REFERENCES TO WORK BY GARY PIVO

August 2004

 

 

PART 1: URBAN SPRAWL AND SUBURBAN CENTERS

 

                       The Net of Mixed Beads: Suburban Office Development in Six Metropolitan Regions.  Journal of the American Planning Association, 1990.

 

 1.                Chinitz, Benjamin.  1991. A framework for speculating about future urban growth patterns in the U.S.   Urban Studies, 28, 6: 939-961.

 

 2.                Schwartz, Alex.  1992.  Corporate Service Linkages in Large Metropolitan Areas: A Study of New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  Urban Affairs Quarterly, v28, 2: 276-296.

 

 3.                Archer, Wayne, R. and Marc T. Smith.  1993.  Why Do Suburban Offices Cluster?  Geographic Analysis: An Intl. J. of Theoretical Geography.  v25, [n]: 53-64.

 

 4.                Kelly, Eric Damian.  1993.  Managing Community Growth: Policies, Techniques and Impacts.  London: Praeger Press.

 

 5.                Law, R.M., Wolch, J.R. and Takahashi, L.M.  1993.  Defense-Less Territory: Workers, Communties, and the Decline of Military Production in Los Angeles.  Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, v11, 3: 291-315.

 

 6.                Blakeley, Edward J.  1993.  Transporting and Transforming and Nation.  Paper prepared for Metropolitan America in Transition.  A Conference sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.  Sept. 9-10, 1993, Washington, D.C.

 

 7.                Chinitz, Benjamin.  1993.  Urban Growth Patterns.   Paper prepared for Metropolitan America in Transition.  A Conference sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.  Sept. 9-10, 1993, Washington, D.C.

 

 8.                Henigar and Ray, Inc.  1994.  Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Countywide Planning Policies,  King County.  Seattle: Henigar and Ray.

 

 9.                Willson, Richard, W., 1995.  Suburban Parking Requirements: A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl.  J. of the American Planning Association, v61, 1:29-42.

 

 10.            Moudon, Anne Vernez.  1995.  Teaching Urban Form.  Journal of Planning Education and Research.  v 14, 2: 123-133.

 11.            Sala, Christine, 1995.  Edge Cities.  CPL Exchange Bibliography No. 317.  Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians.

 12.            Cervero, Robert and Seskin, Sam.  1995.  An Evaluation of the Relationships Between Transit and Urban Form.  Washington DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

 13.            U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.  The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America, OTA-ETI-643.  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 14.            Rosenbloom, Sandra.  1996.  Trends in Women’s Travel Patterns.  Women’s Travel Issues: Proceedings from the Second National Conference.  U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

 15.            Parsons Brinkerhoff  Quade & Douglas.  1996.  Transit and Urban Form.  Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 16.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.  

 16.            Hodge, David, Morrill, Richard and Stanilov, Kiril.  1996.  Implications of Intelligent Transportation Systems for Metropolitan Form.  Urban Geography  v17, n8.

 17.            Beaugegard, R.A.  Edge Cities: Peripheralizing the Center.  Urban Geography  v16, n8, 1995.

 18.            Atkinson, Robert.  Technology and the Future of Metropolitan Economies.  1995.  Prepared for the November 28, 1995 workshop Midwestern Metropolitan Areas: Performance and Policy held at the Federal Research Bank of Chicago. 

 19.            Wells, S.S. and Hutchinson, B.G.  Impact of Commuter Rail Service in the Toronto Region.  Journal of Transportation Engineering.  v122, n4, 1996.

 20.            Jenkens, Lyssa.  1996.  Office Location in a Post-Industrial Urban Environment.  Brookfield: Avebury.

 21.            Bourne, L.S.  1996.  Reinventing the Suburbs - Old Myths and New Realities.  Progress in Planning.  v46, n3. 

 22.            Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas.  1996.  Transit and Urban Form: Volume 2.  Transit Cooperative Research Program.  Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press. 

 23.            Ewing, Reid.  1997.  Is Los Angeles Style Urban Sprawl Desireable?  Journal of the American Planning Association.  v63, n1: 107-27.

 24.            Cervero, R.L. and Wu, K.L.  1997.  Polycentrism, Commuting, and Residential Location in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Environment and Planning A, 29(5): 865-886.

 25.            Gordon, P. and Richardson, H.L.  1997.  Where’s the Sprawl?  J. of the American Planning Association, v63, n2: 225-228.

 26.            Catherine L. Ross and Anne E. Dunning, Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data.   Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (U.S. Department of Transportation), October 1997.  [Online]  Available http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/landuse3.pdf.

 27.            Cervero, R. and Wu, K.L.  1998.  Sub-Centering and Commuting: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area, 19800-1990.  Urban Studies, v35(7):1059-1076.

 28.            Gordon, P.,Richardson, H.W. and Yu, G.  1998.  Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Employment Trends in the U.S.: Recent Evidence and Implications.  Urban Studies, 35(7): 1037-1057. 

 29.            Lowe, J.C.  1998.  Pattens of Spatial Disperson in Metropolitan Commuting.  Urban Geography, 19(3): 232-253.

