Carpenter Village and The Village of I'on

Carpenter Village

The community of Carpenter Village can expect to maintain a fairly high level of sustainability throughout the life of the development.

Carpenter Village has achieved a compact and consolidated form of development that will ensure a high level of intensity of the uses within the development.

Provided that the development can attract retail and commercial uses to occupy the commercial core of the development, it will have achieved a comprehensive and complimentary use of the land throughout the development.

However, if this objective is not met, then the community will suffer greatly with regards to its overall sustainability.

The extent of the use of the land in Carpenter Village has been designed to achieve a contained and consistent development plan, provided that development does not occur in the north side of the northern boundary of the community.

The communication network of the development has been designed to provide for a connected and combined system of transportation throughout the community that fosters and encourages inter-personal communication.

Carpenter Village’s inability to attract commercial users to the commercial core has greatly limited the community’s ability to create a unique sense of place.

The implementation of the design of the development has failed to create a centered, configured and comprehensible sense of place that will ensure the development’s ability to sustain itself.

In addition to the lack of a unique sense of place, Carpenter Village’s future development plans for the opposite side of Morrisville-Carpenter Road detracts from its ability to formulate a flexible use of the land that is re-configurable.

This is the most important quality that the development needs to address in order to ensure its sustainability and to prevent the development from becoming yet another sprawling neighborhood that has no identity of its own.

I’on Village

I’on Village is a disappointing attempt at the creation of a sustainable community that is integrated into the existing community fabric.

The many legal factors that contributed to the development’s failure to meet a majority of the qualities overshadow the poor execution of an unsustainable development plan.

I’on fails to create a compact and consolidated development through the proliferation of large single-family detached homes on mostly over-sized lots.

In addition to a disappointing density yield, the lack of a diverse mix of housing-types and mix of uses results in a development strategy that is neither comprehensive nor complimentary.

I’on does manage to create a development that is contained and consistent with regards to its extent of use of the land and the definition of its boundaries.

Unfortunately for the I’on community, this is not sufficient enough to create a truly sustainable community.

The implementation of a connected and combined communication network is the only other successful achievement of the I’on development plan.

Even though the communication network can be considered a success, the lack of density and diversity within the development detracts from its communication successes.

I’on does not achieve a centered, configured and comprehensible sense of place largely due to the lack of density in the development and the lack of diversity on various levels throughout the development.

The lack of flexibility in the uses at I’on is the final attribute that the development fails to meet. The development plan for I’on is not nearly as re-configurable as the other developments analyzed.

The failure to meet the minimum criteria for the creation of a sustainable community places I’on’s future in jeopardy and indicates that the development is just another planned unit development that does very little to improve the global community.

Alternative Methods of Execution

Carpenter Village and I’on have failed to meet the criteria necessary to ensure the community’s sustainability throughout the life of the development. Both of these developments would benefit greatly by redirecting their design and implementation efforts in order to achieve a higher level of sustainability.

With regards to the creation of a unique sense of place, both of the developments could facilitate the creation of this sense of place by simply adding a diverse mix of housing types to their commercial cores.

The addition of mixed-use housing to the commercial cores would help to create a centered, configured and comprehensible sense of place within the community.

The two developments would also benefit from an improvement of their flexibility of uses within each community. Providing for a re-configurable development plan will help to ensure that these communities could achieve a higher level of sustainability than the level that they currently face.

Allowing for flexibility over time would make these developments more attractive to observers and would help to change the predominant development pattern of suburban sprawl.

I’on Village needs to address the issue of density if it expects to achieve any level of sustainability. In addition to density, the development must provide for a greater level of diversity within the community.

This diversity is not limited to a mix of housing-types, but to the inclusion of a diverse range of economic and social groups as well.

Without addressing these concerns, these two developments may evolve into typical sprawl-driven neighborhoods that contribute nothing to the global community.

You cannot simply put something new into a place. You have to absorb what you see around you, what exists on the land, and then use that knowledge along with contemporary thinking to interpret what you see.  -Tadao Ando

Examining New Urbanism...Sustainability Scores

Critical Comparison of the Four Developments

The first portion of the critical comparison of the four developments will be to determine whether or not the implementation of the development’s design has created a community that has met all of the criteria established previously in this report.

A sustainable community should reflect the following qualities:

  

   (1) a compact and consolidated intensity of uses;

   (2) a comprehensive and complimentary diversity of uses;

   (3) a contained and consistent extent of uses;

   (4) a connected and combined system of communication;

   (5) a centered, configured and comprehensible sense of place, and

   (6) a re-configurable plan that allows for flexibility of uses.

It is through the comparison of the achievements of the developments from which a determination regarding the sustainability of the developments can be reached.

In order to facilitate a simple method for the comparison of the four developments, a chart of the qualities of sustainability has been generated.

The comparative chart will indicate whether or not the developments have met the criteria for sustainability and through this method a score can be applied to each development regarding its level of sustainability.

The scores for each development can then be compared to determine the most-sustainable community that has been described in the body of this report.

