Challenges of Implementation

​

There are a number of challenges that lie ahead.  Foremost, Americans don’t like density; they love their cars and big yards.  Perhaps, as Julie Campoli writes in Visualizing Density, what drives people away is the crowding, noise, lack of privacy, and the repetitive, characterless “stack’em and pack’em” approach to design.  But the lack of human scale and needs can be solved with design and planning approaches that provide amenities to enhance the living experience.  Place making matters; social interaction and physical connectivity through thoughtful design can attract and bring people together by incorporating public and green space, walkable streets, diverse architectural styles, and mixed uses (Campoli, 2007).

​

However, communities can be resistant to change.  Distrust and an inability to conceptualize new ideas without proven local examples can be roadblocks.  Government zoning policy can also be slow to respond to the evolving needs of the communities.  As the world economy and shipping changes how we do business, zoning should keep pace.  Is industrial zoning along shorelines still the right use if docks sit empty?  But development can come at a cost for local residents.  Transit-oriented developments can improve the quality of life if designed thoughtfully, but they can also drive up living cost (Desmuke, 2013) by introducing higher housing costs and putting pressure on the lower-cost stock.  Policies to encourage ownership can be difficult to implement and in low-income neighborhoods, policies for affordable housing may not reflect the profile of the community.  While development incentives sponsor additional affordable units, the percentages are still woefully short of demand and are typically not long-term solutions.

 

Financing development in low-income areas has its challenges.  Innovative incentives are needed to entice developers.  However, the market follows the demand and the greatest opportunity for success and return.  Transit-oriented developments, by themselves, do not turn around economically struggling neighborhoods (Wilbur, 1986).  Developers will want to pursue thriving markets regardless of the social equity opportunities or a demonstrated abundance of capacity.

 

Limitations of Methodology and Analysis

The node data for the transit lines was analyzed using the circular buffer method. Utilizing network analysis could add another dimension to help identify optimal sites for development based on pedestrian routes, mixed-use feasibility, and connectivity and “betweenness.”  For example, analyzing foot traffic at site could help set aside a viable percentage for commercial development rather than based solely on the population counts for a given area; a population that may not have a reason to travel near a proposed store site.  Another limitation of analysis was the inability to factor adjacencies. Combining parcels that score high in separate variables to create contiguous blocks of opportunity are not automated and would require significant time for individual assessment and interpretation.

 

Similarly, the calculation for the Land Use Disparity variable ignores parcels less than 1,000 square feet and doesn’t account for opportunities to consolidate adjacent parcels.  While the rationale that a parcel of that size would provide little opportunity to create a meaningful number of housing units, when combined with other adjacent opportunities, the overall score would be improved.  For like reasons, parcels with single family houses were excluded when they may be feasible for development when combined. There is also additional opportunity to be calculated for commercial and industrial uses.  The study focuses primarily on residential use to determine node score for opportunity.  However, commercial and industrial land use can offer housing opportunity through mixed-use and rezoning.  There are a number of nodes that contain a significant amount of commercial and/or industrial use; the physical opportunity capacity revealed in those nodes may redirect prioritization of development along the transit line.

 

Scores for equitable opportunity does not account for block size and population.  Small blocks containing a dense population are valued the same as very large blocks of equal density.  The scores are equal even though the larger block contains many more people.  The result is a small block of 1 person with a high income would average out the block score with 100 low-income people across node.

 

The final limitation is data itself.  As time lapses, the quality of the output degrades.  Parcels that were once vacant but are now fully developed create inflated opportunity scores.  The data also doesn’t tell us how well a building is utilized or if it’s vacant.  While field verification can improve the accuracy, it’s not feasible to inspect every parcel during calculations.

 

Future Work

The current analysis is limited to a single snapshot in time.  Introducing socio-spatial analysis between 2000 and 2015 would add another layer of understanding and development opportunity measures.  Communities that remain unchanged may respond differently than those that are already undergoing measureable development, economic growth, zoning reformation, or changes in demographics.  Community participation is key to a successful plan.  No government entity, architect, planner or developer better understands the needs of a neighborhood more than its residents.  After development priorities have been identified based on opportunity, active and early community engagement in planning, design, policy and implement will be vital to the success of any urban development. Findings should be presented to the neighborhoods along with the appropriate government agencies to create a partnership for further discovery and community development.  As mentioned in earlier in the challenges this project faces, place making matters and the neighborhoods surrounding stations are more than transit nodes to the people that live there.  Developments must extend beyond the footprints of their building site.  Further analysis should be provided to identify opportunities for neighborhood amenities as well as housing. This will require a comprehensive plan for the community that improves the well-being of the surrounding residents as well as the new ones.