staff draft

June 2012

closer communities

growing smarter
2012-2016 Subdivision Staging Policy

appendix
reducing traffic

connected neighborhoods

staging growth

Montgomery County Planning Department The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission MontgomeryPlanning.org

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy
Appendix 1
Pace and Pattern of Development

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Contents Background Implications of Declining Vacant Land Methodology for Projecting Future Land Use Needs Forecast Methodology and Results

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Background
Since 1973 Montgomery County has conducted the exercise of evaluating whether County public facilities are adequate to meet the needs induced by increases in its population and employment base. The County’s subdivision Staging Policy, (formerly, the Growth Policy) governs the timing and conduct of this analysis. In 2009, there was extended discussion of the need for the subdivision staging policy provide an extended analysis of the County’s pace and pattern of growth. This initial pace and pattern study presents a framework for understanding development patterns as the County enters a new period in which the demand for of new housing and commercial space will be met primarily through the redevelopment of existing properties. This is a transition from the traditional regime of green field development that formerly characterized County’s growth. The analysis examines the assumptions of the County’s 2030 demographic forecast. Then, its attempts to determine the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected growth. It identifies where gaps exists between the projected growth and the availability of land needed to accommodate it. The lack of vacant land for a specific category of use acts as an indicator of the types of redevelopment pressures the County will face. The following information is provided:  Projections of acres land needed across the housing and job categories used in the County forecast   Comparisons of the projected need for land by category to the amount of available vacant land Indicators of historical changes in the densities at which County land is developed (i.e., change in Floor Area Ratio) Historical trends in sub-County rates of land development Explanation of Small Area Forecast methodology and components Review of the County pipeline of approved but “un-built” development Small Area Forecast Results: 2010-2030

   

Implications of Declining Vacant Land
There has been a rapid decline in the availability of the vacant land that fueled Montgomery County’s development in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Only 4.8 percent of the County land remains vacant.

Based on the County’s regional forecast of housing and jobs, the County will need to accommodate an additional 9,600 acres of residential development and 1,913 acres of commercial development over the next 20 years.

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Figure 1 Existing Vacant Land Compared to Land Needed to Accommodate Projected New Development

During the 1980s, the planning literature was characterized by debates over whether newly emerging suburbs or older central cities were winning a competition for new infrastructure investments. This completion was played out as developers chose between newer suburbs and older central cities as the primary choices for new retail, office, and high income residential developments.1 Currently, there is even a wider variety of location options for developers to choose from. First ring suburbs like Montgomery County find themselves in competition with reemerging central cities, younger inner suburbs within the same metro areas, as well with fast growing newly emerging “exurbs” that emerged along the urban region’s outer fringe. A suburb's ability to compete with newer emerging exurban locations is a primary factor that determine how well the suburb will age. In the worst cases, older suburbs can face economic decline characterized by increased joblessness and a self-reinforcing cycle of deteriorating infrastructure. In the best cases, thoughtful policies lead to the ability to attract new investment and to maintain a healthy economic base.2 As the amount of vacant land in the Montgomery County declines, redevelopment of existing properties becomes increasing crucial as a source for new investment dollars. Comparing the County forecast to the existing profile of vacant land will help policy makers anticipant the types of redevelopment pressures that the County will face. This will also help us better understand the impact County growth controls will have on County residents’ quality of life in the face of new development. Approximately 14,100 acres of vacant land remain in the County. (The available acres reduced even further when small, undevelopable parcels are excluded.) We can use the current zoning to develop and indicator for the acres of vacant land currently available for commercial and residential use. Under the current zoning, the projected need for acres of single-family is in balance the existing amount of vacant land zoned for single-family use. However, there is a surplus of vacant land zoned for retail and industrial/research uses when compared to future projected need. Correspondingly, there is a shortage of vacant land zoned for office and multifamily use.