While the application of an empirical formula to the analysis of the developments was previously mentioned to be difficult, this system will allow the critical analysis of these developments to be expressed as a preliminary checklist for sustainability.

Sustainability Scores

The four developments analyzed in this report have all achieved some level of sustainability through the implementation of their progressive design strategies.

The developments that can expect a high level of sustainability are The Village of Woodsong in Shallotte, North Carolina and Southern Village in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Both of these developments successfully met all six criteria established to determine their sustainability, giving them an overall score of 6 out of 6.

Carpenter Village in Cary, North Carolina has failed to meet all of the criteria, yet with a score of 4 out of 6 the development can expect to achieve a level of sustainability that is higher than the level of sustainability that sprawl-driven neighborhoods can expect.

I’on Village in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina has failed to meet a majority of the criteria and has received a score of 2 out of 6 with regards to the level of sustainability that the community can expect.

“Most people are on the world, not in it - having no conscious sympathy or relationship to anything about them - undiffused, separate, and rigidly alone like marbles of polished stone, touching but separate.” -John Muir

Examining New Urbanism...I'ons Sustainable Qualities & Conclusions

Communication

The communication network in I’on aims to unite the boroughs of the development through a vehicular-use system and a extensive pedestrian circulation system. Due to the large size of the development and the developer’s desire to minimize the number of main roads in favor of multiple inter-connected smaller roads, the communication network can be slightly confusing during the first navigation of the site.

Regardless, I’on does create a connected and combined communication network throughout the entire development. There is a clear separation of uses at I’on and this is achieved through the design of smaller roads, the utilization of on-street parking and street trees, as well as the diversion of the pedestrian circulation system through open spaces that are completely removed from vehicular traffic.

While there is no designated bicycle lane, the design of the road system encourages drivers to experience the development at slightly slower speeds than a normal residential neighborhood.

A majority of the residents prefer bicycle transportation over pedestrian transportation largely due to the fact that the development has a lower density than most TNDs.

The predominant form of travel is still the private automobile which residents utilize to access the farther points of the development as well as commercial areas outside of the development.


Sense of Place

It is difficult to identify and codify a development’s unique sense of place due to the fact that this characteristic develops over time. Environmental identity, social diversity and economic diversity are all factors that contribute to the creation of a community’s sense of place.

Taking into account all the factors involved in determining a development’s sense of place, I’on fails to create a centered, configured and comprehensible development that has fostered the creation of a unique sense of place.

Aesthetically, while the careful attention that has been paid to vernacular architectural features is commendable, this does not contribute to the creation of a unique sense of place.

The development does not feature progressive environmental solutions to the reduction of storm-water runoff, the reduction on the dependence of non-renewable resources nor does it have a unique community character.

The development strategy of creating individual and separate boroughs within the development is another contributing factor the development’s lack of a unique sense of place. I’on may eventually develop a unique sense of place in the future; however it currently has no specific or unique identity that sets it apart from other residential neighborhoods in Mount Pleasant.


Flexibility of Use

The development plan for I’on designates a majority of the land as residential uses with very little room to respond to future development needs. For this reason, I’on has failed to create a plan that is re-configurable throughout the life of the community.

Large residential lots, low overall density and the lack of significant commercial-use areas are factors that contribute to this determination. Due to the manner in which the development has been planned, the addition of new commercial space or large civic institutions would be difficult without the annexation of additional land.

Much of the open space in the development is in forms of neighborhood-scale pocket-parks or preserved sensitive natural areas and this leaves I’on with very little opportunity to implement additional uses or re-configure the circulation system if it became necessary.

This severely limits I’on’s ability to create a sustainable development that can adapt and evolve over time and respond to the needs of its residents, users and the community at large.

Conclusions

I’on has failed to implement a progressive plan that will prove to be sustainable throughout the life of the development. The main contributing factors to this are the developments inability to successfully address the issues of density, diversity, identity and flexibility.

While I’on is a fine attempt at combating suburban sprawl and has aesthetically pleasing architectural features throughout the development; it does very little to ensure the long-term sustainability of its community as well as the larger community of Mount Pleasant.

Many of I’on’s failures can be attributed to the lack of response to the social, environmental and economic factors associated with sustainable developments. I’on does very little to foster and enhance social and economic diversity within the development, and while the preservation efforts of the development are impressive, there is little evidence that the development is striving to reduce their consumptionism and focus on the positive aspects of conservationism. It is for these reasons that I’on cannot be considered a truly sustainable development.

We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody. -R. Buckminster Fuller

Examining New Urbanism...I'on's Sustainable Qualities

Intensity of Use

The original design for I’on that included 1,240 residences, 440 of which would have been multi-family units, would have yielded a density of around five units per acre. However, the approved design produces a density yield of only 3.1 units per acre that results in a considerably less-dense development. Due to this adjustment, I’on fails to create a compact and consolidated development strategy.

