1925, the current patterns, and the proposed patter ns found in DKPs Master Plan for Parramore. Finally, this chapter discusses briefly the ar eas highlighted for redevelopment or design intervention in the Master Plan. The results pr esented in this chapter will be discussed in Chapter Five. An Introduction to Parramore For the purposes of this research, the study area1 will be the one DKP uses in their Master Plan for the Parramore Heritage District. The area is located west of the core of Orlandos downtown, is a part of the Traditional C ity of Orlando, and is comprised of three neighborhoods Lake Dot, Callahan, and Holden-Parramore (see Figure 4-1 ). Generally bound by Gore Street on the south, Interstate-4 on the we st, West Colonial Drive (State Road 50) on the north, and South Orange Blossom Trail (U.S. 441) on the east, the area is approximately 1.3 square miles and represents a historica lly African-American community of Orlando. Although the proximity of the area to Orlandos downtown gives it potential for economic success, the neighborhoods that comprise the Parramore Heritage Di strict have become neighborhoods of last resort[thos e] with a choice choos e elsewhere, or get out as soon as they can (DKP 1994: 3-1). The majority of Parra more residents are African American (see Table 41 Throughout this paper, the terms Parra more and Parramore Herita ge District will be used to reference the study area included in DKPs Master Plan. This area is some times defined with sligh tly different boundaries. 46

PAGE 47

47 1). While historically several African Ameri can neighborhoods existed within the Parramore Heritage District, some have argued that segregationist policie s and practices resulted in the demographic patterns evident in the area today (see Larsen 2002). Close to half of the residents live below the poverty line, and many do not have a high school diploma or GED (see Table 41). The majority of the housing units are renter occupied (see Table 4-1 ). Many residents do not own cars, and two-car households are rare (see Table 4-1 ). In general, the neighborhoods get poorer and less diverse the further south in the study area they are located Industrial uses are found in Parramore, particularly west and north of the railroad and al ong Central Boulevard, and much of the land is government owned (see Figure 4-2 ). Two public housing complexes, Griffin Park and Carver Court, are located in the southern portion of Parramore, and the Orlando Centroplex is located in the northeast section, just south of Lake Dot. Historic Parramore: The Traditional Neighborhood Located near the railroad, Parramore was sett led in the 1880s by workers drawn to the jobs offered by industries fueled by the transportation sy stem (in particular, the citrus industry). The area became a place where Africans Americans concentrated, and a community with commercial businesses, churches, and schools began to augment the job opport unities of the citrus industry. Although there was a concentrati on of African Americans in th e Parramore area, it was not exclusively so. Many white families lived in the areas surrounding the African American neighborhoods, and white employers often provi ded modest housing for African American workers located close to industries. Modernist Planning in Parramore: Zonin g, Urban Renewal, and Highway Building In the 1920s, the City of Orla ndo experienced a housing boom, and city officials began to find ways to make the de facto segregation of African American neighborhoods into law. While racial zoning was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 191 7, segregationists in

PAGE 48

48 Orlando pushed for a zoning code that would en sure the protection of middle-class, white neighborhoods as separate entities from Af rican American neighborhoods (Larsen 2002: 158, 166-7). Attempts made in 1925 and 1926 to delineate sp ecific areas of the city that were already predominately African American as the official colored sections of the city failed, but the plans reveal the intention of white leaders in Orlando to ins titutionalize segregation (Larsen 2002: 167). In 1927, the first comprehensive zoning code was adopted for the City of Orlando. Like many zoning codes today, the code promoted single-family neighborhoods and provided for the complete separation of single-family areas from commercial and industrial uses. Even though the traditional patterns throughout the city reveal single family areas coexisting with commercial uses, the new zoning code called for complete se paration of residential uses in white areas. However, for the predominately African American sections in Parramore where residential uses were located near the industr ial uses the city officials cons idered the mixture of industrial and residential uses convenient for employers and designated large sections for industrial and unrestricted uses (Larsen 2002: 168) Other areas of Parramore were designated for multi-family uses, intensifying the density of some areas. In 1940, Orlando opened its first public housing pr oject, Griffin Park, in the southern portion of Parramore. The density of the Gri ffin Park housing project doubled what had previously existed, and all of the 174 units were designated for African American occupation. Griffin Park is still operated today by the Orlando Housing Agency. In 1945, a second public housing project, Carver Court, ope ned in the southern portion of Parramore all 212 units were designated for African Americans. Carver Court was demolished in 2002 as a part of a HOPE VI Revitalization Grant, and plans for its redevelopment will be discussed later in this chapter.

PAGE 49

49 Urban Renewal did not result in large tracts of slums being cleared in Parramore. However, slum clearance in other parts of Orlando coupled with the construction of public housing in Parramore for the African American resi dents displaced from other parts of the city resulted in the further densification of poor African Americans in the area (Larsen 2002). The construction of Interstate 4 in 1960 separa ted the Parramore Herita ge District from the rest of Orlandos downtown. Then, in the mid-1960s, the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) began plans for the East-West Expressway in order to provide an east-west transportation corridor for the City (Shofner 2001: 19-22). An engineering study proposed two routes for the new expressway. The first route w ould generally parallel Colonial Drive (State Road 50). The second route would run south of the business district al ong Anderson Street and cut through the Holden-Parramore Neighborhood in the Parramore Heritage District. (Shofner 2001: 21-2). OOCEA chose the second option becau se it would save 14.4 million dollars in estimated right-of-way costs (Shofner 2001: 212). In building the East-West Expressway, approximately 1,100 homes, 80 businesses, and six churches had to be acquired and demolished to create the right-of-way for the new road (Schofner 2001: 25). Althoug h only a portion of the parcels were located in the Parramore Heritage District, the acquisition and demolition for the right-of-way served to further di vide and isolate the area. The East-West Expressway opened for traffic in 1973. With the introduction of the highway acce ss to Parramore, a trend of demolishing residences on the east side of the Parramore Heritage District began, and many single-family units were lost (Larsen 1998: 602) Most notably, renovation and c onstruction of civic uses south of Lake Dot resulted in the area known as the Orlando Centroplex in the 1980s.

