Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century

Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century Anthony Walmsley∗ New York City Office, 119 Payson Avenue, Ste 4B, New York, NY 10034, USA Available online 31 May 2005 Abstract Building on the legacy of historic greenway planning in the U.S., several new initiatives have been taking shape and gaining recognition in the past decade. One is ‘Green Infrastructure’ planning which is a ‘must have’ inter-connected system of green spaces. Another is ‘Smart Conservation’—the counterpoint of another planning initiative that preceded it known as ‘Smart Growth’. This is the establishment of critical green corridors that should be preserved and maintained for predominantly ecological functions, in advance of or in conjunction with new development. ‘New Urbanism’ has focused on bringing order and coherence to escalating ‘Edge Cities’ on the urban fringe, based on walkable, mixed-use towns, villages and neighborhoods with integrated open-space systems. Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) are transportation plans for accommodating regional growth around clustered ‘pedestrian pockets’ linked by transit systems. Both New Urbanism and TODs have applied similar principles to ‘brown sites’ and declining city neighborhoods. All these initiatives are different aspects of the greenway movement, expressing its many possibilities, enriching its orig- inal concepts, enlarging its credibility—if need be—and emphasizing its importance for and relevance to current issues of sustainability and ‘green’ planning and design. The author, a teacher/practitioner, discusses recent U.S. greenway examples at site, metropolitan and regional scales for which he has been the principal planner/designer or a consultant, and compares New Urbanism and TOD methodologies and approaches to established greenway-planning practices and the premises of Smart Conservation. © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Greenway-planning innovations; Green Infrastructure and Smart Conservation; Conservation/Development; New Urbanism and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND); Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) 1. Introduction mately and irrevocably, the private automobile—cities grew by adding rings of suburbs around their centers. The spectacular spread of urban parks and park sys- The resultant enlargement of the built area with its tems in the U.S. during the second half of the 19th cen- attendant over-crowding and sub-standard living and tury has already been alluded to (Walmsley, 1995, pp. working conditions spurred reform-driven planners and 84–91). Fueled by rapid industrialization, urbanization landscape architects to propose parks and parkways in and transportation—trains, trolleys, buses and, ulti- the major cities: New York; Boston; Chicago; Balti- more; Minneapolis; Atlanta; Louisville; Kansas City, ∗ Tel.: +1 212 942 4706. Missouri; Cincinnati. By the early 20th century, these E-mail address: anthonywalmsley@prodigy.net. efforts were beginning to coalesce into a significant na- 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.036  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 253 tional movement for linked greenway systems to guide 76). Even the best of the 1960s “new towns”—Reston, urban growth and preserve access to the countryside. Virginia and Columbia, Maryland—though organized When suburbs “took off” after World War II for a around neighborhoods were little better than planned variety of reasons—cheap transportation, cheap land, suburbia. Columbia had an impressive array of social government policies promoting highway-building, and services (a traveling library, a medical plan, local mini- lending policies favoring suburbs over inner-city bus and dial-a-ride car systems), but was still spread- neighborhoods—they proliferated faster than either out, still low-density, and still auto-dependent (Beatley, planners or rural townships could control. The phe- 2000, Table 2.1 in p. 30). Such low density created nomenon was called the “exploding metropolis”—a a host of environmental problems: loss of sensitive book title edited by William Holly Whyte Jr. (Whyte, habitat, destruction of productive farm lands and forest 1958). The original idea of a “town-country” life pro- lands, and high economic and infrastructure costs (i.e. pounded by British garden city visionary, Ebenezer street networks, utility lines, social facilities, and police Howard, got side-tracked and compromised to the and emergency services). The ‘rules’ to be followed ac- point that few, if any, of the promised benefits were tually prohibited designing in the manner of admired achieved. The last suburb to truly offer an escape from historic places such as Annapolis, Maryland; Marble- the city—space, greenery and, theoretically at least, head, Massachusetts; Santa Barbara, California; Key a gentler and more humane environment for raising West, Florida. families—was perhaps Park Forest, Illinois, planned Despite their anti-urbanism—the emphasis on ca. 1945 and hard to find fault with in a photograph segregated uses, hierarchical street systems, and taken 40 years later (Fig. 1). individual parking that produced land-use plans Instead, during the 1960s to the 1980s, whole new dominated by streets, traffic and parking—Columbia “Edge Cities” sprang up with their own employment and other new towns did organize development centers, schools, shops, housing and institutions, on around community-wide greenway systems, creating a scale hitherto unimagined. Most of them grew in- lakes and linear parks that preserved woodlands and crementally without any overall plan; today, they are habitat, provided a high level of amenity and valuable a nightmare to get around. Everyone has to drive; all frontage sites, and supported a strong recreational traffic is funneled into a few “collector streets” which program (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, their urban planning quickly become congested. Walking, jogging, roller- shortcomings gave rise to a flurry of new initiatives blading and bicycling are all difficult and often unpleas- that have been taking shape and gaining recognition in antly dangerous. Mass transit is slow or non-existent. the past two decades: ‘Green Infrastructure’ planning; Green spaces are residual and discontinuous. A “sense ‘Conservation-Development’; ‘Smart Conservation’ of place” has been obliterated. The damage to the en- and ‘Smart Growth’; ‘New Urbanism’; ‘Traditional vironment is catastrophic (Fig. 2). Neighborhood Development’ (TND) and ‘Transit- The earlier efforts of Clarence Stein, Henry Wright Oriented Development’ (TOD). All of them are and others in the “greenbelt” towns (Stein, 1956, 1966) expressions of McDonough and Braungart’s “right paved the way for amended zoning controls that al- things to do”. They have not only expanded the concept lowed lots and properties to be amalgamated into of cities, towns and communities by totally re-writing larger entities, permitting Planned Unit Developments the urban codes and stressing a more ecological form (PUDs), Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) of living and settlement, but made greenway planning and Planned Mixed-Use Developments (PMUDs). But, at all scales from the region, metropolitan area, water- although they allowed comprehensive planning, en- shed, district, neighborhood and individual parcel, the abling stream corridors and other natural features to be essential building block behind every project. preserved, buildings of compatible uses to be clustered, and the infrastructures of streets and service systems to be more compact, it was still, in the words of sustain- 2. Green infrastructure planning ability advocates McDonough and Braungart, “making the wrong things less bad instead of working on the Webster’s New World Dictionary defines infras- right things”. (McDonough and Braungart, 2002, p. tructure as “the substructure or underlying founda- 254 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 1. Park Forest, Illinois, planned ca. 1945 and photographed in 1986, is an example of a post-World War II suburb that has aged well (from Craig, Lois, in Suburbs: Design Quarterly 132, 1986, p. 4).  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 2. Tyson’s Corner, Fairfax County, Virginia is a classic case of an “Edge City” at full development (from “Edge Cities” in Landscape Architecture, December 1988, pp. 48–75). 255  256 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 3. Typical of early New Town plans of the 1950s–1960s, Columbia, Maryland created finger lakes by damming stream valleys and creating community-wide linear park systems. But the low density and spread-outness of the plan frustrated true urbanity and resulted in little better than planned suburbia (from The Rouse Company).  