The development strategy does successfully yield higher-density within each of the individual neighborhoods, but the regulations that govern the design and implementation of TNDs in Mount Pleasant severely handicaps the developments ability to provide a density yield that is considerably higher than existing residential neighborhoods in the municipality.

The blame for the lack of a compact and consolidated development plan does not rest solely on the regulations set forth by the planning commission. The developers of I’on chose to create six separate neighborhoods in the hopes of increasing the density of the development, but on a compartmentalized level.

The large lot sizes of a majority of the boroughs also contribute to its disappointing overall density yield. These large lots, coupled with the construction of sometimes unnecessarily large homes with wide side-setbacks are contributing factors to the lack of a compact and consolidated development.


Diversity of Use

I’on provides 30,000 square feet of commercial space in the development’s commercial core on the southern edge of the development. I’on, however, does not provide a diverse mix of housing types anywhere in the entire development. There are no rowhouses, townhomes or mixed-use units within the commercial core.

The only type of dwelling available at I’on is single-family detached housing, and the residences at I’on are anything but modest. Due to the small amount of commercial space, lack of multiple housing types and absence of mixed-use housing, I’on fails to create a development that is comprehensive and complementary with regards to the diversity of use of the land.

I’on does achieve some success through the planning of the development’s overall land-use plan. While the commercial core is insufficient in size to address the needs of the entire development (the commercial core covers approximately one-acre compared to the developments size of 243-acres), the development plan provides ample amounts of open space throughout the development by creating small pocket-parks within each individual neighborhood.

In addition to open space planning, I’on plans to open a school and two churches within the development in the future, however there is ongoing litigation concerning the legalities of implementing these uses.


Extent of Use

I’on’s 243-acre site has been carefully planned to ensure that existing natural ecosystems will not be disturbed by development and the boundaries of I’on are clearly defined to ensure that the neighborhood will not sprawl-out into the landscape. Because of this, I’on has been successful at creating a contained and consistent development with regards to the extent of use of the land.

Many opponents of I’on felt that the development would have a significant negative impact on the existing neighborhoods, but that has not been true to this point. The effort to protect the natural features of the site is one of the most successful facets of the overall design strategy.

The walking trails that wind throughout the development, many of which are in sensitive portions of the overall ecosystem, have a minimum impact of the environment. The only foreseeable issue that I’on may face with regards to extent of use of the land is whether or not additional commercial space will be required as the development grows in population and where the additional commercial space will be located.

People should think things out fresh and not just accept conventional terms and the conventional way of doing things. -R. Buckminster Fuller

Examining New Urbanism...I'on

The foundation for a critical analysis of the four developments that are the subject of this study has been established and now an exploration of the developments can begin.

The methods of data collection utilized in the preparation of this report included a critical analysis of site plans and development planning objectives, site visits, photographic studies of the various physical and aesthetic features of each development, impromptu interviews, the collection of empirical data from various planning organizations in addition to the collection of printed materials related to the developments. The data was then analyzed utilizing the aspects of sustainability and the normative qualities associated with each aspect.

(Note: This study was originally published in 2005 and the data represented here reflects the “best available” data at the time of publication.)

I'on Village, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Development history

I’on Village is a green-field infill development in the bedroom community of Mount Pleasant that is located seven miles east of Charleston, South Carolina. Mount Pleasant has a population of approximately 56,000 people and covers an area of approximately 26,000 acres.

The development is sited on 243 acres that was originally comprised of 60 percent former agricultural fields, 30 percent was 30-40 year old hard wood growth, and 10 percent was in the form of three man-made lakes.

The development is surrounded by suburban neighborhoods that follow the sprawling development ideals of the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. The main access road to the site from outlying areas is U.S. Highway 17 which is characterized by further evidence of suburban sprawl through the proliferation of chain restaurants, convenience stores and gas stations which populate the roadside.

I’on is being developed by the Charleston-based development company Civitas and was planned by a land development team that consisted of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company; Dover, Kohl and Partners; Seamon, Whiteside and Associates; and DesignWorks. The development phase of I’on is nearing the 75 percent completion mark and will feature an ultimate build-out of 759 single-family units on the 243-acre site yielding an overall density of 3.1 units per acre.

The site features a commercial core with 30,000 square feet of office and retail space located directly adjacent to the main entry of the development. The architectural style of the development pays careful attention to the historic architectural styling and details of the regional vernacular, yet does not offer multi-family or townhouse style residences. The development currently provides 5-miles of walking trails that will be increased to 12-miles by the time the construction phase of the project concludes.

The developers of I’on faced considerable legal trouble from both the residents of existing neighborhoods and the limited guidelines set forth by the Mount Pleasant planning regulations. When I’on was originally being planned, there were no Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) guidelines in existence in the town of Mount Pleasant and the original plan for 800 single-family units, 440 multi-family units and 90,000 square feet of commercial space had to be abandoned in favor of the lower-density, sprawl-driven plan currently being implemented.

Alas! how little does the memory of these human inhabitants enhance the beauty of the landscape! -Henry David Thoreau