PAGE 50

50 A New Urbanist Vision for Parramore In 1992, the City of Orlando began the Parramore Heritage Renovation Project as a comprehensive campaign to improve the district, its governance, its economy and the quality of life of its citizens (DKP 1994: 11). The project enabled the crea tion of community task forces to make recommendations on issues aff ecting Parramores neighborhoods and direct redevelopment efforts to areas that would serv e as appropriate model projects (Larsen 1998: 603). The established purposes of the project were: To prepare, with the input of pr operty owners, merchants, neighbors, technical experts and government officials, a detailed and vividly illustrated Plan of what all or parts of the Parramore District should become; To focus this Plan on the gradual tran sformation of the di strict as a vital mixed-use environment while preser ving, restoring and enhancing those qualities valued by the community; To address in this Plan problems of traffic behavior, pedestrian mobility, site layouts, and opportunities for pr eservation of contributive buildings; To establish a simple, graphic se t of Standards for development, redevelopment, and adaptive re-use in the District; To guide through this Plan future public investment in in frastructure, civic buildings, and public spaces; and To guide through this Plan future private investment by property owners so that each new act of construction will be a contributive part of the merging neighborhood fabric. (DKP 1994: 1-1) The project resulted in the completion of two documents in the summer of 1994: the Parramore Heritage Renovation Strategic Plan and the Parramore Heritage District Master Plan. The former was adopted by the city council, but one of the main funding sources outlined in the plan designation as a federal Urban Enterprise Community failed to materialize, indefinitely delaying the plans goals. The latter, a design pl an created by DKP, was also adopted, but Orlandos Land Development Code was never amended to align with the design

PAGE 51

51 guidelines outlined in the plan (Larsen 1998: 60 3-4). Although never put into practice, the Parramore Heritage Renovation District Master Plan is used in this case study as a theoretical document that provides evidence for a discussi on on how the New Urbanism can fit into an existing historic neighborhood that has experienced a degradati on of its traditional fabric. Carver Park and HOPE VI As mentioned previously, Carv er Court was demolished in 2002 to be redeveloped as a HOPE VI project. The redevelopm ent, which will be renamed Carver Park, will replace the 212 units that previously existed with 203 housi ng units, including 64 units for a seniors-only multifamily complex (Bryant 2006). The other units will be attached town homes, single family detached homes, duplexes, quadplexes and row houses, with some units designated for rental and some for home ownership (Bryan t 2006). The 17-acre site located between Conley Street and Gore Street will also include a three-acre lake and introduce through streets to create smaller blocks than currently exist (Bryant 2006). The master design plan created by DKP in 1994 identifies the Carver Court complex as an area in need of design interv ention, criticizing th e area for overly large blocks, buildings oriented away from streets, and undefined public space (DKP 1994: 6-14). While the DKP proposed plan for the area calls for the replacement of some of the buildings in the complex, the introduction of two new connecting streets, and the addition of str eet trees and hedges to better define public spaces, the HOPE VI redevelopment pl an allows for more ambitious development. The plans for Carver Court, scheduled for co mpletion in 2008, incorporate the New Urbanist principles supported by DKPs pr oposed changes for the area through complete demolition and rebuilding.

PAGE 52

52 Current Patterns: Measuring Good Urban Form The Parramore Heritage District contains 1,983 parcels, most of which (1,374 or 69.22 percent) are residential parcel s. However, residential parc els only cover 199.08 acres (24.39 percent of the total land area ). Publicly owned land accounts for another 20.14 percent of the total land area, and industrial uses are also common (14.66 percen t of the total land area). The layers below use parcels as the main way to assign values associated with distinct elements of good urban form. The layers below were created using the methodology described in Chapter Three. Layer 1: Enclosure In the study area, 62.41 percent of the parcels have structures or trees in the first 45 feet that contribute to the enclosur e of the street. However, only a few streets are enclosed on both sides (see Figure 4-3 ). Areas with good enclosure exist dire ctly north of Washington Street and east of Parramore Avenue, around Lake Dot, south of South Street and north of Long Street, and small enclaves south of the East-West Expressway and east of the Interstate-4 interchange (see Figure 4-3 ). Layer 2: Lost Space Parramore has 535 parcels with vacant classifi cations that are classified as lost space outright (433 vacant residential parcels, 89 vacan t commercial parcels, eight vacant industrial parcels, and five vacant institutional parcels). W ith the addition of lost space evident in parking lots and other undefined spaces, 825 polygons of lo st space exist in the study area covering 224.4 acres (27.49 percent of the tota l area). The lost space is even ly distributed throughout the study area (see Figure 4-4 ).

PAGE 53

53 Layer 3: Sidewalks Over half of the parcels (57.29 percent) have sidewalks 22.09 percent of the parcels have sidewalks that are not buffered from the street and 35.2 percent of the parcels have sidewalks that are buffered from the street. However, 35.75 percent of the parcels have no sidewalks at all. Sidewalks are fairly evenly distributed througho ut the study area, althou gh the northwest section of the area has the most consistent coverage (see Figure 4-5 ). Layer 4: Public Space In the study area, there are 182 parcels (164.38 acres) with a land use classification that indicates public ownership. When undefined space is removed, 44 polygons (66.18 acres) exist of defined public space. Therefore, a fifth (20.14 pe rcent) of the total land area in Parramore is publicly owned, but only 40.26 percent of the publicly owned land exis ts as defined public space. The public space is mostly concentrated in the northeast section of th e study area (where the Centroplex and other public bu ildings are located), with a scattering of public space in the southern portions of the study area (see Figure 4-6 ). Layer 5: Incompatible Streets Of the 1,374 residential parcels in the study area, 472 parcels (34.35 percent) are located adjacent to incompatible streets (see Figure 4-7 ). Of these, 119 are multi-family parcels for less than ten units (25.21 percent), 16 are multi-family greater than ten units (3.39 percent), seven are orphanages (1.48 percent), 200 are single-family parcels (42.37 percent), and 130 are vacant residential parcels (27.37 percen t). Generally, the distribution of the residential parcel types located next to incompatible streets matches th e distribution of resident ial parcel types as a whole, with a few exceptions. Over half of the parcels classified for or phanages and multi-family greater than ten units are lo cated adjacent to incompatible streets (61.54 percent and 63.64 percent, respectively).

