Compact Growth: A Model for Future Urban Development
Promoting sustainable practices in future urban planning that eliminates sprawl and promotes
compact cities
A research proposal submitted to the Urban Studies and Planning Program
Senior Sequence Class of 2011
February 22, 2011
Andrew Ko
University of California @ San Diego
Urban Studies and Planning Program
USP 187
acko@ucsd.edu
Abstract
This research outlines the inefficiency of sprawling communities and provides a more
sustainable approach to urban planning: compact growth. Current research suggests that urban
sprawl has been inefficient, unprofitable, and unstable. This study spatially examines two
different community developments – Downtown Glendale (compact growth) and Westlake
Village (urban sprawl). This research addresses three questions: (1) are services accessible to
nearby residents at a walkable distance, (2) are urban spaces used efficiently and effectively, and
(3) how sustainable are the communities in terms of social health. Through comprehensive
research methods using archival records and observations, I concluded the successful benefits of
compact growth in terms of walkability, mixed-use spaces and social integrity compared to urban
sprawl. This research will be shared with future urban planners in the hope that the findings will
help create a new sustainable future in an urban setting that adheres to the concept of “live, work
and play.”
Key terms: Compact Growth, Sprawl, Sustainability, Walkability, Social
Ko 1
Introduction
With the ongoing problematic population increase, land use practices that include living,
retail and office spaces become crucial in urban design master planning. Growth from the inner
urban core into the outer layers of suburbs and sprawl development is a natural option for most
overcrowding cities. As a result, discovering a cohesive master plan that accommodates future
growth through sustainable practices is becoming a common practice in urban design
convention. Some of the sustainable disciplines include smart growth, new urbanism and other
pedestrian-friendly, self-sustaining city building theories. The idea of smart growth began in
response to urban sprawl, traffic congestion, community isolation and urban decay. According
to Fulton and Shigley (2005), smart growth policy has been noted as some of the “best practices”
list for planners and developers (296). Compact growth has become another alternative approach
to relieve the problems of sprawl as well. By incorporating mixed-use development in a dense
urban setting and/or revitalizing downtown, compact growth adheres to the community’s need
for social services, ensures good design and access, and increases vitality of existing centers.
Sprawl is a “low density, scattered, urban development without systematic large-scale or
regional public land-use planning” (Bruegmann 2005, 18). Los Angeles is a perfect example. It
is one of the nation’s most populous cities that is considered to be a conglomeration of suburbs.
Just as many industrialized cities are plagued with sprawl, Los Angeles is no exception. Sprawl
has become an inefficient method of community development and a problematic factor to the
environment in which communities are situated. Based on Barnett’s research (2008), “land is
being developed twice as fast as population growth… [and] the chief problem is low-density
sprawl” (142). The exponential increase in population will unquestionably increase the value of
land and increase the rate of water and energy consumption which disturbs the social and
Ko 2
environmental surroundings. This study analyzes the current conditions of Los Angeles and
seeks to provide a better measure of creating a healthier, greener Los Angeles through
sustainable policies such as smart growth that adhere to infill development and pedestrian
friendly communities. Reducing sprawl development and congestion (especially by car overuse)
is a resolute solution to many of the environmental health hazards. Unlike suburbs, cities are
more reasonable locations for productive and efficient growth.
The main problem in previous traditions of city planning is the tendency to grow
outward, away from the urban core, rather than upward in a compact mixed-use sustainable
development. The suburban way of life was a new concept and an effective measure to the
problems of the urban environment. It provided an escape from the crowded and unsanitary
foundation of the compact inner city. However, suburbs were not always a solution to the
deteriorating living standards of the urban core. It was a region where work was remote, thus it
was a region where the poor resided. But with the technological advances in transportation and
sanitation methods, the suburban sprawl became the “middle-class” dwellings (Mumford 1961,
493). As a result, most suburban residential neighborhoods were segregated communities that
lacked the diverse city environment. The idea of “interdependence” became a hard ideal to
implement; individuality and autonomy became a common trend among residents living in
suburbs (Mumford 1961, 494). This essentially raises two issues of suburbia life: (1) residents
favor suburban sprawl development and (2) residents want to avoid congestion. As mentioned
earlier, sprawl development is an inefficient form of development due to the lack of immediate
social services and the extensive use of automobiles to commute to work which pollutes the
environment and the health of individuals. Congestion is a mundane consequence of urban cities
which gives reasons for residents to move out into suburbs; however, if sustainable policies such
Ko 3
as infill development that maximizes the use of space in a strategic manner were implemented, it
would create a more favorable living space.