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 257 tion, especially the basic installations and facilities on • Framework for Growth—Green infrastructure can which the continuance and growth of a community shape urban form and provide a framework depends”. Most people associate infrastructure with for growth. It works best when the framework roads, sewers and utility lines (the “gray” infrastruc- pre-identifies both ecologically significant lands ture) or hospitals, schools and prisons (the “social” and suitable development areas.” (Benedict and infrastructure)—collectively, the “built infrastructure”. McMohan, 2002b, p. 13). Today, people are talking about another kind of infras- tructure that is critical to “the continuance and growth Washington DC’s Conservation Fund has identified of a community”—“green infrastructure”. five principles of green infrastructure which are similar “Green infrastructure” has been defined as: to planning, designing and financing the other infras- tructures: “Our nation’s natural life support system—an inter- 1. “Green infrastructure should be designed connected network of waterways, wetlands, wood- holistically—like our transportation system, lands, wildlife habitats, and other natural areas; green- green infrastructure should be designed to link ways, parks and other conservation lands; working diverse green space elements into a system that farms, ranches and forests; and wilderness and other functions as a whole, rather than as separate, spaces that support native species, maintain natural unrelated parts. ecological processes, sustain air and water resources, 2. Green infrastructure should be laid out and contribute to the health and quality of life of strategically—like our electric power, com- America’s communities and people”. (Benedict and munication and water systems, green infrastructure McMohan, 2002a, quote on p. 6). systems need to be laid out strategically to connect The name “green infrastructure” implies something across multiple jurisdictions and incorporate green that we must have instead of green space that is some- space elements and functions at each level of thing nice to have; it emphasizes the inter-connection government—State, regional, community and of natural systems instead of separate parks and recre- parcel scales. ation sites; and it demands responsible intervention to 3. Green infrastructure should be planned and im- save critical lands and actively practice conservation, plemented publicly—like our built infrastructure regeneration and/or stewardship, instead of something systems, green infrastructure systems should be that will take care of itself (Van der Ryn and Cowan, planned and implemented with input from and in- 1996, pp. 21–22). volvement of the public, including community or- ganizations and private landowners. The President’s Council on Sustainable Develop- 4. Green infrastructure should be funded up front as ment identified green infrastructure as one of five a primary public investment—like other infrastruc- strategic areas providing a comprehensive approach ture systems, green infrastructure systems should be to sustainable community development (President’s funded up front with other essential services, rather Council on Sustainable Development, 1999). Green in- than with money that is left over after all other ser- frastructure has borrowed from the greenways move- vices have been provided. ment and, to some extent, shares a common origin with 5. Green infrastructure should be the framework of it in the 19th century historic legacy of parks and park- conservation—just as roads, sewer lines and other ways in the U.S. But it is pointed out that: built infrastructure provide a framework for the “Green infrastructure differs from greenways in at type and location of different land-uses, green in- least three major ways: frastructure should be the framework of conserva- tion.” (Walmsley, Mednick & Benedict, 2002, pp. • Ecology versus Recreation—Green infrastructure 115–118, 120). emphasizes ecology, not recreation. • Bigger versus Smaller—Green infrastructure in- The Florida Greenways Commission, 1994, and the cludes large, ecologically important ‘hubs’ as well Maryland Green Print Program, 1997–2001, are two as key landscape linkages. state-wide initiatives that have embodied these princi- 258 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 ples. During the same period, the New Jersey Conser- As an advisor to the NJCF, I suggested that their vation Foundation (NJCF) and the New Jersey Depart- Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) consist of a ment of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP’s) Green readily understandable three-step process, nevertheless Acres Program have been following their lead in de- daunting in its complexity and ramifications. The story veloping a “Garden State Greenways” Vision Plan for can be told in three maps we have come to call P1, P2 the State of New Jersey. and P3: New Jersey already had a State Development and • P1 is Inventorying the Present; Redevelopment Plan that encouraged development in • P2 is Identifying the Proposed; a hierarchy of hamlets, villages and towns. But there • P3 is Imagining the Potential. was no complementary vision for Smart Conservation and, in its absence, open space protection efforts had We think that superimposing the three maps, been scattered, highly localized and uncoordinated. To P1 + P2 + P3, will begin to reveal a potential green in- assist in formulating a New Jersey Open Space and frastructure network of inter-connected open spaces Greenway Vision Plan, the State was sub-divided into that will be the basis of a defensible Greenway and four regions: Open Space Vision Plan. • Highlands/Ridge & Valley; P1 Inventorying the Present, shows existing open • Piedmont/Inner Coastal; space and greenways, i.e. all lands presently • Pinelands/Outer Coastal; preserved—Federal parks and refuges; State parks, • Delaware Bayshore (Fig. 4). forests and refuges; county parks and green- ways; municipal parks and refuges; non-profit pre- Landsat images reveal that New Jersey is the most served lands; trails and rails-for-trails; and the like urbanized State in the U.S. Two great rivers—the (Fig. 5). These amount to 26% of the state, or Delaware and the Hudson drain southwards, locat- 1.2 million acres (about 4850 km2 ). ing two great conurbations Philadelphia and New P2 Identifying the Proposed, shows all lands already York City where the Piedmont uplands descend to the proposed for immediate or eventual preservation, Coastal Plain at their fall line (running southwest to i.e. Federal and State open space and greenway northeast). A large reservation, The Pinelands, occu- plans; county open space and greenway plans; pies the center of the Coastal Plain before the line of municipal open space and greenway plans; non- seaside resorts along the Atlantic shore. profit open space and greenway plans; and the like Sprawl and landscape fragmentation are a seri- (Fig. 6). ous challenge to the State: approximately 29% or P3 Imagining the Potential, shows all other lands hav- 1.35 million acres (about 5500 km2 ) of New Jersey’s ing significant ecological, scenic, cultural and/or 4.65 million acres (about 19,000 km2 ) has been devel- recreational value not currently included in P1 oped. Land is being converted in New Jersey at the rate and P2, that could be imagined as having the of 16,000 acres (about 65 km2 ) per year. Former Gov- potential to become part of a continuous green ernor Christie Whitman pledged a goal of a million new infrastructure—one providing a network of path- acres in conservation in the next 10 years, which was ways within walking distance of every New Jersey overwhelmingly endorsed by a margin of 2–1 in 1998. resident. They could include Green Acres’ “Buffers Where should it go? And what currently open lands and Links” (Mednick, 2001); National Heritage should be acquired to minimize the impact of existing priority sites; abandoned rail corridors; the recom- sprawl, as well as the potential for future sprawl? These mendations of “Visioning Workshops”; the results leading questions could only be addressed through Ge- from GIS analysis; and the recommendations of ographic Information Systems (GIS) computer tech- “experts” and workshop panels (Figs. 7 and 8). nology, able to document and evaluate voluminous data from the State, from 22 county agencies and, To engage the public and involve their participation, where available, from about 540 municipal entities, Visioning Workshops were held in four locations in the augmented by information locally derived from re- state, one in each region, during the summer and fall gional workshops and preservation organizations. of 2000. Over 120 representatives of county and mu-  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 259 Fig. 4. For the New Jersey “Garden State Greenways” Vision Plan, the state was subdivided into four regions, based on physiographic province boundaries and prior New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJCF) studies: (1) Highlands/Ridge & Valley; (2) Piedmont/Inner Coastal; (3) Pinelands/Outer Coastal; (4) Delaware Bayshore. Working region-by-region allowed the work to proceed faster or slower as information became available (from NJCF). nicipal governments, State agencies and nonprofit con- • Floodplain Value; servation groups participated. At the workshops, large • Habitat Value; transparent copies of P1 and P2 at a scale of 1:72,000 • Composite Suitability graded down from Excellent, were overlaid with a clear transparency on which sug- Very Good to Good (Fig. 10). gestions for P3 were marked and noted in wax pencil (Fig. 9). The methodology reflected five design princi- Meantime, the NJCF was proceeding with an in- ples coming from ecologists, biologists, conserva- dependent analysis of GIS data, producing maps of tionists, geologists, urban planners, landscape archi- site suitability using the inputs of selected criteria tects, wildlife experts, New Jersey lists of endangered illustrated here for a trial area, Watershed Manage- species, and the experience of other States. These in- ment Area #6 of 350 sq. miles or 224,000 acres (about cluded: 900 km2 ), located in between the New York metropoli- tan area and northwestern New Jersey, and covering 1. Protect the largest and most significant open space parts of five counties: Essex, Morris, Somerset, Sussex “hubs”; and Union. Typical criteria included: 2. Maintain and increase open space connectivity; 3. Protect sufficiently wide greenway corridors “links” • Land Use/Land Cover Value; and non-linear “nodes”; • Road Density Value; 4. Provide for the highest possible greenway corridor • Riparian & Lake Corridor Value; quality; • Ridge Line Value; 5. Provide multiple greenway connections (network • Forest Patch Value; complexity). 