PAGE 54

54 Layer 6: Lot Width Of the 1,985 parcels in the study area, 497 (25.0 4 percent) are wider than 72 feet. While the parcels are located throughout the study area, there are concentr ations of wide parcels along the east and west boundaries of th e study area as well as running eas t to west along Church Street and Central Boulevard (see Figure 4-8 ). Residential parcels (includi ng parcels dedicated to uses generally allowed in residential areas such as churches and schools) account for 49.27 percent of parcels wider than 72 feet, industr ial parcels (including automobile repair and service stations) account for 30.83 percent, retail and office parcels account for 20.39 percent, and governmentowned parcels account for 19.17 percent. Layer 7: Proximity The residential parcels in the study area ar e well served by retail and public space. No residential parcel is farther than a fourth of a mile from a retail parcel or a defined public space, and 95.38 percent of the residential areas are located within an eighth of a m ile to a retail parcel or a defined public space (see Figure 4-9 ). This layer represents one of the variables that is not dichotomous. However, the uniformity of the re sults indicates that using the dichotomous scoring system did not result in a loss of sensitivity to the varying distances of each cell. Layer 8: Land Use Mix This layer uses neighborhood statistics to ca lculate land use mix. The values for land use mix range from one to six. Because of the high per centage (74.16 percent) of land with values of one and two, values of three and higher are considered to have a high land use mix. Excluding areas occupied by roads, water bodies, centrally assessed land, right s-of-way, utilities, mineral processing, industrial storage, and parking lots, 25.84 percent of the study area contains a high level of land use mix. These areas are generally c oncentrated south of Chur ch Street and north of the East-West Expressway and north of Wash ington Street between Westmoreland Drive and

PAGE 55

55 Parramore Avenue (see Figure 4-10 ). This layer represents a nother variable that is not dichotomous, but like the proximity layer the values of the cells are fairly uniform. In this case, using a binary coincidence scoring system rates cells with a value of three the same as cells with a value of six. However, because 74.16 percent of the land scored only a one or a two for land use mix, this loss of sensitivity does not significantly affect the overall results. Composite Layer: Calculating the Final Values Using the scoring methodology described in Chapter 3, each of the above layers is converted to a raster layer with cells scori ng either or Table 4-2 shows the percentage of cells scoring and in each raster layer.2 The layers with the hi ghest percentage of land scoring are lost space (63.1 percent), sidewalks (65.22 percen t), and incompatible streets (89.88 percent). The layers with the highest pe rcent of cells scoring are enclosure (78.89 percent), public space (91.91 percent), lot widt h (65.93 percent), proximity (68.78 percent), and land use mix (74.16 percent). These pe rcentages represent the scores for individual layers before the analysis mask is used (all land in the study area including streets a nd water bodies is still represented in each layer). When the layers are added together using the enclosure area as an analysis mask, roads, water bodies, and all land outside the enclosure ar ea (not encountered by pedestrian) are removed from the final results (see Figure 4-11 ). In the composite layer, the final cell values range from zero (cells at that location meet none of the desired urban form ch aracteristics) to eight (cells at that location meet all of the desired urban form characteristics). Only one ce ll (0.01 percent of total) scored a zero, and only one cell (0.01 percent of total) scored an eight. The distribu tion of the remaining values is 5.77 2 The percentages are different than the ones described for th e vector layers because they include every single cell in the study area. For layers that measur e a positive characteristic (enclosure, si dewalks, public sp ace, proximity, and land use mix) all cells that do not meet the specific characteristic are assigned a value of 0. For layers that measure an undesirable characteristic (lost space, in compatible streets, and lot width) all cells that meet the characteristic are assigned a value of 0 and all other cells are assigned a value of 1.

PAGE 56

56 percent with a score of one, 18.65 percent with a score of tw o, 22.99 percent with a score of three, 22.79 percent with a score of four, 17.4 percent with a scor e of five, 9.84 percent with a score of six, and 2.55 percent with a score of seven (see Figure 4-12 ). The cells are divided into three categories: low-scoring (val ues of 0-3), mid-scoring (value s of 4 or 5), and high-scoring (values of 6-8) using natural break s in the distribution of the data. Analysis Zones Using the value ranges described above as a guide, four analysis z ones are selected for detailed comparison (see Figure 4-13 ). Analysis zones A and B represent generally highand midscoring areas, while analysis zones C and D represent generally low-scoring areas. Other considerations for selecting the analysis zones were the availability of Sanborn maps from 1925 for the area and the boundaries of clos e-up views in the 1994 Master Plan. While the northwest section of the study area (g enerally north of Robinson Street and west of Westmoreland Drive) displa ys many low-scoring cells (see Figure 4-11 ), Sanborn maps did not offer consistent coverage of the area in 1925. Similarly, enclaves of high and low scoring cells in the southwest section of the study area south of the Ea st-West Expressway and West of the Interstate-4 Interchange (see Figure 4-11 ) were not chosen for detailed comparison because Sanborn maps did not offer complete coverage in 1925. The Master Plan splits the Parramore Heritage District into eight areas based on what fits comfortably on each page, not by neighborhood or ward boundaries (see Figure 4-14 ), and then includes close-up views for each of the eight areas (DKP 1994: 5-2). The boundaries of the four analysis zones respect the boundaries of the close-up views in the 1994 Master Plan to allow for ease of comparison of the current patterns with thos e proposed in the plan.

PAGE 57

57 Analysis Zones A and B: High-scoring Areas The raster cell values for th ese two zones are generally high, although no cell scores the highest possible score of eight and only one ce ll scores a seven. Of the 1,811 cells in the two zones, 11.84 percent (216) scor e a six, 31.41 percent (573) score a five, 30.7 percent (560) score a four, 19.3 percent (352) score a three, 6.25 percent (114) sc ore a two, and 0.44 percent (8) score a one (see Figure 4-15 ). No cell scores zero in these two zones. Zone A is located in the northwe stern portion of the study area (see Figure 4-13 Figure 414). It is generally bounded on the south by Robinson Street, the west by th e railroad, the north by Livingston Street (from the railroad to Westmoreland Drive and from Lee Avenue to Parramore Avenue) and Federal Street (between Westmoreland Drive and Lee Avenue), and to the east by Parramore Avenue. The zone is 33.73 acres and has an average of 4.68 parcels per acre. The 158 parcels contain 74 single-family parcels, 26 vacant residential parcels, seven multifamily parcels, five municipal parcels, three one-story store parcels, two vacant commercial parcels, two vacant instituti onal parcels, and two warehouse/ distribution center parcels. Zone B is located in the sout hwestern portion of the study area just north of the East-West Expressway (see Figure 4-13 Figure 4-14 ). It is generally bounded on the south by Long Street, on the west by Woods Avenue, to the north by Randall Street (between Woods Avenue and Lee Avenue) and South Street (between Lee Avenue and Parramore Avenue), and to the east by Parramore Avenue. The zone is 28.19 acres and has an average of 6.1 parcels per acre. The 172 parcels contain 66 single-family parcels, 49 mu lti-family parcels (all less than 10 units), 40 vacant residential parcels, seven one-story store parcels, four v acant commercial parcels, and two church parcels.