Another primary concern in this study is assessing and investigating the social and
environmental conditions of sprawl development compared to sustainable cities. Providing new
sustainable practices is a common problem due to individual behavioral patterns and the social
environment, which are two main factors that need to be adjusted before any development can be
executed. Suburban sprawl is often associated with an individual’s behavior to live away from
congestion and urban decay from the inner cities. NIMBYism is also a general response to smart
growth. Most Americans have never known the lifestyle that does not revolve around
automobiles (Tregoning, et al. 2002, 344). Furthermore, the social environment determines the
city function. For example, if there are wider streets in public roads, it creates incentives for
people to use cars that generate pollution which has detrimental effects on the environment and
individuals. In order for Los Angeles to become a sustainable eco-friendly city, it needs to
implement policies that will persuade residents in a given community to change their behaviors
and find an accord to improve the social environment.
Literature Review
Sustainability is a fairly new term that emerged after a series of urban development
problems, mainly sprawl. Sprawl has been proven to be ineffective and detrimental in
community development as it allows for no future growth with wasteful use of valuable space
going against the ideal concept of a “compact city.” Some examples of urban decline in sprawl
development can be seen in two European cities: Liverpool in England and Leipzig in Germany.
In the cases of Liverpool and Leipzig, sprawling communities created change in the urban
structure especially in the inner city where there was decline in commercial and retail space and
Ko 4
more residential units (Couch, et al. 2005, 131). In addition, the older inner residential/mixeduse areas continued to deteriorate where they became vulnerable to new development usually at
lower densities targeted for more residential and leisure space (131). It is clear that sprawl
weakens the social and economical ties between the inner city and the suburbs since much of the
revenue is placed into suburbs rather than being concentrated into the urban core. As a result of
residents moving out into suburbs, the total density of the inner core declines and more time and
investment is directed into the numerous sprawl developments, such as creating new plazas
specifically for a particular suburb. This destroys the function of a regional government, which
in essence destroys the economy of the state. A sustainable city needs to have a central
governing body that can accommodate for all its residents at an optimal level.
Korea also experience tremendous practices of sprawl development throughout the
country. Cho (2005) describes sprawl as “the disorderly and less regulated expansion of
housing, and industrial and commercial developments in and beyond the periphery of the
metropolitan area” (203). People who live around the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) in
suburbs tend to have raised land prices and bear social costs. People living in the satellite
communities have to drive longer distances and experience congestion, reducing their quality of
life and the environment (Cho 216). Sprawl also kills agricultural land and natural environment
(Cho 216). It’s evident that sprawl deteriorates the quality of life of an individual and
environment. With longer hours to commute from home to work and work to home, it creates
more traffic congestion which is harmful to the individual and the air quality and natural
environment.
Sustainable development implies ecological sustainability and social sustainability;
sprawl fails to incorporate these two models. According to Ewing (1997), the Los Angeles-style
Ko 5
sprawl is ineffectively sustainable. There are many costs from sprawl that include psychic and
social costs (113-118). Members living in suburbs tend to have characteristics of autonomy that
tend to become a problem when it comes to community organization. The sense of “autonomy”
becomes problematic. Neighborhood social ties suffer due to the separating land use and the
isolation from street activity due to the automobile hegemony. According to a research
performed by Freeman (2001), sprawling neighborhoods force residents to use cars and inhibit
face-to-face contact which undermine social ties among neighbors (76). In modern metropolises,
communities have organized interventions and interests that collectively engage members of a
community, especially through cultural identity. Most urban environments have a healthy mix of
various ethnic groups that promote cultural ties and understanding of one another. Most suburbs
defeat the purpose of a community and lose a sense of belonging and having responsibility for
one another (Ewing 117). This is primarily due to the homogeneity within the neighborhood and
their preferences of privacy.
Moreover, sprawling communities promote sedentary lifestyles which have become a
public health concern in urban planning. “A newly recognized ‘epidemic’ of obesity [has been]
linked to the built environment” (Sloane 2006, 14). The issue stems from the extensive use of
automobiles due to the isolated locations of suburbs. The anti-sprawl proponents argue that
automobiles have “produced settlements that discourage physical activity and diminish social
capital, resulting in adverse health consequence” (Sloane 2006, 14). Many residents living in
suburbs seldom have walkable access to nearby social services, thus the use of automobiles
become prominent affecting the physical health of the individual and the air quality from the
vehicle miles traveled. To make matters worse, offices located in suburbs are often oversupplied
with free parking (Willson 1995, 40). This creates incentives for residents to individually drive
Ko 6
their cars to work which adds to the overall unhealthy air quality in sprawling communities. A
simple parking charge can reduce solo driving and encourage public transportation.