260 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 6. P2—Identifying the Proposed. This map documents all lands already proposed for immediate or eventual preservation. This sec- Fig. 5. P1—Inventorying the Present. This map records all existing ond level of information relied heavily on the local knowledge of open space and greenways. This basic level of information became a nonprofit land trusts, watershed organizations, friends groups, as well comprehensive GIS database of all significant landscape features and as county parks and planning departments, municipal environmental attributes critical to the development of a state-wide greenway and commissions and open space planning committees. In some cases, open space plan. It enables users to store, display, manipulate and active planning projects that existed only on paper were identified analyze vast amounts of co-registered data at multiple scales (from and mapped during the workshops, and digitized into the GIS data- NJCF). bank. The workshops also revealed any significant “gaps” in the information on existing and proposed open space to be subsequently corrected (from NJCF).  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 261 Fig. 8. This is one version of NJDEP Green Acres’ “Buffers Fig. 7. P3—Imagining the Potential. This map marks up all other and Links” mapping. “Buffers” include larger “hubs” and smaller lands having significant ecological, scenic, cultural and/or recre- “nodes”—parks and nature reserves, wildlife refuges, critical habitat ational value not currently included in P1 and P2. This third level areas, watershed conservation lands, forest-, grassland- and wetland of information introduced NJDEP Green Acres’ ongoing mapping buffers. “Links” are linear open spaces that join non-linear “buffers” of state-wide “Buffers and Links”. Workshop participants were asked into a network of greenways—wildlife corridors, reserve connectors, to review these suggestions; list their own long-range conservation riparian buffers, river and canal tow-paths, long-distance hiking and objectives for their particular areas of interest (e.g. enhancing recre- biking trails, scenic corridors and abandoned railroads having the ational opportunities, promoting biodiversity, preserving water qual- potential to become “Rails for Trails” (from NJCF). ity, etc.); describe how additional greenways and open space could accomplish these objectives; and draw their top preservation priori- ties onto Mylar overlays (from NJCF). 262 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 9. A Visioning Workshop in progress. Workshops allowed participants to evaluate the recommendations of Federal, State, and county planning agencies, as well as local planning/conservation groups, and add their own specific recommendations. As the results of this mapping were completed region-by-region, detailed regional maps were produced and submitted for internal and external review (from NJCF). Evaluating the value and significance of potential In the final step, highest-ranked “hubs” were linked “hubs” was done by querying GIS data layers to iden- by greenway corridor routes, based on “suitabil- tify the following, subject to minimum size thresholds ity/impedance” and “least-cost” path analyses. based on location: The resultant Composite P1 + P2 + P3 has been tested on a trial area, Watershed Management Area • Contiguous Forest Patches; #6 (Fig. 11). The results showed that in 10 years, • Wetland Complexes; 1986–1995, 8300 acres or 13 sq. miles (about 34 km2 ) • Headwater and Environmentally-Sensitive Streams; of forests, wetlands, grasslands and agricultural areas • Rare Species Habitats; had been consumed for residential, commercial, ur- • Existing Preserved Open Space; ban, extractive or transportation-related uses—a 9% • Contiguous Farmland; increase in the total area. Over 100,000 acres or 46% • Vegetated Dune Habitat. of the study area (just over 400 km2 ) was currently ‘Hubs” were then classified as either: developed. On the other hand, at least 50,000 acres or 23% of the study area (just over 200 km2 ) was • Agricultural/Grassland; protected open space. Were New Jersey’s million- • Emergent Wetland; acre initiative to be implemented uniformly across the • Forested Wetland; or state, the watershed would stand to gain an additional • Upland Forest. 46,600 acres (190 km2 ) of protected open space, leav- Classified “hubs” were then ranked and assessed in ing some 22,000 acres (89 km2 ) of land to be developed each of the four regions, according to before build-out was achieved. These preliminary results have been translated into 1. Patch size; county maps at a scale 1:55,000 (Figs. 12 and 13). 2. Aggregate patch size; It is believed that the results of the New Jersey GIA 3. Number of rare species per area; will provide a unique body of information from all 4. Estimated groundwater recharge; reputable State-wide authorities, and a powerful plan- 5. Percent prime soils. ning tool for those engaged in land conservation at all  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 263 Fig. 10. An Inputs/Results analysis of a trial area, Watershed Management Area #6, weighs and overlays several landscape variables to produce a composite site suitability (from NJCF). levels. Attribute data can be used to prioritize lands ning process is inclusive “from the top down and the according to different considerations in different ar- bottom up.” The project’s “vision” approach is de- eas, such as groundwater recharge, allowing results liberately intended to be not so much a static master to be tailored and compared to varying regional and plan as an adjustable and evolving framework for the local needs. We expect State-wide, regional, county State, to guide and coordinate local open space preser- and local maps to be produced and a summary re- vation efforts (Walmsley et al., 2002, pp. 114–115, port in 2005. The scope is very ambitious; the plan- 117–120). 264 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 11. A Pilot Analysis of Watershed Management Area #6 converts the composite suitability map into a computer-generated “least-cost” open space and greenway map, in which selected greenway routes follow areas of high suitability (e.g. forested areas) and avoid areas of high resistance (e.g. densely developed areas) (from NJCF). 3. Smart conservation and smart growth itive market forces; it needs a larger framework to guide it. Many believe that Smart Conservation is this Green infrastructure planning at the level of U.S. larger framework. Conservation and development are States, exemplified by such initiatives as Florida’s often seen as opposites; conservationists are often rep- Greenways Commission, Maryland’s Green Print Pro- resented as no-growth advocates and many conserva- gram and New Jersey’s Garden State Greenways Plan, tion efforts are in opposition to development. Smart has been given the politically correct name of “Smart Conservation, however, recognizes the important con- Conservation”. Smart Conservation seeks to establish nection between land conservation and land use. Like the larger framework of necessary green corridors that the other infrastructures, green infrastructure has to be should be preserved and permanently maintained as planned and designed; it requires the same kinds of con- open space for predominantly ecological functions, sidered decision-making and prior investment, and it is without being adversely impacted by development. It is best undertaken in advance of development. It should the counterpoint of another planning initiative known be the first step in the land-use planning and design as “Smart Growth” which considers environmental, so- process. cial, economic and other factors in directing develop- Randall Arendt first advanced the “Conserva- ment into areas where the previously mentioned “gray” tion/Development” approach in 1996, which is Smart and “social” infrastructures are either in place or can Conservation/Smart Growth at the local or commu- readily be provided. nity scale (Arendt, 1996). Coming from Ian McHarg’s A lot of growth is incremental and site-specific, re- training in the “Ecological Method”, (McHarg, sponding to available sites, favorable zoning and pos- 1967) many have found the principles of Conserva-  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 265 Fig. 12. A Preliminary Green Infrastructure Assessment has been produced for each county. Reproduced here is the legend relating to the Preliminary Results in Morris County, a portion of which is shown in Ill.14 following (from NJCF). tion/Development useful in all settings—urban, subur- Then we wanted to make a strong open-space con- ban or rural—and at all scales—sites under 100 acres nection between the existing village and the river. The (a typical developer’s scale) to a region or a watershed village had its own historic green with white-painted measured in square miles. fences and avenues of lofty trees. We inserted a 2100 ft We used Arendt’s planning process in 1999 for a (640 m) long “green” through the heart of what we retirement village overlooking the Connecticut River, could see would be the “center of gravity” of any pro- a 92 acre (37 ha) abandoned farm on a small hill and posed new development. former fields in the level lands below (Fig. 14; Tourbier After that, we toyed with the idea of a “ring” park, and Walmsley, 1998–1999). large enough for 9-holes of “pitch-and-putt” golf. First, we established the Primary Conservation Finally, we added the statutory setbacks and buffers, Zones—a woodland with nesting eagles, the river and and reserved a pasture for horses. its riparian trees, and a small pond and stream and Now all the conservation zones were in place, we related wetlands. Most of these features are already were in a position to designate the areas outside them legally protected—wetlands cannot be filled, riparian for the development program—in this case, an assisted trees bordering a river must be preserved, etc. living facility (ALF) in the form of a village inn on Next, we added the Secondary Conservation the hilltop (including the re-use of a great barn) and a Zones—five disused barns that should be preserved campus of cottages below the hill, each with a garden, in if we could find uses for them, and specimen free- six small neighborhoods on either side of the new green. standing trees. Such features are typically not legally To complete the plan, we needed to connect the de- protected. velopment zones with roads—we argued for 26-foot 266 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 13. A portion of the Garden State Greenways: Preliminary Results for Morris County reproduced full-size at a scale of 1:55,000 shows the level of detail achieved. To quote directly, this map is “Based upon the preliminary results of the New Jersey Green Infrastructure Assessment, a state-wide natural resources inventory/assessment that synthesizes various GIS data layers to identify potential open space “hubs” and connecting greenway corridors, and assess them according to multiple resource considerations including size and contiguity, surface water quality impact, rare species richness, and prime soils” (from NJCF).  