 30.            Weitz, J. and Moore, T.  1998.  Development Inside Urban Growth Boundaries – Oregon’s Empirical Evidence of Contiguous Urban Form.  J. of the American Planning Association.  64(4): 424-440. 

 31.            CRB Realty.  An Application for Designation Under Project XL: The Redevelopment of the Atlantic Steel Site in Central Atlanta.  Submitted to US EPA. 

 32.            Moudon AV, Hess, PM.  2000.  Suburban clusters - The nucleation of multifamily housing in suburban areas of the Central Puget Sound.   J AM PLANN ASSOC 66: (3) 243-264 SUM 2000

 33.            Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.  2000.  Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale Design.  Prepared for Federal Highway Administration (DTFH61-95-C-00168).

 34.            Filion, P.  2001.  Suburban mixed-use centers and urban dispersion: what difference do they make?  Environment and Planning A  33(1): 141-160.

 35.            Atlanta Regional Commission.  2002.  Job-Housing Balance: Community Choices Quality Growth Toolkit. 

 36.            Stanilov K.  2002.  Postwar trends, land-cover changes, and patterns of suburban development: the case of Greater Seattle Environment and Planning B  29 (2): 173-195.

 37.            Forkenbrock, D.J. 2002.  Transportation investments and urban form.  Travel Demand and Land Use 2002, Transportation Research Record 1805: 153-160. 

 38.            Lang, Robert E.  2003.  Edgeless Cities: Exploring the Elusive Metropolis.  Brookings Institution Press/Brookings Metro Series 2003

 39.            Lang, Robert E and LeFurgy, J.  2003.  Edgeless Cities:  Examining the Noncentered Metropolis.  Housing Policy Debate. 14 (3): 427-460 

 40.            O’Sullivan, Arthur.  2003  Urban Economics, Fifth Edition  Chapter 10: Surburbanization and Modern Cities, pag. 251-281.

 41.            Archer, WR and Smith MT.  2003.  Explaining location patterns of suburban offices.  Real Estate Economics 31(2): 139-164.

 

                       A Taxonomy of Suburban Office Clusters.  Urban Studies,  1993.

 

 1.                Shilton, L. and Webb, J.R.  1995.  Headquarters, Office Finance and the Wave of Urbanization in the New York City Region.   Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics  v10, n2.   

 2.                Cervero, Robert and Seskin, Sam.  1995.  An Evaluation of the Relationships Between Transit and Urban Form.  Washington DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

 3.                Jenkens, Lyssa.  1996.  Office Location in a Post-Industrial Urban Environment.  Brookfield: Avebury. 

 4.                Filion, P.  2001.  Suburban mixed-use centers and urban dispersion: what difference do they make?  Environment and Planning A  33(1): 141-160.

 5.                Malone-Lee, L.C., Sim, L.L. and Chin L.  2001.  Planning for a more balanced home-work relationship: the case study of Singapore.  Cities  18(1): 51-55.

 6.                  Coffey, W.J. and Shearmur, R.G.  2001.  The identification of employment centers in Canadian metropolitan areas: the example of Montreal, 1996.  Canadian Geographer 45 (3): 371-386.  Fall 2001.

 7.                Shearmur R, Coffey W.J.  2002.  A tale of four cities: intrametropolitan employment distribution in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa-Hull, 1981-1996  Environment and Planning  A 34 (4): 575-598. 

 8.                Stanilov K.  2002.  Postwar trends, land-cover changes, and patterns of suburban development: the case of Greater Seattle.  Environment and Planning B  29 (2): 173-195.

 9.                Gaschet F.  2002.  The new intra-urban dynamics: Suburbanisation and functional specialisation in French cities.  Papers of the Regional Science Association 81 (1): 63-81.

 

                       A Literature Review on the Community Impacts and Costs of Sprawl. 1993.  Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

 

 1.                   Growth Management or Planned Sprawl?: An Assessment of the Interim Urban Growth Areas Adopted by Washington Counties Under the Growth Management Act.  1993.  Seattle: UW Growth Management Planning and Research Clearinghouse.

 

 2.                Beaumont, Constance E., 1994.  How Superstore Sprawl Can Harm Communities.  Washington: National Trust for Historic Preservation. 

 

 3.                Washington State Energy Office. 1996.   Redevelopment for Livable Communities.  Olympia: The Office. 

 

 4.                Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglass.  1996.  Transit and Urban Form.  Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 16.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

 

 5.                Tetra Tech, Inc.  1996.  Green Development Literature Search.  Under EPA Contract #68-C3-0303.

 

 6.                Ewing, Reid.  1997.  Is Los Angeles Style Urban Sprawl Desireable?  Journal of the American Planning Association  63(1): 107-27.

 

 7.                United States General Accounting Office.  1999.  Extent of Federal Influence on "Urban Sprawl" Is Unclear.  Report to Congressional Requesters.  GAO/RCED-99-87.

 

 

PART II: LESS AUTO DEPENDENT URBAN FORM

 

                       The Urban Form and Journey to Work Impacts of Office Suburbanization in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Ph.D. Dissertation.  1987. 