Much research suggests that compact development leads to decrease use of automobiles
which produce fewer emissions and lowers air pollution; however, many pro-sprawl advocates
claim that compact growth increases density and infill which means a larger portion of the
population is exposed to the dose of pollutants by walking and becoming involved in the street
life (Schweitzer and Zhou 2010, 365). This may be true; however, the primary contributors to
the air pollution are commuting automobiles from lower-dense regions such as the suburbs to
higher-dense areas such as the downtown districts. If all urban planning embodied a walkable
community with minimal emphasis on car-use, high-density areas will profit with better air
quality and social activity in the urban core.
Although there are many factors that prove the inefficiency of sprawl, there are a few
growth models that used sprawl development to attempt to solve the problems of congestion
through a sustainable manner. Ebenezer Howard was a prominent figure in the early 1900s who
was the father of the Garden City Movement. In his book, Howard’s definition of a Garden City
included a population of no more than 32,000 people on a span of 6,000 acres developed on a
central grid plan with open spaces, public parks and six wide radial boulevards (Howard 1965).
Once a Garden City reached its peak, another Garden City would be extended from the central
urban core, forming satellites around the central business district with modes of transportation
(i.e. railroads) connecting the cities (Howard 1965). It was designed to be self-sustaining with
residential, commercial and industrial areas using zoning as the main tool. Although the Garden
City growth model was master planned that allowed coordination of infrastructure and a good
many economies of scales, it was weak and vulnerable to business downturns and market
Ko 7
changes due to the lack of future development considerations (Bruegmann 2005, 188). It also
emphasized on low-density development, which was an immediate solution to the congested
urban cities at the time; however, with the current trends of population increase, low-density
development will only mean inefficient sprawl that consumes valuable resources. Although
sprawling suburbs was a traditional solution to the congestion problem in the past, maximizing
land use through compact growth should now be a vital element in any city/community planning
in order to accommodate for the future growth.
So is sprawl desirable? In most cases, the answer is no. Sustainable practices proved to
be a social and environmental strategy to tackle the problems of sprawl. Smart growth entails
ecological and social benefits that include: more efficient land use, reduced car use and
commuting distances, more mixed land use, reduced consumption of water and energy, greater
efficiencies in infrastructural systems, improved quality of life and greater housing types and
housing affordability (Alexander and Tomalty 2002, 298). Although these benefits seem to be
favorable and positive, there are underlying issues why smart growth is difficult to implement.
Based on Downs’ analysis (2005), planners discuss more than implement smart growth policies
due to few reasons: increasing residential density, raising housing prices, failing to reduce traffic
congestion, etc… (371-373). In addition, “behavioral research needs to identify factors that
motivate people to choose less-polluting travel behaviors, such as walking, carpooling, or use of
more efficient vehicles” (Frumkin 2002, 117). Getting Americans out of their cars has become a
goal not only for transportation and environmental planning, but also for public policy
(Schweitzer and Zhou 2010, 363). In the end, it is the individual who has some role in
determining how the city looks and functions (Bruegmann 2005, 224). However, in the long run,
Ko 8
sustainable development such as smart growth and compact growth is a theoretical model for the
improvement in the overall quality of life in community development.
Research Strategy
This study was performed through two main methods: archival research and observations.
I performed a comparative analysis on two demographically comparable communities:
Downtown Glendale, an example of a sustainable compact city, and Westlake Village, an
example of a sprawling suburb. The questions I examined were: (1) are services accessible to
nearby residents at a walkable distance, (2) are urban spaces used efficiently and effectively, and
(3) how sustainable are the communities in terms of social health.
Archival research on the successes based on case studies provided a solid foundation for
my questions regarding sustainable cities that reflect urban environment. The first step included
a collection of census data that compared the socioeconomic status within the two regions. To
determine whether a neighborhood had characteristics of a sprawling community, it was
important to evaluate the demographics of the two communities. If the community was
dominant in a particular ethnic group or if the majority of the residents were upper middle class,
it is most likely that the neighborhood is a sprawl development. Having dominance in one
particular ethnicity in a given community suggests there is segregation which is a common
characteristic of sprawling suburbs.
