Development Patterns Comparison (CSD -vs- TND)

Item Conventional Suburban Development (CSD) Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
Example CSD TND
Compact, Walkable Neighborhoods
  • Isolated “pods”, which are dedicated to single uses
  • Sprawl and “leapfrog” developments, limited by range of automobile
  •  Compact development
  • Most daily life needs are within a five (5) minute walking distance from center
Transportation Choices
  •  Uses are inaccessible from each other, except by car
  • Reduces automobile dependency
  • Design is equitable for pedestrians, bikes, mass transit AND automobiles
Interconnected Streets
  • High Proportion of cul-de-sacs and looping streets within each pod (curvilinear)
  • Few automobile route options designed around a hierarchy of smaller roads funneling traffic into larger roads
  • Produces bottlenecks due to a lack of route connectivity between destination points
  • Streets are wide and dedicated primarily to the automobile
  • Grid network with small block patterns (rectilinear)
  • Provides multiple routes to and through and to any given point
  • Increases travel path options
  • Accommodates blocking of one of the routes due to accident
  • Streets are narrower, giving important consideration to the pedestrian while accommodating the automobile
Pedestrian-Friendly Streets
  • Buildings are rotated on their lots and greatly setback from the street making it difficult to create a sense of place
  • Parking lots dominate public spaces
  • Promotes walkability and human-scale design
  • Traffic calming devices to reduce vehicular speed
  • Planting buffers provide shelter and shade
  • Minimizes number of driveway crossings
  • Streets are spatially defined by a wall of buildings that front the sidewalk and are uninterrupted by parking lots
Housing Diversity
  • Housing is strictly segregated
  • Housing is predominantly single family detached
  • Low density
  • Housing is better integrated
  • Multiple housing types and products (size, price & type)
  • Residents may move through the housing preferences life cycle without leaving the community
  • Greater density
Mixed-Use
  • Regulates use and assumes that all uses are incompatible, thus separating them
  • Civic buildings are designed as an afterthought
  • Open space is provided by buffers or berms and act as residual spaces
  • Eclectic mix of uses within a short distance from each other
  • Focuses on regulating form, design and proximity of uses
  • Buildings are diverse in function, but compatible in size and disposition
  • Civic buildings are treated as landmarks and are placed on squares or the termination of street vistas
  • Open space is provided by squares, playgrounds, parks and greenbelts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s