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 267 Fig. 14. Connecticut retirement village, Conservation/Development planning process (from Tourbier and Walmsley, 1998–1999). wide (8.5-m) uncurbed country roads to continue the ing a continuous green infrastructure to permeate the look and feel of a traditional village. entire community (Fig. 15). We presented the project as a Conservation/ Cluster planning shown here with compact housing, Development—nearly 60% of the site in conservation, shorter/narrower streets, and graduated open space is 40% in development—preserving the site’s best natu- Smart Growth balanced with Smart Conservation at ral and cultural features, augmented by new introduced the community scale. Smart Growth says Maryland’s open-space elements (the green, the ring park), creat- Governor Parris Glendening, 268 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 15. Connecticut retirement village, concept plan overdrawn on engineer’s survey (from Tourbier and Walmsley). “Is not no growth or even slow growth. [Rather it is] shed Greenway and Open Space Plan for 35,000 acres sensible growth that balances our need for jobs and eco- (55 sq. miles) of Morris and Somerset Counties, NJ, nomic development with our desire to save our natural within 30 miles (48 m) of New York City (Parrish and environment before it is forever lost.” (Smart Growth Walmsley, 1997). The first map showed the five stream Network, 1998, p. 12 quote). valleys draining into the 7300 acre (nearly 3000 ha) Great Swamp Wildlife and Wilderness Area. It was In areas under development pressure, Smart created in 1968 after a 9-year battle against the New Conservation assumes a new urgency—“to save our York/New Jersey Port Authority’s plan for an interna- natural environment before it is forever lost”. This was tional jet-port. Since then, in the space of a single gen- the motivation behind the Great Swamp Watershed eration, many farms and woodlots, upland meadows Association’s Saving Space: The Great Swamp Water- and large estates in the watershed have been replaced  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 269 by residential subdivisions and commercial office rish writes that the plan “is conceived as a template of parks. the possibilities of open space preservation” to which To protect the Great Swamp and its watershed lands, municipalities, planning and zoning boards, the devel- we advanced the premise that streams, floodplains and opment industry, local land trusts, concerned citizens, wetlands form riparian corridors needing to be buffered landowners, and the public at large can all subscribe to safeguard water quality, provide habitat for plants because it balances conservation and development in- and animals, reduce downstream flooding and augment terests to advance Glendening’s “sensible growth”. an already established regional system of trails and paths. Further, they could be extended and incorpo- 4. New urbanism: traditional neighborhood rated into adjoining residential neighborhoods to make development (TND) a network of greenways—achieving the 1987 Presi- dent’s Commission on Americans Outdoors’ goal of a From the conventional zoning and subdivision or- national system, dinances that actually produced the unsatisfactory sprawl, frustrating both good ecology and good plan- “. . .threading through cities and country sides like a ning, came the ’New Urbanism’. It is probably better giant circulating system.” (President’s Commission, described as an improved “old urbanism” since it grew 1987). out of the historic idea of neighborhood which its pro- ponents maintained: On the second map, we plotted Existing Open Space and Special Interest Areas: Federal Reservations (the “Was the model in North America from the first settle- Refuge, bottom center; Morristown National Historic ments to the second World War [since when] Suburban Park, top left); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife acquisition Sprawl has been the model.” (Duany Plater-Zyberk & boundary for expanding the Refuge; State/county and Company, no date; Duany Plater-Zyberk, 1991; Duany local parks, private open space (both protected and un- Plater Zyberk & Speck, 2000). protected); conservation easements, historic properties and districts; public school grounds; utility rights of The neighborhood was the starting point for the way, trails and scenic roads. One such regional trail husband–wife architect/planning team of Andres is the 20-mile (32 km) long Patriot’s Path connecting Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (DPZ); it was to historic sites of the Revolutionary War. be sized from 40 to 200 acres (16–83 ha), averaging The third map of Critical Areas of the Great Swamp 100–125 acres (40–50 ha), and configured to be no Watershed was the product of representatives from each more than about 1/4 mile or about 1300 ft (about municipality inventorying and evaluating upwards of 400 m) radius or a 5 min walk from edge to center, 700 parcels deemed critical to water resource protec- where would be located a convenience store, child-care tion. Typically, these had a range of water features, had center, meeting hall, work places, community events critical soils and mature forest present, adjoined ex- and a transit stop, theoretically satisfying the needs isting public open space (and in some cases provided of daily life. Local parks and playgrounds would be linkage between two open spaces), and had scenic and distributed in each neighborhood segment, within a historic values. maximum 2–3 min walk. When the neighborhood was The fourth map was the Final Greenway and Open clustered with others, it became a village or a town. Space Plan shows 150 ft (45 m) wide stream corridors The intersection of the principal traffic routes made a in solid tone, called Tier 1, and critical parcels abutting logical location for a large retail component and other them in stripes, called Tier 2 (Fig. 16). village- or town-wide functions. Accompanying the plan was a parallel Technical The working-out of DPZ’s walk-sized neighbor- Report by my partner J. Toby Tourbier for storm wa- hoods on New Urbanist principles since the firm was ter management and water quality improvement and founded in the early 1980s has produced 140 new town infiltration, documenting standards and Best Man- and urban revitalization projects throughout the coun- agement Practices (BMPs) for achieving the plan’s try and, even though it is reported this represented only goals (Tourbier and Walmsley, 1996). Co-author Par- about 2% of all the nation’s housing starts in 2002, 270 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 16. Great Swamp Watershed Greenway and Open Space Plan, Map 4, Great Swamp Watershed Greenway and Open Space Plan. Tier 1 areas in solid tone are stream corridors of a minimum 150 ft-width; Tier 2 in striped tone are critical areas of varying size abutting streams on one or both sides. Blow-ups of the map were provided for each township (from Parrish and Walmsley, 1997, p. 62). is decisively influencing the practice and direction of creation of traditional neighborhoods. Urban Codes urban planning in the U.S. developed for each project have greatly advanced The New Urbanism coalesced around a core group TND planning. Typically they have included: (1) A of like-minded architects and planners, the Congress Regulating Plan; (2) Urban Regulations; (3) Architec- for the New Urbanism (CNU), and adopted a charter tural Regulations; (4) Street Sections; (5) Landscape (the Charter of the CNU). New Urban Codes were Regulations. written and published. A Traditional Neighborhood Street regulations went to the root of the problem by Development (TND) Ordinance was prepared for attacking excessively wide suburban streets: often rou- municipalities whose existing byelaws precluded the tine 40 ft (13 m) cartways with two 12 ft (3.7 m) mov-  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 271 ing lanes, one in each direction and parallel parking on both sides, in 50–60 ft (15–18 m) rights-of-way, irre- spective of traffic volumes or design speeds. Wide and curvy, they encouraged fast driving and produced high accident rates. They were expensive to build and main- tain, and contributed to high housing costs. With large front-yard setbacks, houses were too far apart to create any defined spaces and low densities were inevitable. Instead, TND insisted that streets should be laid out as a network, so that there were alternate routes to most destinations. This would allow most streets to be smaller with slower traffic, as well as have parking, trees, sidewalks and buildings, making them equitable for both vehicles and pedestrians. The buildings fronting them would form a “street wall” (instead of a “setback line” there would be a “build-out” line) and they could be diverse in function but compatible in size and disposition on their lots. All this was novel for suburbanites but the New Urbanists showed that their proposals could be parceled out to independent builders in the same increments as those used in conventional suburbs: builders could work with one lot at a time, a half block, a ward or a complete neighborhood. None of these changes came easily: fire departments balked at streets less than 20 ft (6 m) fearing fire trucks would not be able to get