The next step involved the current comprehensive master plan that reflected on their
particular growth. The three aspects I was looking for were the opportunities of the areas, the
land use patterns, and the distance between residents and social services such as schools and
markets. First, I looked for opportunities within the site by examining the relationship between
the buildings and the open spaces to see if there would be any viable social activity within the
Ko 9
region by locating recreational areas, restaurants and shopping districts near the urban open
spaces. Next, I looked at land use patterns to help trace where the retail/commercial and office
buildings were located. Finally, I measured the distance between residential units and
commercial/office units to calculate the total distance it would ideally take to walk and drive by
using the graphic bar scale presented on the district/zoning plan maps (See Figure 1 and Figure
2). Looking into the master plans of each community gave a representational idea of their
growth pattern that included their successes and failures. For example, Americana at Brand is a
successful example of a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood that utilizes mixed-use development to
encourage people to use the urban space as a place to shop, dine, socialize and relax. Westlake
Village, on the other hand, is an example of a community that lacks walkable access to necessary
services for residents living in suburbs.
Another useful research tool in this study was using primary source. Basic observation
on existing communities provided useful insights on the successes of sustainable developments.
I studied and analyzed the mixed-use district in Downtown Glendale, particularly at the
Americana at Brand. Americana at Brand is a recent urban lifestyle development that caters to
the concept of “live, work and play.” It is essentially a mixed-use development that considers
some of the smart growth mechanism to portray the livable, pedestrian-friendly urban space. I
took field notes on the social behaviors of individuals in the district by observing their
interaction with others and with the environment. Some of the interactions included families
taking pictures, friends shopping along the strip mall, and children playing on the grassy area
near the fountain. This gave me an insight on the positive social health of the environment and
provided an analysis on the walkability of the district based on the number of pedestrian activity.
I also mapped out the location of the urban environment to see if the spaces were used efficiently
Ko 10
by measuring the social prominence of pedestrian activity in open spaces and pathways. Some
good urban design included walkable access to the various districts around Americana at Brand,
pedestrian-friendly design such as the wide boulevards that encouraged people to walk more, and
extended use of pathways that promoted walking rather than driving.
Westlake Village, on the other hand, is a sprawling suburb that utilizes most of the space
for residential units and open space. I investigated the level of activity of the suburb by driving
around the neighborhood and recording the social activity, whether it was joggers, people
walking their dogs or neighbors interacting with one another. I also attempted to inspect the
frequency of residents walking by staying at a static location near homes, plazas and parks, and
the frequency of residents using automobiles by waiting near intersections to determine the
walkable aspect of the community. In addition, I calculated the distance it took to commute to
the closest social services, such as markets and restaurants, by foot and by car by using a timer to
estimate the length and time. I examined the social health within these communities by
examining any social interactions and activities within the neighborhood that included children
playing in the front yard or joggers running with a partner.
Findings and Analysis
Summary Table
Community
Downtown Glendale
Pros




Westlake Village


Incorporates mixed-use
development that incorporates the
idea of “live, work and play”
Pedestrian-friendly - Easy access
to many retail/commercial/office
infrastructures
High social activity
Reflects on good urban design that
adheres to the public realm
Quiet and safe neighborhood
Lots of greenery
Ko 11
Cons





Some districts are less
lively compared to others
Noise can be moderately
high for residents
More congestion in certain
areas (cars and
pedestrians)
Parking issues
Class segregation – gated
communities


Beautiful landscape
Green sustainable practices to
preserve the natural environment



Poor community character
Private life – autonomous
behavior of the residents
Automobile-use required –
not pedestrian-friendly
Glendale Downtown incorporates mixed-use development that accentuates the concept of
“live, work and play.” It exemplifies a good urban design that adheres to the public realm where
pedestrians have easy walkable access to various districts including the Galleria, Town Center,
Residential, etc… within a ten-minute radius (1/4 of a mile). The urban design of the districts is
pedestrian-oriented which reduces car use and promotes walkability. In addition, the
retail/commercial, office and residential spaces are situated in an attractive and convenient
manner. Pedestrians use the spaces all throughout the day, especially during nighttime. The
downtown area is very lively and viable with virtually all spaces used in an efficient and
effective manner. Glendale also has many healthy urban districts that provide opportunities for
individuals to socially interact and use the space. The streets are designed in a way that has
different purposes as well. Despite the bustling activity of Glendale Downtown, it also suffers
from some minor disadvantages. Some of the districts are underutilized and not used to its
maximum potential. The noise level can be problematic to some residents as well, especially
during the night. Furthermore, the busy pedestrian pathways create congestion in certain areas,
particularly in the Town Center District. Parking around the downtown neighborhood is a
problem at times.
