PUP301_essay1 - Raymond J Burby Casey Dawkins Edward Feser...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Raymond J. Burby, Casey Dawkins, Edward Feser, Emil E. Malizia, Arthur C. Nelson, Roberto Quercia, “Urban Containment and Central-City Revitalization,” Journal of the American Planning Association , Vol. 70, No. 4, (2004), pp. 411-425 Urban Containment and Central City Development Phoenix natives have no trouble identifying the problems related to urban sprawl. The valley’s pollution, traffic, loss of open land, and strained water supply are a few negative aspects of the city’. Urban sprawl may also be adversely affecting development in downtown Phoenix. “Urban Containment and Central-City Revitalization” examines the impact of urban containment programs on development in central cities. The authors show that central cities in areas with containment programs see more development than cities without such policies. These findings could have a huge affect on city design and on government spending for city revitalization. The article’s purpose is supporting the claim that urban containment programs revitalize central cities. First, the article gives a brief overview of urban containment. Next, the authors discuss how they collected the data, followed by a thorough interpretation of their findings. The primary way the authors test their idea is through dissecting the data. Finally, the article concludes with how these findings will influence future planning and suggests future research that could be done. The authors’ approach is appropriate. Explaining how they collected the data is useful because it makes their research more credible. They display the figures in tables making clear the correlation between urban containment programs and development. Data for the article was derived from the observation of 144 central cities across the United States whose local governments were included in a national study of city revitalization a few years ago. Additionally, only cities with containment programs implemented prior to1985 were eligible. One problem with the data is the 144 sample cities have a larger mean population
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
in comparison to 326 central cities across the United States. The average population in the sample is 317,332, while the mean population of the cities not included is 93,562. However, the authors overcome this problem by noting that aside from the population difference, both groups
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/03/2008 for the course PUP 301 taught by Professor Don'tremember during the Fall '07 term at ASU.

Page1 / 6

PUP301_essay1 - Raymond J Burby Casey Dawkins Edward Feser...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online