through, until builders agreed to install sprinklers in house along those streets (Katz, 1994, p. xxxviii). The shape of New Urbanist neighborhoods, villages and towns is formed by the arrangement of streets, blocks and buildings, each of which influences the others. Streets are to be a network; blocks are to be Fig. 17. Seaside, Florida, organizing design principles, 1982. Streets square, rectangular or irregular, historically between and squares are the primary public places and lines of movement, a minimum of 250 ft (76 m) and a maximum of 600 ft forming blocks no larger than 230 ft × 600 ft to ensure that build- (183 m) and “lotted” (i.e. laid out with building lots) on ing lots front streets and the traveling distances are reasonable (top); all sides; and buildings are to conform to some agreed dwellings, shops and workplaces are located centrally and in close proximity to each other (middle); pedestrian routes supplements upon rhythm between built form and open space on streets and sidewalks, leading to the major public spaces—a park each block. We see all these elements at play in the in the north and the beach along the entire town seafront (bottom) very first TND at Seaside, designed from 1981, on only (from Lennertz, William, “Town-Making Fundamentals” in Duany 80 acres (32 ha) and the unlikely location of Florida’s and Plater-Zyberk, 1991, pp. 21–22). panhandle, known as the “Red-neck Riviera”. Here, the blocks are skewed around a radiating street pattern; they fall within the maximum and minimum amenity for the whole town—the beach (Fig. 17, black above (Fig. 17, top). Streets and squares are the primary areas, bottom). public spaces, plus mid-block pedestrian alleys. Public Seaside has had an extraordinary impact and many buildings and open spaces are distributed throughout architects have contributed. Deborah Berke was the three neighborhoods; shops and workplaces are at the town architect for several years. Steven Holl has built center (Fig. 17, middle). All is focused on the common here. Leon Krier designed his first house here in 272 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 1989. Prince Charles of England anointed Seaside with mile (0.8 m) west to east, proposed for a proposed his royal approval, and in 1988 commissioned Leon age-restricted or senior citizen retirement community Krier to design an English version at Poundbury on (Tourbier and Walmsley, 1997–1998). Conservation- 450 acres of the Duchy of Cornwall’s land at Dorch- Development analysis suggested three neighborhoods ester in southern England. The plans were shown in on upland areas separated by wooded drainage ways. 1989 and, following revisions, construction started in One option followed New Urbanist principles: each 1993. As of 2003, only Phase One has been com- neighborhood was gridded into ±340 ft × 220 ft blocks pleted (Walmsley, 1995, pp. 106–109; Hoge, 1998, (104 m × 67 m) blocks and “lotted” into 25 ft × 100 ft pp. F1, 7) (7.5 m × 30 m) and 35 ft × 100 ft (9 m × 30 m) lots, The overall impression is of a group of buildings sized for detached and attached single-family houses in a rural landscape out of some past era immortalized in 1–5 unit-, 2 and 3-storey buildings. There was a net- by Thomas Hardy where time has stood still. Prince work of “skinny” streets 18–26 ft (5.5–7.5 m) wide and Charles is known for his hostility to modernism and 20 ft (6 m) wide mid-block alleys provided garages and attachment to past architectural styles. But emphasiz- off-street parking. With two-thirds of the site in con- ing the traditional does not mean literally reproducing servation and one third in development, the engineers past forms as a kind of pastiche in direct imitation of were able to demonstrate that there was no net increase the originals: it should mean re-interpreting them and in rainfall runoff volumes, peak flow-rates or contam- re-invigorating them. Some people feel that, although inant loadings. Poundbury is a remarkable effort, it is essentially ret- For the historic settlement of Repaupo in southern rogressive in not working out the timeless principles of New Jersey, a new model village is proposed show- housing and community in a more contemporary man- casing energy conservation and New Urbanist ideas ner. (Tourbier and Walmsley, 2000–2002). About 540 acres Even so, the influence of TND has had considerable (289 ha) was assembled between two stream valleys. influence on builders, developers and property own- Again, a Conservation/Development approach identi- ers throughout Great Britain. In my own quiet back- fied the critical lands to be preserved and the devel- water of a county, Northamptonshire, a New Urbanist opable areas to be serviced (Fig. 19). village is being built known as Mawsley. It has nar- An existing county road followed a ridge-line be- row winding streets, irregular block shapes and sizes, tween the valleys, probably aligning with an old Indian parking from the interior of the block, buildings in- trail. It could become the community’s “spine” park- spired by the regional vernacular in locally available way accessing building lands west and east; the cen- materials, different housing types abutting in the same ter could be consolidated at the historic “four-point” street, workshops/studios, a village hall, an elemen- crossroads, where survived an existing Fire House and tary school, shops and a public house, and ample open Methodist chapel and to which new shopping, offices, space—a village green, garden courtyards, a bowling recreation center, apartments and an elementary school green, a sports field for cricket, an orchard and grass site could be added. The proposed housing areas could verges bordering village streets (Fig. 18). Consider- develop outwards from the center as four neighbor- ing that the houses are builders’ products and not the hoods on either side of a new 1.5-mile (2.4 m) long work of “name” architects, the variety and quality is im- linear park, running southwest to northeast and con- pressive (Boyer Design Group & Hancock Associates, necting the two valleys. Because of the 20 ft (6 m) el- 1990). evational drop from the ridge-line to each valley, the Back in the U.S., in our community planning work park could incorporate a series of narrow lakes in de- we have been frequently asked to present a New Ur- scending order for storm water management and water banist proposal instead of a conventional layout of quality enhancement. Some fields will be retained for “loops and cul-de-sacs”. For Old Bridge, New Jersey, farming. We hope to preserve a rural ambience. Al- a large dispersed township in the north of the State, together, with the woods, wetlands, parks, fields, and we were asked in 1997–1998 to prepare an “environ- school site, about 266 acres (66 ha) or 50% is desig- mentally responsible development” plan for a 320 acre nated permanent open space, the community’s green (130 ha) site, 1.5-mile (2.4 m) north to south × 0.5- infrastructure (Fig. 20). Additional open space within  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 273 Fig. 18. Mawsley, Northamptonshire, England, part plan as designed in 1990 (from Boyer Design Group, 1990). 274 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 19. Repaupo, New Jersey, a new model village, 2002. A Conservation/Development analysis revealed the critical lands to be preserved and the developable areas to be serviced (from Tourbier and Walmsley).  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 275 Fig. 20. Repaupo, New Jersey, a new model village. The concept development plan introduces a new linear park running southwest to northeast, connecting the two stream valleys and subdividing the housing areas into four neighborhoods (from Tourbier and Walmsley). 276 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 277 the housing areas will increase total open space to ping, office, business, workplaces, recreation and child- 70–75%. care, in some combination in each pocket, the regional growth needs can be met for the next 15–20 years with- out freeway gridlock, loss of agricultural land or further 5. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) social fragmentation. Since a Pedestrian Pocket uses only 1/16th of the land area of a typical subdivision, DPZ and the New Urbanists have been accused of they reason that a region’s growth can be accommo- contributing to sprawl through their work on open sites dated without the environmental costs of losing agri- in the urban fringe. But, since about 80% of the pop- cultural land or recreational open space. ulation live in Edge Cities and this is where explosive These “New Growth” areas must be balanced with growth is occurring, any improvement towards a more “Redevelopment” and “Infill” for a viable regional sustainable alternative must be encouraged. Other New plan. There has to be three levels of planning: regional, Urbanists, namely architect/educator Doug Kelbaugh comprehensive, site specific. As TND required new ur- and architect/planner Peter Calthorpe have looked at ban codes, TOD demands new guidelines to replace or regional growth patterns and extended the concepts of overrule outdated zoning ordinances. TND into both urban and suburban sites. Calthorpe got his first opportunity to apply TOD Calthorpe’s studies introduced the idea of Transit- principles in the 1045 acre Laguna West site, 11 miles Oriented Development (TOD) as a way to organize south of Sacramento, California, when the developer growth in the urban fringe around a city and regional (Phil Angelides) persuaded his partners and the lo- transit system. His plans for the city of San Diego, cal government to try another approach (Walmsley, California, started by augmenting the city’s immensely 1995, pp. 114–115; Katz, 1994, pp. 18–29; Calthorpe, popular light rail line throughout the city and extend- 1993, pp. 146–149; Leccese, 1990, p. 47). It could have ing it into the city’s hinterlands where nodes of TODs been the usual “blob” land use plan: workplaces and could be dispersed along the network (Fig. 21). But, multi-family housing