Westlake Village presents itself is a quiet and safe neighborhood that preserves the
natural environment. The entire landscape is designed in a very attractive and beautified setting
that satisfies most residents. Open spaces are taken into consideration as part of the planned
community as well. On the negative aspects, Westlake Village creates class segregation through
Ko 12
gated communities. The social integrity and health is very poor as well. There are seldom any
neighborhood social ties since the community is designated for residents who are upper-middle
class who prefer a quiet and private life. The community carries out a sense of autonomy and
pertains to privacy. The only active social activities are joggers, children playing at local
playground and children attending a nearby school. Social interaction between neighbors is
rarely seen and the sidewalks are virtually empty. In addition, social services can only be
accessed by automobile use. Depending on the location of the residential homes, walking takes
nearly five to forty minutes to have access to nearby social services.
Community Background
Downtown Glendale is a very prominent location in Los Angeles County with numerous
opportunities for social activities and areas to live. It is very lively all throughout the week with
many entertainment attractions and events. It is structured into eleven different districts that all
heavily emphasizes on the public realm. Some of the districts included Alex Theatre, Gateway
District, Orange-Central District, Broadway Center District, Town Center District (Americana at
Brand) and Galleria District.
Westlake Village is a community in the Los Angeles County that supports the idea of
low-density but preserves open spaces for recreational and environmental purposes. It is
sustainable in the sense that the neighborhood implements the preservation of the environment
and the safety of its residents. Due to the massive greenery within the area, the smog level is
considerably lower compared to many parts of Los Angeles County. For the most part, Westlake
Village is an ideal area for families who prefer a safe and quiet environment. Their motto is
“The City in the Country.”
Ko 13
Archival Research
The first initial approach of this research was gathering archival research data to compare
Downtown Glendale and Westlake Village. Obtaining the census data on the demographics of
the two distinguishing areas was the first step. The Tables below shows the percentage estimate
of the ethnic and income demographics of the two regions:
Ethnic Demographics of Downtown Glendale and Westlake Village
Race
White
Asian
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American
Other
Downtown Glendale
63.0%
15.8%
17.8%
1.9%
1.5%
Westlake Village
85.6%
6.0%
7.1%
1.1%
0.2%
Source: www.census.gov
Both areas have a dominance of white residents; however, Downtown Glendale has a
more ethnically diverse mix of races compared to Westlake Village. It is possible that Westlake
Village is a segregated neighborhood of white dominance because of the gated communities.
This also exemplifies its sprawling nature of isolating homes that creates no neighborhood social
ties.
Estimate Median Household Income of Downtown Glendale and Westlake Village in 2009
Median Income Level (2009)
Downtown Glendale
$50,804
Westlake Village
$122,093
Source: www.city-data.com
The median income level of both areas is quite distinct. Westlake Village caters to upper
middle class residents while Downtown Glendale gears towards middle class residents. Judging
by the income level, Westlake Village seems to be a community that supports privacy in a quiet
neighborhood. Most upper middle class residents tend to live away from the lively inner city and
dwell in low-density suburbs. Downtown Glendale shows a more flexible median income level
Ko 14
that shows residents who potentially live in a wide selection of different housing, including
mixed-use homes.
Next, it was essential to obtain the comprehensive master plan for each community to
compare and contrast the opportunities of the area, the land use patterns, and the distance
between residents and the retail and commercial spaces (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a
comparison). Although Downtown Glendale utilizes many of the spaces with mixed-use
development, there are some areas that have potential opportunities for future development.
Some of residential units in East Broadway can be further enhanced into primary streets.
Primary streets include retail, restaurants, and entertainment features that enhance the overall
shopping experience. Glendale Downtown is designed to be a pedestrian friendly destination,
thus there are many attractions that allure pedestrians to actively use the streets. In terms of land
use patterns, Glendale Downtown effectively uses mixed-use development in virtually all the
districts to improve the overall health of the downtown region. Depending on the district, the
streets have different uses that include primary frontage streets, secondary frontage streets, auto
retail streets and residential streets (see Figure 1 for more details). Lastly, the retail, office and
residential areas are all within a quarter mile distance to promote walkability in the most
sustainably efficient manner. Pedestrians can explore most of Glendale’s downtown within a
five to ten minute walking distance (See Figure 3).
Westlake Village’s general plan map (Figure 2) shows the supremacy of residential units
throughout the community. There are many opportunities within the site of Westlake Village
that can be developed into a more suitable use. The areas that are primarily residential units can
be implemented with town squares or plazas to socially unite the community and increase
activity amongst residents. In regards to the land use patterns, Westlake Village has little
Ko 15
emphasis on the nearby social services and concentrates on residential life. A car is required to
have access to nearby necessary services due to the isolating features of different land uses with
very minimal emphasis on mixed-use development. In addition, the commercial recreational
areas are only exclusive to the residents, restricting public use. However, Westlake Village does
an excellent job with preserving the natural environment. The mixture of the open green spaces
and the homes create a harmonious setting that is quite relaxing and comforting.