PAGE 58

58 Analysis Zones C and D: Low-Scoring Areas The raster cell values in th ese two zones are generally lo w to middle scores, with the majority of the cells scoring a four or lower. Of the 1,477 cells in th e two zones, 9.68 percent (143) score a one, 31.21 percent (461) score a two, 27.35 percent (404) score a three, 26.34 percent (389) score a four, 5.01 percent (74) sc ore a five, 0.41 percent (6) score a six, and no cells score zero, seven, or eight (see Figure 4-16 ). Zone C is located in the north eastern portion of the study area, south and east of Lake Dot (see Figure 4-13 Figure 4-14 ). It is generally bounded on the south by Livingston Street, to the west by Parramore Avenue and Lake Dot, to the north by Concord Street (west of Lake Dot) and Colonial Drive (east of Lake Dot), and to the east by Interstate-4. The zone is the largest of the four zones at 70.69 acres and has the lowest average number of parcels per acre (0.24 parcels per acre). The 17 parcels contain six municipal parcel s (the Centroplex and other public buildings), four orphanage parcels, and one parcel each for churches, homes for the aged, hotel/motels, mixed-use (store and office), parking lots/mobile home sales, public schools, and one-story stores. Zone D is located west of Parramore Avenue in between Zones A and B (see Figure 4-13 Figure 4-14 ). It is generally bordered on the s outh by Church Street, to the west by Westmoreland Drive, to the north by Washington Street, and to th e east by Parramore Avenue. The zone is 40.66 acres and has an average of .98 parcels per acre. The 40 parcels contain 14 warehouse/distribution center parc els, six county or municipal pa rcels, five vacant commercial parcels, four multi-family parcels, three single-family parcels, three parking lot/mobile home sales parcels, two one-story store parcels, two orphanage parcels, and one club, lodge, or union hall parcel.

PAGE 59

59 Comparison of Past, Present, and Proposed Urban Form The comparison of past, present, and proposed urban form in this paper will rely on observable urban form characteristics present in the documents from all three scenarios. These include street locations, parcel outlines, and building footprints (size, number, orientation, and location within the parcel). DKPs Master Design Plan introduces street trees along all of the streets, but since the Sanborn maps do not show vegetation or landscaping, this element cannot be compared. Analysis Zone A This zone had mostly high or mid scoring ce lls in the composite layer, and the maps for this zone indicate that this area has barely changed since 1925 (see Figure 4-17 ). Most of the empty lots that existed in 1925 have struct ures built on them by 2005, but the layout of the parcels and the streets remains unchanged. The lo ts on the corner of Westmoreland Drive and Livingston Street had structures in 1925 that are no longer pres ent in the 2005 aerial photos. The Master Plan reintroduces structures on these lots. The structures, wh ile slightly different in each map, retain the same general scale and orientat ion. The only major change to the current and historic patterns in the Master Plan is the extension of Lee Avenue to Federal Street, breaking up the long block in the northern part of the analysis zone. Analysis Zone B This zone also had mostly highor midscor ing cells in the composite layer, and the maps for this zone indicate that, lik e Zone A, this area has not s een significant changes since 1925 (see Figure 4-18 ). Structures have been filled in on em pty lots, and the bigger lots between Lee Avenue and McFall Avenue on the 1925 map ar e split into smaller parcels by 2005. The new structures evident on the 2005 map match the ge neral scale and orientation of the older structures. One cul-de-sac street appears in the 2005 map between Jern igan Avenue and Lee

PAGE 60

60 Avenue on the south side of Anderson Street (Holden on the 1925 map). The Master Plan does not introduce any major changes, with the excepti on of one east-west stre et and one east-west alley that change the orientati on of the parcels on the northern ends of the long block formed by Lee Avenue and McFall Avenue (split by Glenn Alley). This is the location for a proposed design intervention (the number 15 on the map refers to a new public green and civic building intended to provide defined public space). Analysis Zone C This zone scored low in the composite layer, and the differences in urban form from zones A and B are immediately evident (see Figure 4-19 ). The Orlando Centropl ex is located in the center of this zone, with large parking lots su rrounding it on several sides. The patterns in this zone have changed considerably since 1925. Two north-south streets disappear between Parramore Avenue and Revere Avenue from the 1925 map to the 2005 map, and Lexington Avenue is truncated at Concord Street. Additio nally, the path of Amelia Street changes to become more curvilinear in the 2005 map, instead of existing as a part of the regular grid pattern as it did in 1925. Very few small parcels remain at all: a parking lot replaces three blocks of small parcels just south of Lake Dot, large bu ildings on parcels spanning entire blocks replace the small parcels west of Interstate 4, and th e Amway Arena replaces small parcels and the old route of Amelia Street in the middle of the zone. The south portion of the zone has changed th e least from the 1925 map in terms of parcel size. A large open space, Exhibition Park, with a one-mile race track occupies the space in 1925. In 2005, a parking lot occupies most of the ar ea. While representing a clear change from the 1925 use (a public green space) to the 2005 use (a n auto-dominated, potentially pedestrian hostile area), the scale and the ope nness of the area is retained.

PAGE 61

61 DKPs Master Plan introduces potential s ubdivision of the larg e parking areas into individual parcels. In some instances, they re late generally to thos e found on the 1925 map (in the area north of Amelia Street and south of La ke Dot), and in some instances they introduce new patterns that have never exis ted in the area (south of the arena in the parking lot that was once Exhibition Park). Analysis Zone D This zone also has mostly low-scoring cells in the composite layer, and considerable changes from 1925 to 2005 are apparent (see Figure 4-20 ). In particular, building footprints have increased to fill entire large parcels and many surf ace parking lots appear. Even in 1925, this area had fairly large lots compared to the other three zones, and few roads. The Master Plan introduces a few new roads in the northwest and s outheast corners of the z one, but largely leaves the large lots and buildings in place. Rather than propose redeve lopment of the buildings already in existence, the Master Plan proposes accessory buildings that w ould contribute the enclosure of the street. Two areas receive sp ecial attention, labele d (Otey Place/Washington Street Model Project) and (New Elementary School {Candidate Location}) on the map (DKP 1994: 5-9). The Otey Place/Washington Street model projec t aims to address the problems of large blocks, disconnected streets, and a lack of defined public space in the neighborhood (DKP 1994: 6-8). The plan proposes creating a new public square at the corner of Lee Avenue and Washington Street, introducing a new street through the block, delineating new lots surrounding the square, and building new single-family houses (DKP 1994: 6-9). The potential location for the new elementary school is included in respon se to the issue of a lack of neighborhood schools in the Parramore Heritage District raised in design charrettes. The issues of putting a neighborhood school in Parramore are complex give n the current demographics of the area, so