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Figure 2 Montgomery County Planning Department Geographic Area Teams

Figure 3 Projected Need for Acres of Land Compared to Amount of Vacant Land Currently Zoned for Commercial Use
3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 Area3 1,000 500 0 Area 2 Area 1

Area 1 Area 2 Area3

Need for Land for Office Office 18 10.9 268 281.3 462 179.7 748 471.9

Need for Retail 32 111 154 297

Land for Need for Retail Industrial 7.9 1 192.6 155 170.8 52 371.3 207

Land for Need for Multi Industrial Family 5.1 286 367.6 1,687 125.4 925 498.1 2,898

Land for Mulit23 167 108 298

Need for Other 55 337 268 660

Land for Other 55.5 280.5 412.5 748.6

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Figure 4 Projected Need for Acres of Land Compared to Amount of Vacant Land Currently Zoned for Singlefamily
8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Area 3 Area 2 Area 1

Need for Single Family Land for Single Family

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 County

Need for Single Family 93 892 5,747 6,732

Land for Single Family 334.8 1,022.2 4,846.9 6,203.9

Methodology for Projecting Future Land Use Needs
How do we determine the amount of land needed to accommodate future growth? The forecast uses employment categories (Office, Retail, Industrial, Other, i.e. ORIO categories) that match those used in the Washington Metro Area Council of Government’s regional transportation model. Within this framework, a conversion factor is used to translate the number of projected jobs within each category to the gross square footages needed to accommodate the projected employment.

New Jobs Multiplier Required GSF

Office 116,860 225 26,293,500

Retail 15,907 400 6,362,800

Industrial 12,868 450 5,790,600

Other 21,365 500 10,682,500

This approach provides an estimate of the total gross square footage of built space needed to accommodate all future jobs. However, the acres of land needed to accomodate this new development depends on how intensely land is developed. For example, 3,000 office jobs could be located in a two story office park or in a 10story mid-rise office building. The gross square footage of built space would be the same in each case. However, the building footprint of the high rise would be 1/5th the size of the office park. Obviously,
2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

the amount of land needed to contained new employment decreases as one assumes that land is developed at higher densities. How densely do we build? Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of building gross square footage to the size of the parcel on which the building sits. An increase in FAR is an indicator of building more intensely on available land. Since 1995, as the supply of vacant land has shrunk, developers have built more intensely on the remaining land.

3.00

2.82

Average Floor Area Ratios High Rise Office Mid Rise Office Retail Industrial Other
Pre 95 Post 95 0.99 0.74 0.64 0.49 0.49 0.73

2.50 2.10 2.00

Pre 95 2.82 0.74 0.49 0.49 0.37

Post 95 2.10 0.99 0.64 0.73 0.39

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 High Rise Office Mid Rise Office Retail Industrial

Note: The apparent increase since 1995 in FAR for highrise office buildings is due to the large number of office buildings that were built inside the Beltway before 1995. After 1995, a larger number of office developments occurred along the I-270 corridor and outside of the Beltway. These post-1995 buildings provided much more on site space for parking and other amenities. For the purposes of this analysis, the more intense pre-1995 FAR is used.

A different approach is used to estimate how densely we build residential units. The existing average number of dwelling units per acre was used to determine current residential densities.
Single Family Avg Dwelling Units per Acre 4.6 4.9 1.8 2.9 Multi- Family Avg Dwelling Units per Acre 43.5 22.1 13.8 23.4

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 County

Projections for the amount of commercial land needed for new development were derived by dividing the gross building area measure by the assumed post-1995 FAR. Projects for the amount of residential
2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

land needed for new development were derived by multiplying the units projected in the COG forecast by the current measures for residential dwelling unit per acre.

Forecast Methodology and Results
Montgomery County’s forecast of jobs, households, and population provides a framework for conducting the analysis of pace and pattern of growth. The forecast is completed in two stages. The first stage provides a Countywide measure for employment, population, and households. The second stage allocates the Countywide numbers to smaller neighborhood-like units of geography within the County. Stage 1: County level The first stage determines the overall amount of population and job growth likely to occur in the County. During the first stage, demographic and economic models are used that consider the amount of growth likely to occur based on the County’s current economic and demographic structure. The effort develops projections that that are relatively independent of any specific County master planning exercises. The region’s forecast of housing, jobs, and population is a collaborative effort between the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and local jurisdictions. MWCOG calibrates a regional econometric model that provides an estimate of overall growth in the Washington metro region. At the same time that MWCOG is preparing its economic projects, each member jurisdiction prepares its own projections of local growth, independently of MWCOG. The jurisdictions then meet with MWCOG to ensure that sum of the jurisdictional totals are within three percent of the MWCOG control total. Montgomery County’s participation in this process ensures that the County forecast fits within a framework that considers both regional and national economic trends. Montgomery County projects over 75,000 new households and over 160,000 new jobs by year 2030. Both the jobs and housing forecast are consistent with previous 30-year trends that capture both the booms and busts of the previous periods. The demographic projections capture the dynamics of countylevel births, deaths, net migration, and household formation rates. The employment model is a trend line projection based on current Bureau of Economic Analysis county employment estimates.

