[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GBlist: % auto use

I got your question from a friend and posted it on the Oregon Planner's
network - responses below:

>QUESTION:
>Anyone know the relative amount of space devoted to the auto in a
>'conventional' new suburban development (roads, parking etc), compared
>with
>less traditional (eg Davis' Village Homes), and existing urban
>environment?
>

>Return-Path: cobrien@darkwing.uoregon.edu
>X-Sender: cobrien@darkwing.uoregon.edu
>Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 07:40:54 -0700
>To: denkim@teleport.com
>From: "Clare D. O'Brien" <cobrien@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
>Subject: Re: Greenbuilding Question
>
>Great question.  I asked two of my Landscape Architecture professors at the
>UofO and here's what they said:
>
>>Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1904 22:14:16 -0800
>>From: "Stan Jones" <sij@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
>>To: "Clare D. O'Brien" <cobrien@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Greenbuilding Question
>>
>>Conventional development is somewhere around 25% (maybe more), I believe...
>>if you count road right of ways, parking lots, driveways, etc.....  As
>>density drops, so does the overall percentage, usually.. 
>>
>>Stan Jones
>>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 15:46:55 -0800
>From: "Cynthia Girling" <cynthiag@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
>To: "Clare D. O'Brien" <cobrien@darkwing.uoregon.edu>,
>        kellett@darkwing.uoregon.edu
>Subject: Re: Greenbuilding Question
>
>In a masters in LA project completed last term, Carolyn Burke redesigned a
>conventional subdivision in the Portland hills to reduce total impermeable
>surface, among other things.  The existing subdivision has about 20% of the
>total site area in roads and sidewalks, whereas Carolyn's re-design came
>out at 12%. I have the project in my office.
>
>Cynthia Girling
>Department of Landscape Architecture
>University of Oregon
>Eugene, OR  97403-1206
>541 346 3641 ph    541 346 3626 fx
>cynthiag@darkwing.uoregon.edu
>
>	
>				--Clare


>Return-Path: aturiel@ci.beaverton.or.us
>From: Alwin Turiel <aturiel@ci.beaverton.or.us>
>To: "'Dennis Egner/Kim Lakin'" <denkim@teleport.com>
>Subject: RE: Greenbuilding
>Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:28:04 -0700
>
>ANSWER:
>
>Traditional "rule of thumb" for suburban residential development is
>18-22% gross land area devoted to auto related uses (road ROW, parking,
>etc.)  Net usable area is further decreased by wetland, stormwater
>detention/retention facilities, open space, etc.  Generally, planner
>rule of thumb is 22-27% of the gross area will be allocated to these
>types of supporting functions in standard SF subdivisions.  MF often
>actually has a higher open space ratio than SF overall due to density
>and cluster designs. These percentages vary from region to region based
>on local codes and environmental conditions.
>
>Interestingly, redevelopment seldom loses less than about 18% of the
>gross area, while neo-traditional (at least in FL and CA where I've been
>involved in it) will work out to be roughly commensurate with the low
>end of standard SF development (20-22% loss).  If I remember right, I
>even saw an article some time back in Planning magazine (I think that's
>where I read it, or maybe it was a homebuilder's publication...) that
>talked about how much "savings" actually occurred on sites in CA where
>"skinny streets" were included in the plan.
>
>Hope this is helpful anecdotal  info. I'd be interested in other
>people's experiences with this subject. CHEERS!
>
______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by CREST <www.crest.org>
Environmental Building News <www.ebuild.com> and Oikos <www.oikos.com>
For  instructions send  e-mail to  greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
______________________________________________________________________