PAGE 62

62 the location is included as a future possibility that should be considered an d preserved rather than an immediate project to implement (DKP 1994: 6-32). Summary of Comparisons In general, the location of streets proved th e most resistant to change. Even when the Master Plan proposes additions to the street network, only in Zone C did those additions reintroduce streets that had been lost. The land use also remained relatively constant, especially for residential areas. Structur es and parcels changed the mo st from 1925 to 2005, although the high-scoring zones displayed much fewer changes than the low-scoring zones. Zone C displayed the highest amount of change overa ll the effects of demolition a nd consolidation of parcels are most evident in this zone. Both low scoring zo nes (Zone C and Zone D) had larger areas of undeveloped land in 1925 than the higher scoring zones (Zone A and Zone B) which indicates they never possessed the same level of traditiona l patterns that the hi gher scoring zones have managed to retain. Both low-scor ing zones also contain uses that require more parking than the residential uses found in the high-scoring z ones, and combined with the existence of undeveloped land appears to have resulted in th e construction of many surface parking lots. However, in 1925 Zone C had many small reside ntial lots and houses that display similar patterns to those seen in the hi gher scoring zones, and the undeveloped land in 1925 was used as a public open space. Some of the parking lo ts now found in Zone C replaced residential development rather than simply filling in previously undeveloped space. Zone C represents an area where the traditional patterns were defi ned in 1925 but largely gone by 2005. The changes the Master Plan proposes in Zone C most represen t a return to the patterns that once existed in the area such as the reintroduction of streets and the re-p latting of smaller re sidential parcels if the large civic buildings and parking lots were to be redeveloped. Ev en though the proposed parcel layout is different from the way the area looked in 1925, the general scale and character is

PAGE 63

63 consistent with the 1925 patterns s een in the northern portion of Zone C as well as those still existing in the higher scoring zones. Areas of Interest in Dover, Ko hl, and Partners Master Plan The Parramore Heritage District Master Plan proposes three areas for redevelopment: (A) Parramore Plaza (the inte rsection of Parramore Avenue and South Street should be redeveloped as a plaza, defining the public space with architectural form), (B) Harmons Cove (the intersection of Division Ave nue and South Street should be redeveloped as the centerpiece of an African Quarter or B lues Alley concept, with re stored historic buildings and appropriate infill buildings), and (C) the form er Dixie Doodle (construction of a new civic building to define the street and re novating the Sun Charm Apartments) (see Figure 4-21 ). These redevelopment projects are consid ered model projects to spur new investment and development. The plan also identifies thirteen areas for d esign intervention which are different from the redevelopment areas and are discussed in the fo llowing paragraph. The current patterns in areas targeted for redevelopment as model projects in the Master Plan have composite scores lower than the study area as a whole. No cells located in the proposed redevelopment areas score seven or eight, only 1.71 percent score a six, 6.84 perc ent score a five, 31.62 percent score a four, 15.38 percent score a three, 40 .17 percent score a two, and 4.72 percent score a one (see Figure 4-22 ). The distribution breaks the general patterns seen in the analysis zones and study area as a whole, with a large percentage scori ng a two and a large percentage scoring a four, with a smaller percentage of cells scoring a three. This may be in part due to the small size and number of redevelopment areas only 117 rast er cells fell within the areas. The design intervention areas in the mast er plan are thirteen areas that display weaknesses in overall design, but are not cr ucial to immediately redevelop (see Figure 4-21 ): Lake Dot

PAGE 64

64 Colonial Drive between Westmo reland and Parramore Avenue Amelia Street at Charles Court Dewitt Drive, Washington Street, and Polk Street West Washington Street and South Lee Avenue South Street and South Lee Avenue Hicks Quarters Parramore Avenue and South Street Chapman Court and Hughley Place Quill Street between Carter Street and Conley Street Carver Court Parramore Village and New Civic Building Site Griffin Park Livingston Street and Lee Avenue The plan clarifies that these design intervention areas are not intended to be viewed as model projects; rather, they identify l ong-term improvements needed to eventually reali ze the type of urban form supported by the plan. The interventi ons consist of the rew orking of lot layouts, creation of new streets, or othe r interventions [to address] f undamental planning errors (DKP 1994: 6-1). The composite scores fo r the patterns that curr ently exist in areas targeted for design intervention are much higher than the scores fo und in the areas targeted for redevelopment as model projects. Interestingly, the scores in the d esign intervention areas are also equal to or higher than the scores for the study area as a whol e. Only 2.62 percent of th e cells in the design intervention areas have a value of one, compared to 5.77 percen t in the study area as a whole. Additionally, a higher percentage of cells had a va lue of five in the design intervention areas than in the study area as a whole 20.96 percent compared to 17.4 percent. Percentages of cells scoring two, three, four, six, seve n, and eight are fairly represen tative of the study area as a whole (16.17 percent with a valu e of two compared to 18.65 percen t, 22.29 percent with a value of three compared to 22.99 percent, 23.68 percent with a value of four compared to 22.79 percent, 11.46 percen t with a value of six compared to 9.84 percent, 2.8 percent with a value of seven compared to 2.55 percent, and 0.03 percent with a value of eight co mpared to 0.01 percent see Figure 4-11 Figure 4-23 ).

PAGE 65

65 The relatively high scores may indicate that methodology does not accurately measure all of the fundamental planning errors that the Master Plan attemp ts to address in the design intervention areas. Design solu tions such as new street pl acement, the reintroduction of a gridded street pattern, and the reconfiguration of lot placement and orientation do not address design weaknesses that the scoring methodol ogy specifically measures. Despite these discrepancies, the scoring methodol ogy proves useful as a first step in comparing the urban form found in the various maps. Neither the redevelopment areas nor the des ign intervention areas appear to have a significant relationship to the analysis zones used in this study (see Figure 4-24 ). No redevelopment area is located in any of the analysis zones, but the three redevelopment areas are generally small in scale. The design intervention had more overlap with the analysis zones both in low and high scoring areas. The lack of a clear relationship between the low scoring areas identified through the scoring methodology and the areas that receive spec ial attention in the Master Plan may reflect the preferences and prio rities of those who partic ipated in the visioning process that helped shape the final Master Plan. Summary of Findings In general, the lowest-scoring areas changed the most from their historic use and the highest-scoring areas changed the least. However, other relationships may exist that require additional variables to fully understand for ex ample, the scoring methodology tended to score residential areas higher than industrial or commercial areas. This could indicate that the New Urbanism favors historic resident ial development patterns seen, or that the non-residential areas simply experienced more development pressure that eroded their traditional patterns more severely than in residential areas. Because the methodology measures the cu rrent patterns against a theoretical ideal, some of the apparent disconnect between the Ma ster Plan and the final scores

PAGE 66

66 from the composite layer may indicate differenc es in priorities of New Urbanism on the ground. The perspectives of the residents and business owners in the neighborhood on what the essential or desirable projects for the area should be are not reflected in the scores for the composite layer. Chapter Five di scusses these and other implications of the results presented in this chapter, as well as offering suggesti ons for future research on this topic.