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Stage 2: Small Area Allocation The second stage in the forecast process attempts to identify the places within the County where new growth will occur. The jobs and households projected in Stage 1 are allocated within the County based on historical small area growth rates.

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

The geographic areas with the fastest growth rates received a larger share of the County’s overall projected growth. This allocation occurs until the zoned capacity of the target areas is reached. Historical growth rates are adjusted by three factors.  The Development Pipeline The development pipeline consists of the land development applications that have been approved by the planning department, but remain unbuilt. Development pipeline projects are assumed to be completed within the first five years of the forecast period.  Current Master Plans Forecasters conduct a survey of high profile projects that are deemed likely to occur as the result of federal expansions or as components of newly approved master plans. The Great Seneca Science Center Master Plan, the White Flint Sector Plan, the Wheaton Sector Plan, and the White Oak Science Gateway Master Plan (currently underway) are the recent plans whose buildout assumptions have been embedded in the 8.1 forecast.  The Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan Sites adjacent to the proposed transportation network are developed under an accelerated timeframe.

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

2030 Jobs Forecast by Master Plan Area (existing, pipeline, and additional forecasted employment growth)
35,000
2030 household forecast in excess of pipeline units

units in pipeline
30,000 base year households (2010)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

POOLSVLE

ASPEHILL

TAKOLANG

SILSPEAS

DAMASCMP

FAIRLDMP

SILSPCBD

PAGRUOPS

WOODTRI

LONGBRSP

SHGRSP

2030 Household Forecast by Master Plan Area (units) (existing, pipeline, and additional forecasted household growth)
35,000
2030 household forecast in excess of pipeline units

CLRKGVIC

WHTFLNT

WHEATNSP …

UPRKCRPK

NSILSPSP

ROCKVLE

GERMTOSP

OLNEY

GAITHERS

FREHGTSP

WHTFLNT2

POTOMSUB

TWINBROK

KENSWHEA

NBETGAPK

GSENECA

BETHCBDS

GERMTOWN

GLENMTMP

BETHCHCH

units in pipeline
30,000 base year households (2010)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

POOLSVLE

ASPEHILL

TAKOLANG

SILSPEAS

DAMASCMP

FAIRLDMP

SILSPCBD

PAGRUOPS

WOODTRI

LONGBRSP

SHGRSP

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

CLRKGVIC

WHTFLNT

WHEATNSP …

UPRKCRPK

NSILSPSP

ROCKVLE

GERMTOSP

OLNEY

GAITHERS

FREHGTSP

WHTFLNT2

POTOMSUB

TWINBROK

KENSWHEA

NBETGAPK

GSENECA

BETHCBDS

GERMTOWN

GLENMTMP

BETHCHCH

The results of the Round 8.1 Forecast and selected inputs are available in the following tables. Table 1A: Table 1B: Table 2A: Table 2B: Table 2C: Table 3A: Table 3B: Round 8.1 Employment Forecast by Policy Area Round 8.1 Household Forecast by Policy Area Ten-Year Historical Growth Rates (Commercial Gross Square Footage) Ten-Year Historical Growth Rates (Units) CountywideTen-Year Historical Growth Rates (Units) Historical Pipeline of Development Current Pipeline of Development

Table 1A: Round 8.1 Employment Forecast by Policy Area
JOBS FORECAST (2010 to 2040)
Montgomery County, Maryland
by Policy Area and land use type
2010 AREA office retail industrial other total office retail 2030 industrial other total