in segregated zones, adjacent to he recognizes that the nodes will only work by encour- the freeway and major arterials to “buffer” the com- aging transit riders if there are a variety of land uses munity’s lowest-density, highest-priced single-family (housing, retail and employment centers) within easy homes. pedestrian reach of the station stops. Instead, Calthorpe’s master plan took the same Kelbaugh and Calthorpe have advocated channel- revenue-generating uses previously approved but re- ing development into compact, walkable nodes, each organized them into a new 100 acre (40 ha) town cen- having some different emphasis but all containing ter on which three radial boulevards converged from some mix of uses that would promote rider-ship. They the surrounding secondary area of low-density, single- have called them “Pedestrian Pockets” since they av- family homes. A 65 acre (26 ha) lake made a clear erage 125 acres which is the current size of most sub- separation between the highest density center and the divisions, and the size of raw land that developers like to lowest-density neighborhoods. Two islands within the work with. One might be a shopping center with hous- lake provided residential areas of intermediate-density. ing; another a mixed-use pocket; another a back-office Positioning the highest density housing close to shops center; yet another a park-and-ride pocket (Walmsley, and services enabled more of the community’s resi- 1995, pp. 112–115; Kelbaugh, 1989). dents to be within walking distance of daily needs. A typical Mixed-Use Pocket might have several There would be sufficient density in the center and types of housing, some retail space and offices within 3400 units to justify transit service, though it has not 0.25-mile or 5 min walk of the transit stop. Kelbaugh yet been linked to downtown Sacramento. Out of 5000 and Calthorpe believe that by clustering housing, shop- residents, 2000 residents and 700 workers would locate Fig. 21. City of San Diego, California, Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines, 1991. At 330 sq. miles (855 km2 ), San Diego is one of the largest cities in the U.S., located in one of the fastest-growing areas in California. TODs are being used to help reduce urban sprawl, plan the urbanizing area more efficiently, encourage infill and redevelopment in existing neighborhoods, and support the existing trolley and bus transit system (from Calthorpe, 1993, pp. 130–131). 278 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 22. Dry Creek Ranch, Sacramento, California, 1991. This regional plan of nucleated development instead of conventional sprawl, demon- strates how a semi-rural area could grow into three distinct villages with greenbelts (from Calthorpe, 1993, pp. 152–153). within 0.75-mile of a light rail station. (Most suburban Yet, despite these setbacks, Calthorpe sees TODs densities preclude a transit option.) While some critics and Pedestrian Pockets as a strong alternative to argue that Californians will never give up their cars, an sprawl, to save farmlands, forests, streams and the independent survey showed that 84% of the commu- type of ecological lands implied by green infrastruc- nity’s residents preferred its pedestrian-oriented fea- ture. And the guidelines stress a hard-nosed evaluation tures over those of a conventional subdivision (Katz, of a region’s natural resources and patterns of growth 1994, p. 19). At this writing, Laguna West is incom- before developing a long-term planning strategy. plete, plagued by the stop-go of California’s financial Dry Creek Ranch, Sacramento, California (Calthorpe, crises: some lakes and lake-side housing have been con- 1993, pp. 152–153) attempts to demonstrate how a structed and Apple Computer has located nearby; but semi-rural area can grow into three distinct villages the light rail has not been built and few of the town with greenbelts (Fig. 22). Beyond the current sprawl, center elements have been completed. one village is grown from a small existing town (lower  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 279 part of plan); the second expands a smaller hamlet That’s Smart Growth. But it co-exists with Smart near an existing postal facility (upper left of plan); Conservation. Calthorpe envisages three levels of and the third, the 1850 acre (750 ha) Dry Creek Ranch open space: regional, town-scale and neighborhood is a totally new village on undeveloped land (top (Fig. 25): right of plan). The land use strategy attempts to bal- ance the need for the area to accept a reasonable “At the regional scale, the greenbelt functions to de- share of regional growth while maintaining the lo- fine the edge of the metropolitan region and to per- cal community’s desire to retain its rural character manently separate the New Town from surrounding and life style. Seventy five percentage of the area development. The major streams provide flood pro- is in open space, flood plain, and low density ru- tection downstream, while they allow a wildlife link- ral residential development maintaining a continuous age through the urbanized area along with hiking, bike greenbelt between each village. The remaining 25% trails and recreation. Smaller parks, often joined to is more intensively developed as residential, retail and schools, provide recreation, kids play areas and com- employment. munity gathering points.” (Fig. 25; Calthorpe, 1993, Dry Creek Ranch village is structured around a sys- quote on p. 166). tem of green corridors and tree-lined streets emanating from the commercial core and village green, connect- ing neighborhood parks, schools and community open 6. Greenways and the New Urbanists spaces to the network of horse trails and bicycle paths in the greenbelt beyond (Fig. 23). The New Urbanists have been criticized for their In this proposed New Town for 82,000 residents on standardized street grids and secondary concern for 16,000 acres (6475 ha), Placer Villages, Placer County, landforms or other natural features. It is true that California (Calthorpe, 1993, pp. 164–166), Calthorpe they are driven by social convictions—that compacter, argues: (1) The site is in a high-growth corridor and walkable and mixed-use traditional neighborhoods are nucleated growth in a new town is far better than re- a far superior alternative to sprawl. Yet, the New Ur- gional sprawl; (2) It is within transit distance of the banists are still very mindful of how development must central city and will relieve regional traffic congestion; be shaped to the natural configurations of each site. (3) It is on lands of low habitat and agricultural value; We have seen how rivers and wetlands become con- (4) It is well positioned to be part of a regional green- servation zones for the protection of fragile ecosys- belt; (5) It will have a diverse and affordable mix of tems in Avalon Park Florida, a typical Duany Plater- housing to relieve growth pressure on existing over- Zyberk mega-development of neighborhoods, villages burdened communities; (6) It will have an ecological and towns (Duany and Plater-Zyberk, 1991, pp. 88–94). water and waste system to address water quality and And Calthorpe through his TODs is creating regional supply. open space systems which extend into the towns, vil- The town has 10 villages with mixed-use cores of lages and neighborhoods as a network of greenbelts, commercial and civic uses. A greenbelt of rural es- greenways and green spaces. tates and aggregate community open space surrounds Examining Duany’s planning process, his prescrip- the town. The centers are identified by the converging tion for the planning of new towns includes four com- streets. There are elementary schools (ES) and mid- plex use categories: countryside, corridors, neighbor- dle schools (MS). The surrounding residential areas hoods and districts (Fig. 26). are shown at lower density and higher density. There are neighborhood parks and playgrounds (Fig. 24). • Countryside stays forever open and without urban- Calthorpe claims that because of compact land-use and ization. It includes areas technically justified as open efficient infrastructure, new towns such as this can af- space (e.g. waterways, larger wetlands and recharge ford to provide amenities, basic facilities and services zones, habitats for endangered species, steep slopes); to a broad range of households. (Inefficient sprawl ei- areas of aesthetic merit (e.g. forests, groves and ther increases the housing costs or decreases the quality woodlots, historic farmsteads, specialized agricul- of services.) ture, scenic highways and vistas) that could be as- 280 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 23. Dry Creek Ranch, Sacramento, California. The third village, the 1850 acre (750 ha) Dry Creek Ranch is structured around a system of open space corridors and tree-lined streets, emanating from the commercial core and village green and extending to the greenbelt trails and bicycle paths beyond (from Calthorpe, 1993, p. 153). signed to density transfer banks; and areas to be ac- the residual green spaces that separate zones of sub- quired for parks and schools. urbia; they are positive, figural elements character- • Corridors connect areas of permanent countryside ized by visible continuity. to separate neighborhoods and districts. These are • Neighborhoods remain after mapping permanent somewhat flexible but have minimum standards for countryside and corridors. They are limited in ex- each type. Corridors can be green- or transportation- tent (most people live within a 5 min walk distance based (e.g. wildlife trails to rail lines). They are not of its center); have a mix of large and small buildings  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 281 Fig. 24. Placer Villages New Town, Placer County, California, 1991. In this high-growth area (700,000 over the next 20 years), a satellite New Town makes sense. It consists of 10 villages with mixed-use cores of commercial and civic uses, surrounded by a greenbelt of rural estates and aggregated community open space (from Calthorpe, 1993, pp. 164–165). 