PAGE 67

67 Table 4-1: Demographic Patterns in the Pa rramore Heritage District Neighborhoods Lake Dot Callahan Holden/Parramore Population 1008 2189 4184 Race & Ethnicity African American 53.2% 78.5% 92.6% White 40.2% 17.3% 3.7% Hispanic or Latino 13.6% 7.8% 4.3% Population in Poverty Below Poverty 44.3% 45.2% 56.0% Educational Attainment High School Diploma or GED 31.5% 32.8% 25.8% Associate Degree 3.7% 4.4% 4.8% Bachelors Degree 8.3% 2.6% 1.6% Masters Degree or Above 3.6% 2.2% 1.3% Total Housing Units Owner Occupied 5.7% 14.5% 11.3% Renter Occupied 87.3% 77.5% 79.5% Vacant 7.0% 8.0% 9.2% Household Income Average Household Income in 1999 $20,358.00 $21,039.00 $18,647.00 Employment Employed 32.7% 48.8% 43.0% Unemployed 7.7% 10.3% 7.2% Vehicle Availability per Household No vehicle 41.8% 39.2% 39.7% 1 vehicle 41.1% 42.7% 39.6% 2 vehicles 9.2% 6.8% 7.9% 3 or more vehicles 0.9% 3.3% 3.5% Source: City of Orlando Neighborhood Demographi c Profiles, estimated from the 2000 Census

PAGE 68

68Table 4-2: Scores by Percent of Raster Layer Description Binary Coincidence Scoring for Raster Layer 0 1 1. Enclosure Parcels are scored based on the presence of trees or structures in the enclosure ar ea (the first 45 feet of each parcel). 78.89% 21.11% 2. Lost Space All vacant parcels or areas of parcels that are not dedicated to a structure or landscaped area, excluding areas located behind buildings. 36.99% 63.01% 3. Sidewalks Parcels are scored based on the existence and type of sidewalk adjacent to the parcel Sidewalks that are buffered from the street score higher than sidewalks that are not buffered from the street. 34.78% 65.22% 4. Public Space Public space is defined as all parcels with a land use description that implies pub lic ownership. Defined public space (structures or landscaped areas) is scored higher than undefined public space (open land or parking lots). 91.91% 8.09% 5. Incompatible Streets Parcels located adjacent to major roads are selected and scored negatively for compatibility with streets. 10.12% 89.88% 6. Lot Width Any parcel wider than 72 fe et is selected and scored negatively for lot width. 65.93% 34.07% 7. Proximity* Residential Parcels are scor ed based on their proximity (using a straight-line distance) to both defined public spaces (from layer 4) and retail uses (excluding lost space from layer 2). 68.78% 31.22% 8. Land Use Mix* Using Neighborhood Statistics, a ll parcels except for heavy industrial uses are scored based on how different they are from the parcels surrounding them. 74.16% 25.84% Source: Adopted from Talen 2005: 213 *Created as Raster Layer

PAGE 69

Figure 4-1: Study Ar ea with Neighborhoods 69

PAGE 70

70Figure 4-2: Current Land Use in the Parramore Heritage District

PAGE 71

Figure 4-3: Laye r 1: Enclosure 71

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4-4: Layer 2: Lost Space

PAGE 73

Figure 4-5: Laye r 3: Sidewalks 73

PAGE 74

Figure 4-6: Layer 4: Public Space 74

PAGE 75

Figure 4-7: Layer 5: Incompatible Streets 75

PAGE 76

Figure 4-8: Layer 6: Lot Width 76

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4-9: Layer 7: Proximity to Retail and Public Space

PAGE 78

Figure 4-10: Layer 8: Land Use Mix 78

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4-11: Final Composite Values for Raster Cells (Current Conditions)

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4-12: Raster Cell Valu es for Composite Score Layer

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4-13: Analysis Zones based on Composite Score

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4-14: Analysis Zones and Dover, Kohl & Partners Master Plan Close-Up Views

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4-16: Raster Cell Values for Analysis Zones C and D Figure 4-15: Raster Cell Values for Analysis Zones A and B

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4-17: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone A

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4-18: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone B

PAGE 86

86Figure 4-19: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone C

PAGE 87

87 Figure 4-20: Comparison Maps for Analysis Zone D

PAGE 88

88Figure 4-21: Dover, Kohl, & Partners Ma ster Plan for Parramore: Special Areas

PAGE 89

Figure 4-22: Raster Cell Values for Dover, Kohl, & Partners Proposed Redevelopment Areas Figure 4-23: Raster Cell Valu es for Dover, Kohl, & Partne rs Design Intervention Areas 89

PAGE 90

90Figure 4-24: Comparison of Dover, Kohl, & Partners Sp ecial Areas to High and Lo w Scoring Analysis Zones

PAGE 91

CHAPTER 5 RELATING PAST FORM TO PRESENT PRACTICE This chapter discusses the implications of th e findings presented in Chapter Four. Several relationships present themselves: (1) the history of Parramore as a microcosm of the context for the New Urbanist movement, (2) the scores for individual variables as a measure of current urban form, (3) the amount of change from 1925 to 2005 for high-scoring areas compared to the amount of change from 1925 to 2005 for low-scori ng areas, and (4) the a ttention various areas receive in the New Urbanist master pl an based on the other relationships. The Changing City: From Traditional to Troubled Parramore may be a historic pl ace, settled in the late 19th century, but it does not exist as an intact example of the good urban form early New Urbanists cited as existing in historic districts around the country. Rather, Parramor e exists as proof of what the New Urbanism is reacting against the destruction of the traditional fabric of cities. All of the cornerstones of modernist planning can be seen in this 1.3 square mile ar ea public housing complexes with high densities isolating the poor physically and psychologically from the rest of city, superblocks created by clearing and combining individual residential parcels (most notably for public projects directly west of Interstate-4), highways dividing once th riving neighborhoods, large parking lots, and lost space. Coupled with segregationist attitudes towards zoning that resu lted in an intensification of the least desirable uses in this area, the challenges presented to the revitalization of Parramore will not be easy to overcome. However, the opportunity Parramore and places like it present to the New Urbanists to prove themselves cannot be denied. For a movement that finds its inspirati on in historic places, its justification in the problems associated with modernist planning, and its ideology in the ability of physical design to influence social ch ange, the challenges of Pa rramore hit at the heart 91