Aspen Hill Bethesda CBD Bethesda/Chevy Chase Clarksburg Cloverly Damascus Derwood Fairland/White Oak Friendship Heights Gaithersburg City Germantown East Germantown Town Center Germantown West Glenmont Grosvenor Kensington/Wheaton Montgomery Village/Airpark North Bethesda North Potomac Olney Potomac R&D Village Rockville City Rockville Town Center Rural East Rural West Shady Grove Metro Station Silver Spring CBD Silver Spring/Takoma Park Twinbrook Wheaton CBD White Flint TOTAL

1,231 29,407 4,450 1,052 73 289 6,831 12,766 6,535 18,019 5,642 1,982 5,532 9 376 3,703 1,682 33,736 68 1,508 1,417 16,203 38,086 7,733 889 486 209 24,208 2,961 11,845 2,641 8,538 250,107

2,734 4,554 1,074 64 351 1,519 2,140 5,717 1,369 16,689 2,697 1,897 1,128 605 22 2,247 2,542 2,687 300 989 4,639 751 6,471 1,576 1,064 1,128 1,002 4,731 3,202 4,260 5,523 5,598 91,270

0 134 378 687 38 28 7,120 2,681 26 12,479 307 277 958 0 0 1,201 4,892 2,954 0 13 32 507 4,010 1,132 1,208 448 661 829 2,443 1,115 388 539 47,485

3,245 1,626 38,099 737 1,151 837 901 10,414 330 7,854 1,312 672 2,512 63 97 9,235 2,537 3,486 1,192 3,049 6,325 2,806 7,656 761 2,443 1,127 657 1,278 7,476 646 278 472 121,274

7,210 35,721 44,001 2,540 1,613 2,673 16,992 31,578 8,260 55,041 9,958 4,828 10,130 677 495 16,386 11,653 42,863 1,560 5,559 12,413 20,267 56,223 11,202 5,604 3,189 2,529 31,046 16,082 17,866 8,830 15,147 510,136

1,299 33,949 5,216 11,733 73 295 8,583 20,412 9,367 34,014 12,740 7,242 10,130 9 376 3,827 2,380 40,923 146 1,572 2,845 24,568 53,874 11,674 1,385 488 3,142 29,290 4,758 15,522 3,537 18,498 373,867

2,777 5,049 1,500 776 352 1,537 2,700 6,072 1,533 19,411 3,144 2,182 1,510 618 22 2,264 2,578 3,189 382 1,021 5,497 1,240 6,610 1,881 1,500 1,142 994 6,031 3,513 4,407 6,060 8,689 106,181

0 135 391 1,534 38 28 8,848 3,495 26 14,659 843 377 1,237 0 0 1,217 5,577 3,064 0 13 32 4,482 4,021 1,135 1,294 449 1,312 850 2,482 1,362 395 948 60,244

3,263 1,751 42,963 846 1,155 849 895 15,727 454 9,538 2,888 1,485 2,971 72 97 9,304 2,557 3,862 1,216 3,105 6,526 6,371 9,828 1,621 2,515 1,130 630 1,717 6,687 831 373 765 143,992

7,339 40,884 50,070 14,889 1,618 2,709 21,026 45,706 11,380 77,622 19,615 11,286 15,848 699 495 16,612 13,092 51,038 1,744 5,711 14,900 36,661 74,333 16,311 6,694 3,209 6,078 37,888 17,440 22,122 10,365 28,900 684,284

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Table 1B: Round 8.1 Household Forecast by Policy Area

HOUSEHOLD FORECAST (2010 to 2040)
Montgomery County, Maryland
by Policy Area and type
2010 AREA single-family multifamily total 2030 single-family multifamily total

Aspen Hill Bethesda CBD Bethesda/Chevy Chase Clarksburg Cloverly Damascus Derwood Fairland/White Oak Friendship Heights Gaithersburg City Germantown East Germantown Town Center Germantown West Glenmont Grosvenor Kensington/Wheaton Montgomery Village/Airpark North Bethesda North Potomac Olney Potomac R&D Village Rockville City Rockville Town Center Rural East Rural West Shady Grove Metro Station Silver Spring CBD Silver Spring/Takoma Park Twinbrook Wheaton CBD White Flint TOTAL

14,576 716 24,440 4,100 5,312 3,479 4,891 17,912 2 11,092 5,780 337 14,473 616 458 28,371 14,548 8,035 8,816 10,513 15,811 827 13,426 539 10,954 7,060 61 57 14,490 864 1,092 31 243,679