282 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 25. Placer Villages New Town, Placer County, California. Three levels of open space provide the organizational framework of the town: regional, town-scale and neighborhood (from Calthorpe, 1993, p. 166). compatible in size, massing and disposition; laid out college campuses, large-scale transportation or man- with a network of streets, sized to be comfortable ufacturing uses such as factories, airports, terminals for both vehicles and pedestrians, for the most part and depots. Districts specifically forbid single-use spatially defined by buildings; and marked by civic suburban patterns such as residential subdivisions, buildings for education, community meetings, reli- shopping centers and office parks. gion and culture located at public squares or at the end of street vistas. Duany’s hypothetical town with the pieces put to- • Districts are the last step in the planning process. gether looks like this (Fig. 27). ‘Countryside’ and ‘Cor- They are typically specialized around a predominant ridors’ together make the green infrastructure of the activity such as cultural districts, medical centers, town. Smart Conservation and Smart Growth are re-  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 283 Fig. 26. The four categories of land-use advocated by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk in the planning of New Towns: The Countryside (top left); The Corridors (top right); The Neighborhoods (bottom left); The Districts (bottom right) (from Young, 1995, pp. 24–27). 284 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 27. The City of Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors and Countryside (from Young, 1995, p. 27).  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 28. Summerset, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1998. This New Urbanist community includes the restoration of a buried stream under 20 million tons of slag, a byproduct of steel production (from Leccese, 2001, pp. 52–59). 285  286 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 Fig. 29. New York Regional Plan Association Metropolitan Greensward Plan, 1993. Besides nine regional refuges, the plan shows a network of greenways and green-spaces that protects and enhances individual rivers, trails, ridge-lines and urban parks (from Regional Plan Association, 1993).  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 287 solved into a single composite. It is the inclusive way La Quatra Bonci took the familiar grid and divided we have to think for achieving sustainable development it into three oblong sections around the creek. A new “to lead to development patterns that are more envi- entrance road winds through the valley recalling the ronmentally compatible, economically efficient and so- Serpentine Drive in historic Schenley Park. There are cially equitable.” (Young, 1995, pp. 25–27). diagonal streets, crescents and promenades that match There are many examples of New Urbanist solu- housing types to open space: for example, a crescent- tions enriching the genre, particularly from younger shaped park fronts townhouses and apartments that do planning and landscape architectural firms that have not have backyards. There are narrow streets with de- “created more environmentally rich plans that counter tached sidewalks as well as wider parkway-like streets the typical criticism of New Urbanism: that standard- (Fig. 28). ized street grids are proffered with little concern for The narrower residential streets have 50 ft (15 m) landforms or other natural features.” (Leccese, 2001, rights of way and 80 ft (24 m) between houses with quote in p. 56). front porches and rear alley access for garages, parking Pittsburgh’s 35 miles of riverfront sites were given and utilities. The housing is traditional and new entry over to industry and railroads, even dump sites: notori- structures (such as in the center of the crescent along ous was the Duquesne Slag Heap on the Monongahela the promenade overlooking the stream-park) are based River. Over the course of 50 years, the Duquesne Slag on historic Frick Park structures designed by John Rus- Company dumped 20 million t of slag—a black, gravel- sell Pope, the architect of Washington DC’s Jefferson like by-product of steel production—into the ravine of Memorial. Nine Mile Run. It piled 20 stories high and covered Summerset has been criticized because it provides 238 acres (93 ha). no services or jobs within a short walking distance or Now this will change: a New Urbanist community connections to transit, and the costs of homes is much called Summerset is being born and Nine Mile Run higher than Pittsburgh’s norm which is 30% less than is being restored as a natural creek (Leccese, 2001, the national average. Nonetheless, Phase One homes pp. 52–59). Pittsburgh has been losing residents for 50 were signed up for by 500 people and the first 40 were years, from 670,000 in 1950 to 334,000 in the 2000 sold by lottery. But far more significantly, Summerset census. In 1994, the new mayor, Mayor Tom Mur- will clean-up and restore a notorious brown site within phy, himself a steelworker’s son, promised to reverse the city rather than leap-frogging development to oc- years of “managed decline” by acquiring and redevel- cupy green sites outside it. Smart Conservation—the oping “brown” sites. The new stream park at Sum- restoration of the creek linking a large existing park to merset adds 140 acres (56 ha) of new open space. The the Monongahela River with walking and biking trails original plan by New York City-based Cooper Robert- to downtown—is allied to Smart Growth. son & Partners proposed to bury the slag and fill the ravine to create a relatively level site for 1200 homes. 7. Conclusion The neighbors protested and demanded that the creek be restored. The Pittsburgh firm of landscape archi- Timothy Beatley writes in Green Urbanism: tects, La Quatra Bonci Associates found that saving the stream would reduce the earth-moving from 5-million “It is clear that regional, bio-regional and metropolitan- cubic yards (3.8 million m3 ) to 1.6-million cubic yards scale green-space conservation strategies are needed. (1.2 million m3 ), but would decrease the number of Indeed without them, it is not at all clear that discrete units from 1200 to 713. Still, the more compact reorga- isolated green-space conservation efforts will in fact nization of homes, streets and utilities would cut US$ add up to very much”. (Beatley, 2000, quote in p. 224). 10-million out of the budget, and the landscape connec- Beatley cites Portland, Oregon’s Greenspaces program tion from the existing Frick Park, a 455 acre (184 ha) and the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Min- forest preserve, (the former estate of steel-baron Henry nesota as promising regional open space systems to Clay Frick) to the Monongahela River would create a emulate. And the New York Regional Plan Association level of amenity to justify the higher cost/unit of the produced its Metropolitan Greensward Plan in 1993, development. described as a “green edge to growth.” (Fig. 29). 288 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 The heart of the plan is nine special Regional rather than a “nice to have” vision of an inter-connected Reserves encompassing the Region’s most important system of greenways at all scales from the particular to scenic, biological and water resources which are now the regional. threatened by urban sprawl. They include: (1) Catskill Seen from the perspective of Smart Growth, Green Park (top left); (2) Delaware River Valley (left); (3) Infrastructure is its counterpoint: Smart Conservation. Kittatinny Mountain/Shawangunk Mountains (left be- Smart Conservation is the establishment of critical low (1) and (2)); (4) New Jersey/New York/Connecticut green corridors that should be preserved and main- Highlands (left to top center); (5) The Hudson River tained for predominantly ecological functions, in ad- Valley (center to top); (6) Long Island Sound (center to vance of or in conjunction with new development. right); (7) New York/New Jersey Harbor (center); (8) New Urbanism, which began with deep dissatisfac- New Jersey Pinelands (bottom left); (9) Long Island tion with the zoning and building codes that had pro- Pine Barrens/Peconic Estuary (right). duced two generations of sprawl, focused on bringing It should be noted that watershed lands owned by order and coherence to escalating Edge Cities on the public or private utilities and managed for public drink- urban fringe, based on walkable, mixed-use towns, vil- ing water supplies are protected. This is an aspect lages and neighborhoods with integrated open space of green infrastructure planning which can often be systems. A vastly simplified system of urban codes more cost-effective than conventional public works. was written for Traditional Neighborhood Develop- New York City, for example, avoided the need to spend ment (TND), governing the forms and connections of US$ 6–8 billion on new water filtration and treatment open space “hubs” and “links” that gave shape and def- plants by instead purchasing and protecting watershed inition to the built form of the new community. This lands in the Catskill Mountains (top left) for about US$ was an extension of Conservation/Development from 1.5 billion (Benedict and McMohan, 2002a, reported the individual parcel to the scale of new towns, city on p. 14). districts and metropolitan conurbations. Other open space initiatives weave together a net- Out of the latter evolved Transit-Oriented Develop- work of greenways (dots) and green-spaces (dark cir- ment (TOD), using transportation plans for accommo- cles) that protects and enhances individual rivers, trails, dating and organizing regional growth around clustered ridge lines and urban parks. Seventy-two of the most Pedestrian Pockets joined together by transit network, important public and private initiatives are identified planned for in advance so that it could ultimately be by number. built in phases as and when the