PAGE 92

92 of the Charter for the New Urbanisms procla mations. Places like Parramore provide the New Urbanism a context for applicati on that does not perpetuate the criticisms that the New Urbanism caters to the elite by building upscale greenfi eld communities on the outskirts of town. The socio-economic characteristics of Parramore and the stigma associated with neighborhoods of last resort present great challenges for the New Urbanism, but the rewards of successful redevelopment should theoretically achieve a fina l urban form that trul y represents a mixedincome, thriving urban neighborhood. Measuring Up to the New Urbanisms Definition of Good Urban Form The methodology used to measure the strength of the urban form of the study area focuses on the block level rather than on the neighbor hood or the region. While the scoring method returned areas that clearly scored low, high scoring cells tended to be more dispersed. In general, the scores are concentrated in th e range of two to five meaning that while the scores indicate the study area has weaknesses in urban design, many cel ls score positively for at least half of the desired traits outlined in the methodology. Small improvements, such as the construction of sidewalks or the definition of existing public space, could shift the scores higher. Additionally, the presence of vacant land th roughout the area presents opportunities for small-scale, incremental infill development akin to the developments Daniel Solomon accomplished in California or the work Dan Camp has completed in the Cotton District in Mississippi. While high-profile model projects may help initially to counter the stigma associated with the area and entice private sect or investment, the patterns revealed in the composite score for the area indica te a scattered site approach ma y be appropriate for long-term success. The methodology does not address the inclusi on of affordable housing, the mixture of housing types to encourage mixed income, the exis tence of public transpor tation, the size of the

PAGE 93

block, or the connectivity of the network. Adding th ese variables to the analysis may change the results and provide a more comprehensive pi cture. Additionally, the methodology tended to favor residential areas, and the highest scoring areas are almost exclusively residential with a high occurrence of single-family homes. The Influence of the Past: Evidence of the New Urbanisms Traditionalism The areas of Parramore that changed the leas t from 1925 to 2005 returned higher scores for good urban design than the areas of Parramore that changed the most from 1925 to 2005. The small lots, traditional grid patterns, buildings oriented to the street, and the presence of shade trees in these areas resulted in higher composite scores than the patterns evident in the lowscoring zones. The high-scoring areas are well-e quipped to handle small-scale infill development because the overall character of th e areas is intact these findings support the practice of cities like Orlando that adopt New Urbanist initiatives. Design guidelines that ensure the right type of infill development on the available empty lots combined with select street improvements made by the city should be all these areas need to retain and build upon their traditional character. However, the high scoring areas are almost exclusively residential, whereas the low scoring areas are dedicated to civic uses (Zone C) and industry (Zone D). While the introduction of large-scale institutional proj ects and industrial zoning very likely played a role in the intensification of these types of uses in the two analysis z ones, the 1925 Sanborn maps reveal that the these two zones never possessed the same qualities as the high scoring zones. The argument can be made that modernist planning t echniques influenced the development of these areas in ways that proved to be detrimental to the pedestrian qualities ge nerally associated with traditional neighborhoods, but one cannot ignore the hi storic presence of these patterns in the study area. 93

PAGE 94

Theoretical Relationships of the Master Plan The areas targeted for immediat e redevelopment as model projects in the Master Plan displayed fairly uniform low scores in the compos ite layer, while the design intervention areas had a more even distribution (in some cases scor ing higher than the average for the study area). Since the design in tervention areas are include d in the plan as future possibilities that should be used to guide planning decisions, they speak to an ideal final vision for the area. While the areas targeted for immediate redevelopment scored lower than the future design intervention areas, the redevelopment areas were not the lowe st scoring areas overall. The inconsistencies between the areas targeted for redevelopmen t and the lowest scoring areas based on the methodology used in this study indicate that the master plan, developed specifically for application in the study area with input from th e residents, may more easily allow for current patterns of industry and large-scale civic uses to remain as a part of the reality of the neighborhood. The methodology that produced the sc oring system is more generalized and represents a theoretical ideal, so indust rial uses may never receive high scores. The input from the residents and other stakeholders in the co mmunity may have influenced the special attention cert ain areas received in the plan th ese areas often aim to recreate or reestablish culturally significant areas such as the Harmons Cove Redevelopment, which aims to reintroduce an African Quarter or Blues Alley in an area that once a center for the arts in Parramore (DKP 1994: 5-17). Addi tionally, the intention of m odel projects to prove the neighborhoods potential and to begin overcoming th e social stigmas associated with Parramore influence the areas that DKP target for improve ment. Even though blocks and streets may have scored low using the methodology presented in this study, DKP used other resources, such as the perceptions of residents and stakeh olders in the area, to identify and prioritize these projects. The large-scale public buildings and industrial uses found in Parramore may be more acceptable to 94

PAGE 95

residents since they have been a part of the la ndscape for some time, while the deterioration of important streets and the lack of small defined public spaces in residential areas may be more readily visible to the residents as areas in need of change. The percepti ons of residents are not measured in this studys methodology, so the diffe rence between theoretical New Urbanism and practical infill applications is most apparent in the comparison of the current patterns and the proposed patterns of the Master Plan. The comparison of the 1925 maps to the proposed master plans reaffirm the idea that while the New Urbanism may have found inspiration in historic distri cts, the movement does not call for a pure recreation of the past. The plan in troduces streets in places where, based on the principles of the Charter, it makes sense to have a street. These sometimes correspond to places where streets have been lost, but also introduce streets that never existed. The same concept applies to a lesser extent to the placement of parcels and buildings. The difference between the New Urbanism and urban renewal programs grounded in the theories of modernism is that the New Urbanism is not wiping out en tire blocks to design on a blank canvas, with the exception of some HOPE VI redevelopment proj ects. Interestingly, the treatmen t of Carver Court in Dover, Kohl, and Partners master plan called for much less demolition than the HOPE VI redevelopment grant has resulted in even t hough the plans point to a similar end product: a housing project related to streets and defined public spaces. The piecemeal approach taken by DKP in the Master Plan makes sense for areas wh ere the scars of urban renewal efforts and other destructive forms of redevelopment attempts are still so apparent. Beyond Parramore: Opportuniti es for Further Research The results of this study i ndicate that while the New Urbanisms design principles are arguably a useful and powerful redevelopment strategy for existing urban neighborhoods, the amount of physical change a nei ghborhood has experi enced in the 20th century may affect the 95