In comparison with the two areas, Americana at Brand is more suitable for sustainable
practices. It maximizes the use of space and encourages walkable neighborhoods. In contrast,
Westlake Village denounces the public and adheres to private life which segregates the
community and reduces social activity.
Site Observation
The observational trips provided a firsthand look of the two site area that allowed me to
record the “feel” of the environment and to see the benefits and disadvantages of each
community. The two main principles I was searching for in each development were the
community sense in the public realm and the utilization of spaces. Upon my site visits, I wrote
extensive field notes answering the three main questions stated in the Research Strategy.
Walkability
The first question asks whether services were accessible to nearby residents at a walkable
distance. Walkability is very important in any urban community in terms of accessibility and
efficiency. Some determinants of walkable community are quarter mile radius of the nearby
social services, minimal or restricted car use and extensive use of sidewalks.
At first sight, Downtown Glendale was very vibrant and welcoming. It was evident that
Downtown Glendale was very pedestrian friendly with bustling street activity. The numerous
Ko 16
districts added to the walkable nature of the entire community as well. Most of the necessary
social services were located within a quarter mile radius, which is considered to be a five-minute
walk (see Figure 3 for an example).
Many of the buildings incorporated mixed use development as well. The first floor was
often used as commercial spaces while the other floors consisted of offices and residential units.
There was certainly a healthy combination of different designated land uses within the area that
utilized mixed-use. Particularly in the Town Center District, Americana at Brand featured a
wide variety of large-scale mixed-use development. As a significant area for retail and
entertainment with residential influence, the Town Center was accessible from all parts of the
downtown districts at a walkable distance.
Westlake Village did a very poor job of creating walkable distances in the neighborhood.
Although the area was very scenic, especially in the neighborhoods around Westlake Lake, there
were no points of destination throughout the community. The only notable necessary service
was the Westlake Plaza and Center, which only featured a grocery market, few restaurants and
small businesses. It underutilized some of the potential spaces that can be used as an area for
services. There was virtually no mixed-use buildings as well. Generally all the buildings were
single-family homes with some situated in gated communities. It was essential to have a car to
travel from the residential areas to other locations.
To test out the distance of the nearby services, I measured the time it took to walk and
drive to Westlake Plaza and Center, which was the most prominent plaza within the area.
Depending on the location of the residents, it took from five minutes to nearly fifty minutes to
walk to the plaza. The houses situated on the south side of Agoura Road were barely considered
as a walkable distance to the plaza (see Figure 2 for the location of the plaza). By car it roughly
Ko 17
took one to ten minutes to drive to the plaza. It is clear that the neighborhood is not structured to
be pedestrian-friendly.
Comparing the two different site areas, Downtown Glendale overwhelms the capability
of walkable streets. It fully uses the space for the public realm which incorporates a good urban
design. With streets and pathways that have constant use, people are more likely to walk to their
destination rather than having to use an automobile to get to places. Scenic views also encourage
people to walk; however, it is more likely that people will not sacrifice ten minutes to get to their
location when they are able to get there in one minute by car. Thus, Westlake Village is very
inefficient in terms of car use as a mode of transportation. Although the natural environment in
the community may be sustainable, having to use a car creates air pollution and causes
detrimental conditions and hazards to the air we breathe.
The Urban Space
The second question addresses whether the urban spaces are used efficiently and
effectively. In any urban planning process, space is the most important aspect to consider,
especially in the land use element. The relationship between buildings, the environment and the
space between are important aspects for a sustainable urban design.
Glendale Downtown is composed of several districts that integrate different uses.
Surprisingly, each district does not conflict with each other; rather, they complement one
another. Each district has very unique characteristics that define the place. The first district I
observed was the Galleria District, which seemed to be the main regional shopping center.
Although it was virtually commercial with few offices, it seemed that the space was utilized to
its full potential. The retail spaces were constantly used by pedestrians which created a lively
atmosphere in the district.