critical mass of people By helping “communities to manage change, pro- was in place. The principles of both TND and TOD tected open lands will help shape patterns of growth could be extended to revitalizing abandoned or under- in the Tri-State Region”. Robert D. Yaro, the plan’s utilized ‘brown sites’ as well as bringing new life to principal author, likens the greensward concept to declining inner-city neighborhoods. “metropolitan firebreaks” containing urbanization and We see all these initiatives as different aspects of preserving green-space access. The stated objective the maturing greenway movement: expressing its many is “weaving together a network of Greenways and possibilities, enriching its original concepts, enlarging Greenspaces that protects and enhances individual its credibility—if need be—and emphasizing its impor- rivers, trails, ridge lines and urban open lands”. tance for and relevance to current issues of sustainabil- (Regional Plan Association, 1993, map). ity and green planning and design. Greenways have come a long way in the 150 years of Beatley’s question about “regional, bio-regional and modern cities and urbanization. They seem to be con- metropolitan-scale green-space conservation” is an- tinuously reinventing themselves as new pressures and swered by Benedict and McMahon’s green infrastruc- priorities appear. They have different names but their ture planning: premises come from a common source and the applica- tion of one premise frequently overlaps into another so “Green infrastructure is a smart solution to our con- that the distinctions between them are unclear. Green servation challenge because it seeks to plan land use Infrastructure, although a new term, continues the U.S. and land conservation TOGETHER in a way that is historic greenway tradition: it advocates a “must have” consistent with natural environmental patterns. In do-  A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 289 ing so, it promotes both Smart Conservation and Smart McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to cradle: remaking Growth.” (Benedict, 2001, pp. 7–8). the way we make things. The authors compare an “eco-efficient” planning approach that “makes the wrong things less bad” to fun- damentally re-thinking the planning process that, instead, “works on the right things”. They call this starting over from scratch an References “eco-effective” approach. McHarg, I.L., 1967. An ecological method for landscape architec- ture. Landsc. Architect., 105–107. Arendt, R.G., 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Prac- Mednick, A.C., 2001. Garden State Greenways: Green Infrastruc- tical Guide for Creating Open Space Networks. American Plan- ture Assessment, Proposed Methodology for the Identification ning Association, Chicago, IL. of Open Space Hubs and Greenway Corridors. New Jersey Con- Beatley, T., 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European servation Foundation, NJ. Cities. In this classic comparison between American and Eu- Parrish, K., Walmsley, A., 1997. Saving Space: The Great Swamp ropean urban planning, Beatley lists the urban densities of Watershed Greenway and Open Space Plan. Great Swamp Wa- representative American and European cities. Adjusting from tershed Association, NJ. units/acre to persons/hectare and assuming an average of 2.5 President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors: Report and Rec- persons per unit: the former range between 7.8 units/ac (7.9 ommendations, 1987. Reprinted as Americans Outdoors: The persons/ha) in Houston, Texas and 8.6 units/ac (8.7 per- Legacy, the Challenge. U.S. Government Printing Office. sons/ha) in Phoenix, Arizona, to 15.8 units/ac (16.0 persons/ha) President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1999. Towards a in New York City and 18.4 units/ac (18.6 persons/ha) in Sustainable America—Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and Los Angeles, compared to 23.5 units/ac (23.8 persons/ha) in a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century. U.S. Government Copenhagen, 34.8 units/ac (35.2 persons/ha) in London, 40.2 Printing Office. units/ac (40.7 persons/ha) in Zurich, 43.7 units/ac (44.2 per- Regional Plan Association (RPA), 1993. New York, Building a sons/ha) in Stockholm and 56.2 units/ac (56.9 persons/ha) in Metropolitan Greensward (map). Vienna. Smart Growth Network (SGN), 1998. ICMA Newsletter, January 19, Benedict, M., 2001. “Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Approach for quote on p. 12. For ICMA, T: 212-962-3591. Land Conservation Planning” at National Conservation Training Stein, C.S., 1956. Towards New Towns for America, 3rd ed., 1966. Center Conference, May 1–3, Shepherdstown, Virginia, quote on The major “new town” projects illustrated in Stein’s seminal pp. 7–8. book were Sunnyside, New York (1924–1928); Radburn, New Benedict, M., McMahon, E.T., 2002a. Green Infrastructure: Smart Jersey (1928–1929); Chatham Village, Pittsburgh (1930–1935); Conservation for the 21st Century, 2002a, 1st quote on p. 6; 2nd Hillside Homes, Bronx, New York (1932–1935); Greenbelt, quote on p. 14. Maryland (1935–1937); and Baldwin Hills Village, Los Angeles Benedict, M., McMahon, E.T., 2002b. “Green Infrastructure: Smart (1941). Conservation for the 21st Century” in Renewable Resources Jour- Tourbier, Walmsley, 1998–1999. Planning, Preservation, Urban De- nal, Autumn, p. 13. sign, Landscape Architecture. New York City Office, Eagle’s Boyer Design Group & Hancock Associates, architects/planners, Nest Retirement Village and Assisted Living Facility (ALF), 1990. Proposed New Village at Cransley Lodge. Suffield, Connecticut. Calthorpe, P., 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Com- Tourbier, Walmsley, 1997–1998. Proposed Senior Citizen Housing. munity and the American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, Old Bridge, New Jersey. New York. Tourbier, Walmsley, 2000–2002. A New Village at Logan Township. Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, Brochure, 1991. “The Traditional Gloucester County, New Jersey. Neighborhood”, pp. 15–17, quote on p. 15. Tourbier, Walmsley, 1996. Planning, Preservation, Urban De- Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., 1991. Towns and Town-Making Prin- sign, Landscape Architecture. Philadelphia Pennsylvania Office, ciples. Rizzoli, New York. Storm Water Management for Water Quality Improvement and Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, Speck, J., 2000. Suburban Nation—the Infiltration in the Great Swamp Watershed. Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. North Van der Ryn, S., Cowan, S., 1996. Ecological Design. The authors Point Press, New York. distinguish between conservation, regeneration and stewardship Hoge, W., 1998. “One Prince’s Cause is Another Man’s Castle” in with a simple banking analogy to urge environmental responsi- The New York Times, pp. F1, 7. bility. It is worth quoting directly: “Suppose we represent our Katz, P., 1994. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Com- working ‘natural capital’—forests, lakes, wetlands, salmon and munity. McGraw Hill, New York. so on—with a stack of coins. This natural capital provides renew- Kelbaugh, D. (Ed.), 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Handbook: A New able interest in the form of fish and timber yields, crops and clean Suburban Design Strategy. Princeton Architectural Press, New air, water and soil. At present, we are simply spending the cap- York. ital, drawing it down to dangerously low levels, decreasing the Leccese, M., 1990. Next step: transit-friendly new towns. Landsc. ability of remaining ecosystems top assimilate ever-increasing Architect. 80 (7), 47. quantities of waste. Such an approach cannot but deplete natu- Leccese, M., 2001. From slag-heap to urban chic. Landsc. Architect., ral capital. Ecological design offers three critical strategies for 52–59, quote on p. 56. 290 A. Walmsley / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 252–290 addressing this loss: conservation, regeneration and stewardship ican Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Annual Meeting . . . Conservation involves spending natural capital more slowly; Proceedings, pp. 112–121. Mednick directed the Green Infras- regeneration is the expansion of natural capital; stewardship is tructure Assessment (GIA) at the New Jersey Conservation Foun- the wisdom of living on renewable interest rather than eating into dation. The methodology is summarized in Section II of the above natural capital”. “Garden State Greenways and New Jersey Green Infrastructure Walmsley, A., 1995. “Greenways and the Making of Urban Form”. Assessment”, pp. 114–115, 117–120. Benedict’s approach is dis- In: Fabos, J.Gy., Ahern, J., (Eds.), Greenways: The Beginning of cussed in Section III of the above “Green Infrastructure: Smart an International Movement, reprinted from The Journal of Land- Conservation for the 21st Century”, pp. 115–118, 120. scape and Urban Planning, vol. 33, pp. 81–127. Section 2: “The Whyte, W.H., Jr. (Ed.), 1958. The Exploding Metropolis, originally Historic Contribution” on pp. 84–91 addresses the development published in 1958, republished in 1993 with a new foreword by of U.S. parks and parkways; Poundbury is discussed in Section Sam Bass Warner, Jr. A classic of urban history, it contains essays 4. “Regional Patterns” on pp. 106–109; Pedestrian Pockets and by Whyte, Jane Jacobs, Francis Bello, Seymour Freedgood and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) are described in Section Daniel Seligman, addressing the problems of urban decline and 4. “Regional Patterns” on pp. 112–115; Laguna West is referred suburban sprawl, transportation, city politics, open space and the to in Section 4. “Regional Patterns” on pp. 114–115. character and fabric of cities. Walmsley, A., Mednick, A., Benedict, M., 2002. Open Space Preser- Young, D., 1995. Alternatives to Sprawl. Lincoln Institute for Land vation: Linking Smart Conservation to Smart Growth. In: Amer- Policy, Cambridge, MA, pp. 25–27. T: 617-661-3016.