PAGE 96

ease with which comprehensive New Urbanist redevelopment is accomplished. While demolition and redevelopment may be necessary or welcomed in the case of HOPE VI projects, it would be neither cost-effective nor desirable to completely remove all evidence of modernist development from historic neighborhoods. Rather, the strength of the New Urbanism to be flexible and to respect not only local character and architecture, but to also incorporate existing uses creatively into redevelopment plans must be proven. Dover, Kohl, and Partners Master Plan for Parramore attempts to accomplish this through making strate gic recommendations based on things that can realistically be changed such as infill projects and the redevelopment of parking areas and keeping elements like the industrial uses and spor ts complexes that are a fact of life in the neighborhood. Future research opportunities include the expans ion of the variables to include measures of affordable housing, a mix of incomes, the type and configuration of public transportation, the size of blocks, and the connectivity of the ro adway network. Refining the scoring system for variables not easily reclassified in a dichotom ous way could increase the sensitivity of the analysis. Similarly, weighting specific variables considered to be more important for good urban form may offer a more conclusive picture of th e areas most in need of redevelopment from a New Urbanist perspective. Finally, larger study ar eas may enable a better me asure of the regional applications of the New Urbanism. The issue of how an area like Parramore can be reconnected with the rest of the city is not addressed in this paper, but the issue of isolation in troub led neighborhoods is one the New Urbanists must reconcile if the re gional goals of the Charter are to be realized. While the focus of this study is largely on the theoretical relationshi p between past patterns current patterns, and 96

PAGE 97

New Urbanist redevelopment plans, the social implications of such plans must be resolved in the implementation of revitalization efforts. 97

PAGE 98

LIST OF REFERENCES Barnett, J. (2003) Livability : Urbanism old and new, in: Redesigning Cities: Pr inciples, Practice, Implementation (Chicago, IL: American Pla nning Association), pp. 27-47. Bohl, C. C. (2000) New Urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner-c ity neighborhoods, Housing Policy Debate 11(4), pp. 761-801. Bryant, V. (2006) Carver Park: An Orlando H ousing Authority HOPE VI Community. Available at http://www.orl-oha.org/Carver_Park_Update.htm (accessed September 2007). Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU). (2001) The Charter of the New Urbanism Available at http://cnu.org/sites/fil es/charter_english.pdf (accessed October 2007). Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) & U.S. De partment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2000) Principles for Inner City Neighb orhood Design: Hope VI and the NU. Day, K. (2003) New Urbanism and the ch allenges of designing for diversity, Journal of Planning Education and Research, (23), pp. 83-95. Dover, V. (1993) Retrofitting Suburbia (College Park, MA: University of Maryland School of Architecture lecture series Making Towns: Principles and Techniques), Available at http://www.doverkohl.com/writings_images/umaryland.html (accessed August 2007). Dover, Kohl & Partners (DKP). (1994) Parramore Heritage District Master Plan (Prepared for the City of Orlando with Ron Frazier & Associ ates, Architecture, Nancy Prine, Landscape Architecture, and Glatting Jackson Kercher A nglin Lopez Rinehart, Traffic Engineering). Duany, A. & Talen, E. ( 2002) Transect planning, Journal of the American Planning Association 68(3), pp. 245-266. Ellis, C. (2002) The New Urbanism: Critiques and rebuttals, Journal of Urban Design 7(3), pp. 261-291. Friedan, B.J. & Sagalyn, L.B. (1992) Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cit ies (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Fulton, W. (1996) The New Urbanism: Hope or Hype for American Communities? (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy). Gantt, H. (1998) New Urbani sm meets the existing city, Places 12(1), pp. 84-86. Hall, P. (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century, Third Edition (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing). Hamer, D. (2000) Learning from the past: historic districts and the New Urbanism in the United States, Planning Perspectives 15, pp. 107-122. 98

PAGE 99

99 Keating, D.W. & Krumholz, N. (2000) Neighborhood planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, pp.111-114. Larsen, K. (1998) Revitalizing the Parramore Heritage Renovation Area: Fl oridas State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program and Orlando s historic African-American community, Housing Policy Debate 9(3), pp. 595-630. Larsen, K. (2002) Harmonious inequality? Zoni ng, public housing, and Orlandos separate city, 1920-1945, Journal of Planning History, 1(2), pp. 154-180. Larsen, K. (2005) New Urbanisms role in inner-city neighborhood revitalization, Housing Studies 20(5), pp. 795-813. Leyden, K. M. (2003) Social cap ital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods, American Journal of Public Health 93(9), pp. 1546-1551. Marshall, A. (2000) A tale of two towns: Kissimmee versus Celebration and the New Urbanism, in: How Cities Work: Suburbs, Spr awl, and the Roads Not Taken (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press), pp. 1-39. Poticha, S. R. (2000) Comment on Charles C. Bohls New Ur banism and the city: potential applications and implications for distressed inner-city neighborhoods, Housing Policy Debate 11(4), pp. 815-819. Pyatok, M. (2000) Comment on Charles C. Bohl s New Urbanism a nd the city: potential applications and implications for distresse d inner-city neighbor hoods The politics of design: The New Urbanist s vs. the grass roots, Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), pp. 803-814. Shofner, J. (2001) Building a Community: The History of the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (Orlando, FL: OrlandoOrange County Expressway Authority), Available at http://oocea.com/pdf/book_OOCEA.pdf (accessed September 2007). Talen, E. (2005) Evaluating good urban form in an inner-city neighborhood: An empirical application, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 22(3), pp. 204-228. Talen, E., and Ellis, C. (2002) Beyond relativism: Reclaiming the search for good city form, Journal of Planning Education and Research 22, pp. 36-49. Teitz, M.B. (1997) American planning in the 1990s: Part II, the di lemma of the cities, Urban Studies 34(5-6), pp. 775-795. Upton, D. (2000) Just architectural business as usual, Places 13(2), pp. 64-66.

PAGE 100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jennifer Lynn Wheelock was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 30, 1984. The oldest of three, her brothers and she grew up in the subur bs where she experienced her first frustrations with the shortcomings of suburban design. She graduated from Alan C. Pope High School in 2002 and came to the University of Florida on a National Merit Sc holarship. Starting out as an art major, she took classes in art theory, drawing, graphic desi gn, print making, digital art, and film before deciding to change majors to study creative writing and film in the English department. While she will always have a deep appreciation for art, writing, and creative expression, elective classes in geography, sociology, and urban pla nning made her realize that her career ambitions existed outside of the art world. She graduated with her bachelors degree in English in 2005, and started the masters program in urban and regional planning in 2006. Sh e worked as a research assistant under Dr. Ruth Steiner on projects involving multi-modal transportation and the transportation-land use relationship. She also spent th e summer of 2006 on the island of Nantucket studying historic preservation at the University of Floridas Pres ervation Institute. Throug h these experiences, the ideas behind this thesis began to develop. She is interested in histor ic preservation, the New Urbanism, active living through design, and urban morphology, and hopes to continue to explore the relationship between historic patterns and current theo ry on good urban design as she transitions from the academic to the professional world. 100