Ko 18
Coming into the heart of Downtown Glendale, the Town Center seemed to be the most
attractive location. With an abundant traffic flow of social prominence, the urban space was
being used for many purposes. The mixed-use buildings were all located in a convenient and
attractive setting that allured many visitors. Americana at Brand’s fountain was particularly the
center of attention. With the combination of the ongoing fountain water show, green open
spaces, and open views of the architectural designs and memorable landmarks of Americana at
Brand, the fountain area provided a place to relax, enjoy and socialize. There were a large
number of families present with children playing on the grass or watching the water show. Many
couples used the space as a dating hotspot. There was considerably a large teenager presence
within the area hanging out with friends and/or with families as well.
Located north of the Town Center was the Alex Theatre District where it was generally
comprised of low-scale commercial buildings. Although it was only two blocks of retail,
restaurant and other services, it encouraged pedestrian activity. Compared to the Town Center,
there was not much social activity; however, the space was used as a historical area for the old
downtown main street. It was a nice pathway that connected the recent development of the
Town Center District with the old downtown district.
The Gateway District, situated at the northern portion of Downtown Glendale, was the
district with the visibly seen skyline of Downtown San Diego. Due to the high-rise buildings,
the district encompassed business headquarters, mixed-use and residential buildings. The lower
levels seemed to be retail businesses, while the higher levels were used as office and residential.
The area was clearly a central business district (CBD). Although it was not as lively as the other
parts of Downtown Glendale, the Gateway District utilized the space in a compact form, creating
a place to work, live and play.
Ko 19
Westlake Village, on the other hand, is considered to be a low-density sprawling
community. For the most part, Westlake Village was strictly residential. The east side of
Westlake Village was primarily offices and commercial recreation. The center and west side of
Westlake Village was virtually residential with few nodal commercial attractions such as parks
and open recreational areas. There were only two primary commercial recreational areas in
which only residents had access to: Westlake Lake and Westlake Village Golf Course. There
was only one notable park that catered to the whole community. The park was miniscule
compared to the size of the residential zone. In all, the spaces in Westlake Village were not used
to its full potential.
Downtown Glendale, in comparison with Westlake Village, uses mixed-use buildings to
enhance and improve the urban space. Westlake Village does not incorporate mixed-use
buildings as it dominantly adheres to residential units. Due to the inactive use of spaces,
Westlake Village is often socially dead. Downtown Glendale is always bustling with social
activities, even during the night.
Social Health
The last question asks whether the communities are sustainable in terms of social health.
In any given community, the social aspect is often the determining factor of a successful
development. It also keeps the community attractive and economically prosperous.
Downtown Glendale is extremely socially active, especially in the streets of Americana
Way, Broadway and Brand Ave. Every district has a very welcoming atmosphere with constant
noise of pedestrians. The Town Center, where Americana at Brand is located, was the largest
social center in Downtown Glendale. With striking and beautiful architecture and very spacious
streets and open areas, Americana at Brand accentuates the environment so that it creates an
Ko 20
inviting atmosphere for everyone. Even the Alex Theatre District was very welcoming for
pedestrians in terms of the architectural design.
The social integrity of Westlake Village was very meager. When I first arrived in the
neighborhood, there were minimal or virtually no social interactions between residents. Since
the community is catered to upper middle class residents, it is understandable that many of them
prefer a quiet, comforting and safe setting. The only prominent social activities were joggers,
children playing in the park, and children at a nearby school. The recreational areas (which have
potential areas of social gatherings) were only exclusive for the residents, particularly Westlake
Lake.
Westlake Village compared to Glendale Downtown is very private. It does not encourage
any social engagement or social activities that would further enhance the overall quality of the
neighborhood. The gated community within the vicinity of Westlake Lake generates a social
barrier between the residents and the public. It is very unsustainable in terms of social health.
Glendale Downtown presents a very comfortable setting for residents and tourists to actively
shop in stores, dine in restaurants and participate in public events. The community is very
vigorous with many social factors that highlight the wellbeing of the residents and the economic
condition of the development.
Concluding Section
Based on the Findings and Analysis, sprawling communities are indeed inefficient in
terms of walkability, open spaces and social health. Westlake Village is a sprawling
conglomeration of houses that are continuously spread along a street forming a block of cookiecutter homes. The closest nearby services can only be accessible by car due to the isolated
neighborhoods and single-use development. Although there are a few parks situated within the
Ko 21
community, it is very miniscule compared to the scale of the community. Moreover, the
community character is very poor as well. Many of the residents are upper middle class
residents who favor living a quiet, autonomous life. They often choose to avoid the busy
bustling cities of downtown areas to live in a comfortable, private setting.
