New Urbanism and Smart Growth: Toward achieving a smart National Taipei University District

Abstract New Urbanism and Smart Growth are relatively new approaches to urban design that deals with environmental problems, housing issues, and community well-being. The implementation feasibility and significance of the planning ideas however can vary from place to place. Based on the planning principles of New Urbanism and Smart Growth, this study rigorously and realistically identifies key principles and investigates their relative importance for the planning and designing of the National Taipei University District (Taiwan). An extraction model first elicits knowledge from experts for the purpose of locating key principles. Next, key principles are fed into a simulation model to identify which of the principles should take precedence. This permitted an explicit consideration of local characteristics and background issues in the planning process. Results show that walkability is perceived by experts as the most important principle. While providing for various transportation options is found to be important to the development of the study area, green transportation is clearly not included. These findings suggest that the concept of sustainability is still very abstract and has not become an important planning criterion. Also, stakeholder engagement may be vital to community development planning such as the City of Irvine in the United States, but it is less important in Asian city-region. The results also show a less important role open space preservation has in creating better communities in a small island with a high population density like Taiwan. Thus, although New Urbanism and Smart Growth principles have important impacts on urban design, local circumstances must be taken into account instead of merely following the principles.

[1]  A. Ishikawa,et al.  The Max-Min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration , 1993 .

[2]  R Ramanathan,et al.  A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[4]  C. Hwang,et al.  Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: Methods and Applications , 1986 .

[5]  Mohammed Abdullah Eben Saleh,et al.  Learning from tradition: the planning of residential neighborhoods in a changing world , 2004 .

[6]  A. Downs Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More than We Do It , 2005 .

[7]  T. Saaty Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process , 1986 .

[8]  Ying-Ming Wang,et al.  On the normalization of interval and fuzzy weights , 2006, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[9]  Lai Choo Malone-Lee,et al.  Integrating land use and transport planning to reduce work-related travel: , 2001 .

[10]  E. Talen Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism , 1999 .

[11]  S. Moore ‘More Toronto, naturally’ but ‘too strange for Orangeville’: De-universalizing New Urbanism in Greater Toronto , 2010 .

[12]  Ann Forsyth Reforming Suburbia: The Planned Communities of Irvine, Columbia, and The Woodlands , 2005 .

[13]  Charles C. Bohl New urbanism and the city: Potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods , 2000 .

[14]  Ying-Feng Kuo,et al.  Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mobility of the service industries using Fuzzy Delphi Method , 2008, Expert Syst. Appl..

[15]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning , 1975 .

[16]  I. Young Justice and the Politics of Difference , 1990, The New Social Theory Reader.

[17]  R. Shibley The Complete New Urbanism and the Partial Practices of Placemaking , 1998 .

[18]  K. Day New Urbanism and the Challenges of Designing for Diversity , 2003 .

[19]  Chin-Tsai Lin,et al.  An application of AHP and sensitivity analysis for selecting the best slicing machine , 2007, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[20]  Alyson L Geller Smart growth: a prescription for livable cities. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[21]  Taho Yang,et al.  Systematic layout planning: a study on semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities , 2000 .

[22]  E. Talen,et al.  New Urbanism and Smart Growth: A Few Words from the Academy , 2005 .

[23]  Wann-Ming Wey,et al.  Establishing Disaster Resilience Indicators for Tan-sui River Basin in Taiwan , 2014 .

[24]  Mary Margaret Edwards,et al.  Evaluating Smart Growth , 2007 .

[25]  Michael J. Hill,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in spatial decision support: the ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and the role of quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[26]  Michael Walzer,et al.  The pleasures and costs of urbanity , 1986 .

[27]  Heung Suk Hwang Web-based multi-attribute analysis model for engineering project evaluation , 2004, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[28]  J. Murry,et al.  Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research , 2017 .

[29]  Randall G. Arendt,et al.  Charter of the New Urbanism , 1999 .

[30]  Mustafa Yurdakul,et al.  AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection , 2004 .

[31]  Tim Chapin,et al.  From Growth Controls, to Comprehensive Planning, to Smart Growth: Planning's Emerging Fourth Wave , 2012 .

[32]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences , 1959 .

[33]  Linxin Ye,et al.  What Is “Smart Growth?”—Really? , 2005 .

[34]  J. Puddifoot,et al.  Dimensions of community identity , 1995 .

[35]  John S. Miller,et al.  The “smart growth” debate: best practices for urban transportation planning , 2002 .

[36]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World , 1982 .

[37]  Michael Pyatok Comment on Charles C. Bohl's “New urbanism and the city: potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods"—the politics of design: The new urbanists vs. the grass roots , 2000 .