10,123 6,480 4,073 91 0 313 676 10,092 3,910 11,702 2,396 730 6,663 551 3,648 4,687 3,972 6,040 80 942 1,575 2,789 8,074 2,296 172 0 138 6,879 14,319 64 1,519 2,339 117,333

24,699 7,196 28,513 4,191 5,312 3,792 5,567 28,004 3,912 22,794 8,176 1,067 21,136 1,167 4,106 33,058 18,520 14,075 8,896 11,455 17,386 3,616 21,500 2,835 11,126 7,060 199 6,936 28,809 928 2,611 2,370 361,012

14,769 730 24,669 9,934 5,421 3,803 4,983 18,724 102 12,560 5,738 339 15,052 827 570 29,460 14,710 8,094 9,201 11,273 16,034 833 13,463 539 11,920 7,744 453 67 14,569 864 1,144 31 258,620

10,169 11,495 4,193 2,609 0 1,133 676 10,092 4,310 18,578 4,291 2,940 10,747 1,251 4,090 4,687 3,972 6,888 1,080 1,812 1,970 6,089 9,777 3,677 172 0 3,505 12,382 15,721 5,044 4,635 9,581 177,566

24,938 12,225 28,862 12,543 5,421 4,936 5,659 28,816 4,412 31,138 10,029 3,279 25,799 2,078 4,660 34,147 18,682 14,982 10,281 13,085 18,004 6,922 23,240 4,216 12,092 7,744 3,958 12,449 30,290 5,908 5,779 9,612 436,186

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Table 2A: Ten-Year Historical Growth Rates (places with highest 10-year historical growth rates [gfa])
GFA, 2001- GFA, 2006% change 2005 2010 Gaithersburg and Vicinity 2,935,369 416,341 -85.8% Rockville 2,546,027 1,200,684 -52.8% Bethesda 1,980,221 896,679 -54.7% Germantown 1,537,819 219,438 -85.7% Silver Spring 1,350,174 236,350 -82.5% Agriculture East 2 818,284 121,382 -85.2% North Bethesda 811,097 230,720 -71.6% North Potomac 758,316 50,847 -93.3% Clarksburg 282,573 38,655 -86.3% Fairland 280,666 229,583 -18.2% Total 13,300,546 3,640,679 -72.6% Planning Place

Countywide GFA

Table 2: Ten Year Historical Growth Rates (places with highest 10-year historical growth rates [units])
Units, 2001- Units, 2006% change 2005 2010 Rockville 3,673 624 -83.0% Germantown 2,583 54 -97.9% Gaithersburg and Vicinity 2,113 809 -61.7% Clarksburg 1,996 1,757 -12.0% Fairland 1,333 189 -85.8% Bethesda 1,103 742 -32.7% Agriculture East 1 614 128 -79.2% Silver Spring 473 1,116 135.9% Aspen Hill 471 276 -41.4% Damascus 369 93 -74.8% Total 14,728 5,788 -60.7% Planning Place

Countywide Units

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Planning Place Agriculture East 1 Agriculture East 2 Agriculture West 1 Agriculture West 2 Ashton-Sandy Spring Aspen Hill Barnesville Bethesda Brookeville Burtonsville Chevy Chase View Clarksburg Cloverly Colesville Damascus Darnestown Derwood Fairland Forest Glen Four Corners Gaithersburg and Vicinity Garrett Park Germantown Glenmont Hillandale Kemp Mill Kensington Layhill Laytonsville Montgomery Village North Bethesda North Potomac Olney Poolesville Potomac Redland Rockville Silver Spring South Kensington Spencerville Takoma Park Travilah Washington Grove Wheaton White Oak County

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Table 2C: Countywide Ten-Year Historical Growth Rates