Downtown Glendale, however, establishes its community with mixed-use development
that promotes pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and social integrity. The various districts of
Downtown Glendale contribute to the attractive and convenient locations of residential,
retail/commercial and office spaces. Residents and tourists flourish the streets of the downtown
districts and enhance the social movement from one place to another. It is essentially a
development designed for pedestrians to “live, work and play.”
Comparing the two areas, it is clear that Americana at Brand is more appropriate for
sustainable development. It utilizes its space to the max potential by including mixed-use
development and encourages walkable neighborhoods that daunt automobile use. Westlake
Village avoids the public realm and embodies private life which segregates the community and
reduces the overall quality of social health.
In conclusion, sprawl has been a negative factor in the planning system and will become
worse if no action is taken. Sustainable development addresses the problems of sprawl,
congestion and enhances the overall quality of life socially and environmentally. Policies such
as smart growth and compact growth follow an extensive measure to prevent environmental,
economical and social ills within a community by withholding the values of the individual, the
community and the environment. It encourages pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods that improve
ecological stability and beautifies the neighborhoods. In regards to socioeconomic status,
sustainable environments create healthy relations between all income levels.
Ko 22
According to Benfield, Terris and Vorsanger (2001), “one of the most important features
of today’s urban renaissance is the rebuilding of city neighborhoods with a mixture of housing,
offices, green spaces, entertainment, and civic uses, combining together to make forgotten
communities once again convenient and vibrant” (8). Overall, smart growth cultivates a healthy
standard of living and retains future population growth in an efficient and productive manner
(Daniels 2001, 21). Community development needs to direct its attention back into the urban
structure. Sprawl only cause inefficiency and unstable consequences, such as pollution and loss
of community sense. Future master planning must set a model of potential growth in the urban
environment. Compact growth will be one of many alternative solutions to future sustainable
development.
Ko 23
Appendix
Figure 1: Downtown Glendale Land Use Districts
Source: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/downtown_specific_plan.asp
Ko 24
Figure 2: Westlake Village Zoning Map
Source: www.wlv.org/contact_us/documents/Zoning_Map-032609.pdf
Ko 25
Figure 3: Downtown Glendale Land Use Districts (Walkability – ¼ mile radius)
Source: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/downtown_specific_plan.asp
Ko 26
Bibliography
Alexander, Don, and Ray Tomalty. 2002. Smart growth and sustainable development:
Challenges, solutions and policy directions. Local Environment: The International Journal
of Justice and Sustainability. 7 (4): 298.
Barnett, Jonathon. 2008. Smart Growth in a Changing World. Journal of the American Planning
Association. 74 (1): 142.
Benfield, F. Kaid, Jutka Terris and Nancy Vorsanger. 2001. Solving Sprawl: Models of Smart
Growth in Communities Across America. Washington D.C.: Natural Resources Defense
Council: 8.
Bruegmann, Robert. 2005. Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press: 18, 188, 224.
Cho, Jaeseong. 2005. Urban planning and urban sprawl in Korea. Urban Policy and Research 23
(2): 203, 216.
Couch, Chris, Jay Karecha, Henning Nuissl, and Dieter Rink. 2005. Decline and sprawl: An
evolving type of urban development – observed in Liverpool and Leipzig. European
Planning Studies 13 (1): 131.
Daniels, Tom. 2001. What does smart growth mean for community development? Journal of the
Community Development Society 32 (1): 21.
Downs, Anthony. 2005. Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the
American Planning Association 71 (4): 371-373.
Ewing, Reid. 1997. Is los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning
Association 63 (1): 113-118.
Freeman, Lance. 2001. The Effects of Sprawl on Neighborhood Social Ties: An Explanatory
Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 14
Frumkin, Howard. 2002. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Public Health Reports 117: 117-118
Fulton, William and Paul Shigley. 2005. Guide to California Planning. 3rd ed. Point Arena, CA:
Solano Press Books: 296.
Howard, Ebenezer. 1965. Garden Cities of To-morrow. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects.
Harcourt: Brace and World, 1961: 493-495.
Ko 27
Schweitzer, Lisa and Jiangping Zhou. 2010. Neighborhood Air Quality, Respiratory Health, and
Vulnerable Populations in Compact and Sprawled Regions. Journal of the American
Planning Association 76 (3): 363, 365.
Sloane, David Charles. 2006. Longer View: From Congestion to Sprawl: Planning and Health in
Historical Context. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (1): 14
Tregoning, Harriet, Julian Agyeman, and Christine Shenot. 2002. Sprawl, Smart Growth and
Sustainability. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 7
(4): 344.
Willson, Richard W. 1995. Suburban Parking Requirements: A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use
and Sprawl. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61 (1): 40
Ko 28