|
terns, which include obesity and ove~,veight,
<br />cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
<br />
<br />PLANNING AND ZONING BARRIERS
<br />TO ACTIVE COMMUNITIES
<br />Numerous aspects of current ptannin§ prac-
<br />tice run counter to the goal of creating active
<br />communities. Here is a sampling that ranges
<br />from the ,leg/broad to the very specific:
<br />· Conventional development patterns of
<br /> urban sprawl--wherein housing, employ-
<br /> ment, schools, and shopping are at great
<br /> distances from one another--have all but
<br /> prectuded any mode of transportation
<br /> other than driving for the ,last maiority of
<br /> Americans.
<br />· Low-density development is not conducive
<br /> to walkin§ or bic,tc[ing and thus [s not
<br /> favorable to incorporating activity into daily
<br /> routines.
<br />· Smart growth ga[is for more mixed-use
<br /> developments and districts, but often
<br /> in§ regulations to promote mixed use end
<br /> up being more complex to administer than
<br /> conventional single-use subdivisions, strip
<br /> shopping centers, or big box retail.
<br /> Complex regulations often deter developers
<br /> from exploring unconventional develop-
<br /> ment types.
<br />
<br />· Traffic safely has trumped pedestrian
<br /> safety in many communities in the last half-
<br /> cen[ury, wiiich has made a preponderance
<br /> o~: streets ,]nd street environments in
<br /> American cities and towns unsafe and has-
<br /> file [award anything except the au[omobile.
<br />
<br />] A lack DJ: street ,:onnectJvity is another
<br /> problem, isolated, sin§{e-use subdivisions
<br /> ~.hat howe no direct street or pedestrian
<br /> ,:onl]e,:tlOnS to surroondin§ :~hopping
<br />
<br />areas, schools, or other destinations make
<br />it very difficutt for people ~o choose to walk
<br />even when they are motivated to do so.
<br />And finally, there are small actions that
<br />have large consequences. For example,
<br />municipalities may waive the developers'
<br />requirement to install sidewalks or, in some
<br />cases, not require sidewalks at all.
<br />Oevelopers may argue that sidewalks add
<br />costs to development, and some neighbors
<br />may prefer the rural feet of a neighborhood
<br />without sidewalks, but such neighborhoods
<br />send a direct message: No one walks here.
<br />The health consequences of what may seem
<br />like a faidy inconsequential requirement
<br />need to be recognized.
<br />
<br />CURRENT PLANNING PRACTICE
<br />
<br />Even with active communities as a potential
<br />positive by-product of smart growth implemen-
<br />ta£ion, very few comprehensive and functional
<br />(e.g., transportation, land use, trails) p[ans
<br />that have met smart §rowth objectives even
<br />mention health or p.hysical activity as a basis
<br />for the need to curb sprawl and improve devel-
<br />opment patterns. By overlooking health and
<br />activity as a key impetus for good planning.or
<br />smart growth, planners are missing an oppor-
<br />tunity to leverage support from new health
<br />partners and the public for what the planning
<br />profession has been activety trying to accom-
<br />plish in other areas, like reducing traffic con-
<br />gestion and minimizing sprawl.
<br />
<br /> What can planners do to change the
<br />direction of their community to encourage
<br />phvsicai activity? APA's Research Department
<br />is currently woddn§ with the Robert Wood
<br />Johnson Foundation on a project titled,
<br />"Planning, and Designing the Physically Active
<br />
<br />Community." This proiect will culminate in a
<br />PAS Report to be published later in zoo4.
<br />Resources from this proiec{ are available on
<br />the APA website.
<br /> The proiect centers on what we've
<br />termed the "five strategic points of interven-
<br />tion'' where planners can effect change.'
<br />
<br /> Visioning ~nd goa~.setting. From the out-
<br />set, the planning process should address the
<br />relationship between planning and health and
<br />inctude goals for improving health and physi-
<br />cal activity through improved land-use plan-
<br />ning and community design.
<br /> Plans and planning. Creatin§ opportu-
<br />nities for citizens to be physically.active
<br />needs to be an explicit, not simply implied,
<br />goal [n comprehensive plans, as wetl as
<br />many of the functional plans and plan ele-
<br />ments that most jurisdictions prepare,
<br />including those for transportation, bicycling
<br />and trails, circulation, housing, and parks
<br />and recreation.
<br />
<br /> Implementation tools. There are numer-
<br />ous chon§es that can be made to zonin~ and
<br />subdivision regulations to create neighbor-
<br />hoods where residents have more opportunity
<br />to be active. One is to revise ordinances to
<br />permit New Uri~anist or traditional neighbor-
<br />hood developments, either as an overlay, as a
<br />requirement in certain districts, or community-
<br />wide. Other tools include:
<br />~ increasing development densities;
<br />
<br />:J requiring sidewalks and trails in new devel-
<br /> opments;
<br />
<br />] retrofittin§ already developed areas with
<br />
<br /> sidewalks, trails, and bike paths;
<br />
<br />'~ instituting traffic calming measures;
<br />
<br />] !inkin§ open spaces; and
<br />
<br />:a requiring street connectivity.
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTICT- 06.0~
<br />A, MERI~AN PL,~NAIII'JG ASSOCIAtiON
<br />
<br />
<br />
|