 

 1.                Anonymous,  1991.  Book Review  of The Urban Form and Journey to Work Impacts of Office Suburbanization in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Transportation Research A - General.  v25, 1:57.

 

 2.                Puget Sound Regional Council.  1988.  Transportation and Development: Trends and Choices.  Seattle: PSRC.

 

 3.                Frank, Lawrence D.  2000.  Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life.  Journal of Planning Education and Research.  V20, n1: 6-22.

 

                       Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on the Utilization of Three Modes of Travel, Transportation Research Record 1466, 1994.  (With L. Frank)

 

 1.                Ewing, Reid.  1995.  Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time.  Florida Department of Community Affairs and (forthcoming) The American Planning Association. 

 

 2.                Cervero, Robert and Kockelman, Kara.  Undated.  Travel Demand and the Three Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.  Berkeley: UC Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.  Working Paper 674. 

 3.                Boarnet, Marlon G. and Sarmiento, S.,  1996.  Can Land Use Policy Really Affect Travel Behavior?  Urban Studies.

 4.                McNally, Michael G. and Anup Kulkarni.  1996.  An Assessment of the Influence of the Land-Use Transportation System on Travel Behavior.  Institute for Transportation Studies, UC, Irvine. 

 5.                Bernick, M. and Cervero, R.  1996.  Transit Villages for the 21st Century.  New York: McGraw-Hill. 

 6.                Catherine L. Ross and Anne E. Dunning, Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data.   Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (U.S. Department of Transportation), October 1997.  [Online]  Available http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/landuse3.pdf.

 7.                Levinson, David M. and Ajay Kumar.  1997.  Density and the Journey to Work.  Growth and Change, vol 28 (2). 

 8.                Handy, Susan L.  1997.  Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin Neighborhoods.  Transportation Research Record 1552.

 9.                Clarion Associates, 1998.  Measuring & Coping with the Costs of Sprawl: A Summary of the National Literature on the Costs of Sprawl.  Philadelphia: 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania. 

 10.            U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.  1999.  Selected References Evaluating the Relationships Between Travel and Land Use: Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, May 11-12, 1999, Denver, Colorado. 

 11.            Hess, Paul D. et al.  1999.  Site Design and Pedestrian Travel.  Transportation Research Record 1674, Paper No. 99-0424. 

 12.            TMIP.  1999.  Metropolitan Transportation Planning Issues: A Primer/Anthology for Small and Medium MPOs.

 13.            Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.  2000.  Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale Design.  Prepared for Federal Highway Administration (DTFH61-95-C-00168).

 14.            Frank, Lawrence D.  2000.  Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life.  Journal of Planning Education and Research.  V20, n1: 6-22.

 15.            Heart, Bennet and Jennifer Biringer, 2000.  The Smart Growth – Climate Change Connection.  Conservation Law Foundation. 

 16.            Nelson, Dick and John Niles.  2000.  A Planning Template for Nonwork Travel and Transit-Oriented Development: Task 2 Report: Preliminary Template Design.  Submitted to Norman Y. Mineta, International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies. 

 17.            Matley, Ted M. et al.  2000.  Pedestrial Travel Potential in Northern New Jersey.  Transportation Research Record 1705, Paper No. 00-1460.

 18.            Jack Faucett Associates.  2000.  Livable Communities Handbook: Land Use and Design Strategies for the South Bay Cities.  Prepared for the South Bay Cities Council of Governments. 

 19.            Washington Research Council.  2001.  Managing Growth is a Balancing Act: Growth in Perspective 3.  Policy e-brief.  Washington Research Council.

 20.            Barnes, Gary.  2002.  Population and Employment Density and Travel Behavior in Large U.S. Cities.  Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota (MN/RC – 2001-24).

 21.            Weber, Joe and Mei-Po Kwan.  2002.  Bringing Time Back In: A Study on the Influence of Travel Time Variations and Facility Opening Hours on Individual Accessibility.  The Professional Geographer, 54(2), 2002. 

 22.            Knaap, Gerrit.   2002.  Talking Smart in the United States.  Paper Prepared for the International Meeting on Multiple Intensive Land Use, Sponsored by Habiform, May 10-11, 2002, Gouda, The Netherlands.

 23.            Envision Utah.  2002.  Urban Planning Tools for Quality Growth. 

 24.            Belzer, Dana and Gerald Autler.  2002.  Transit Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality.  Prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and The Great American Station Foundation.

 25.            Ewing, Reid.  Undated.  Pedestrian- and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart Growth.  Smart Growth Network. 

 26.            Victoria Transport Policy Insitute.  Undated.  Land Use Impacts on Transport: How Land Use Patterns Affect Travel Behavior.  Online TDM Encyclopedia.

 27.            Victoria Transport Policy Insitute.  Undated.  Clustered Land Use.  Online TDM Encyclopedia.

 28.            Person, Hollie Lund.  Local Accessibility, Pedestrian Travel and Neighboring: Testing the Claims of New Urbanism.  American Planning Association,  2001 National Planning Conference. 

 29.            Frank, L. and Engelke, P.O.  2001  The Built Environment and Human Activity Patterns.  Journal of Planning Literature, v 16, 2.