GFA, 2001-2005 Growth Rate, 01-05 GFA, 2006-2010 Growth Rate, 06-10 Units, 2001-2005 Growth Rate, 01-05 Units, 2006-2010 Growth Rate, 06-10 35,520 20.5% 0.0% 614 11.8% 128 2.2% 818,284 12.1% 121,382 1.6% 202 3.3% 57 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 101 6.0% 75 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 16,000 4.8% 0.0% 281 19.4% 81 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 471 2.1% 276 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.7% 1,980,221 14.4% 896,679 5.7% 1,103 3.0% 742 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 9.3% 2 4.3% 9,600 0.8% 0.0% 206 7.8% 21 0.7% 6,114 7 2.4% 18 5.9% 282,573 32.4% 38,655 3.3% 1,996 209.2% 1,757 59.6% 49,400 34.2% 2,856 1.5% 171 3.6% 48 1.0% 14,000 6.6% 3,285 1.4% 129 2.6% 42 0.8% 0.0% 3,078 0.6% 369 8.0% 93 1.9% 0.0% 23,113 21.9% 144 6.9% 53 2.4% 0.0% 4,100 0.4% 0.0% 1 0.1% 280,666 6.5% 229,583 5.0% 1,333 12.7% 189 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 120 4.5% 5 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 8 0.3% 1 0.0% 2,935,369 15.6% 416,341 1.9% 2,113 9.2% 809 3.2% 7 2.0% 9 2.5% 1,537,819 29.9% 219,438 3.3% 2,583 10.2% 54 0.2% 60,000 39.3% 0.0% 47 1.0% 31 0.6% 0.0% 55,116 12.5% 5 0.3% 4 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 14 0.3% 6 0.1% 4,527 0.4% 75,000 5.9% 7 0.9% 6 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 49 2.7% 31 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3 2.6% 10 8.5% 72,598 6.5% 12,900 1.1% 7 0.1% 0.0% 811,097 4.3% 230,720 1.2% 171 0.9% 1,190 6.4% 758,316 413.7% 50,847 5.4% 336 4.3% 51 0.6% 36,996 4.0% 0.0% 303 2.7% 104 0.9% 18,280 10.3% 0.0% 5 0.3% 21 1.3% 0.0% 238,849 8.3% 309 2.0% 657 4.1% 49,900 5.6% 0.0% 105 1.9% 1 0.0% 2,546,027 14.9% 1,200,684 6.1% 3,673 18.6% 624 2.7% 1,350,174 10.0% 236,350 1.6% 473 1.7% 1,116 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 91 2.9% 49 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 46 9.3% 3 0.6% 0.0% 146,620 14.7% 27 0.4% 113 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 235 6.8% 188 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 10 4.4% 1 0.4% 66,305 1.9% 65,635 1.9% 248 1.4% 343 1.9% 139,950 10.8% 0.0% 316 4.8% 109 1.6% 13,873,622 11.7% 4,277,345 3.2% 18,442 5.5% 9,120 2.6%

Table 3A: Historical Pipeline of Development The Montgomery Planning Department tracks the residential and non-residential development Pipeline for Montgomery County (Rockville and Gaithersburg included). The Pipeline is a quarterly inventory of development projects that have been approved by the Planning Board but not completely built. This inventory covers unbuilt dwellings units and unbuilt nonresidential building gross square footage.

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Table 3B: Current Pipeline of Development

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Sources Phillip Berke, David R. Godschalk, Edward Kaiser, Daniel Rodriguez. (2006). Urban Land Use Planning. University of Illinois Press. Chicago. J. Garreau. (1991). Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Doubleday, New York, New York. Bernadette Hanlon, Thomas Vicino.(2007). The Fate of Inner Suburbs: Evidence from Metropolitan Baltimore. Urban Geography, Vol. 28, No.3, pp 249-275. James Howard Kunstler. (1993). The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Manmade Landscape. Simon & Schuster. New York. Sugie Lee, Nancy Green Leigh.(2005). The Role of Inner Ring Suburbs in Metropolitan Smart Growth Strategies . Journal of Planning Literature , Vol 19, No. 3. John R. Logan, Harvey Molotch. (1987). Urban Fortunes, the Political Economy of Place. University of California Press. Berkeley. Montgomery County Pennsylvania Planning Commission. Shaping Future Development: The Role of Current Zoning. November 1996.
2

John Rennie Short, Bernadette Hanlon, Thomas Vicino. (2007). The Decline of Inner Suburbs: The New Suburban Gothic in the United States. Geography Compass Vol1 , No 3, pp 641-656.
1

David Rusk. (1993). Cities Without Suburbs. Woodrow Wilson Center Press,Washington, DC.

2012 Subdivision Staging Policy Appendix

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful