In general, this area contains some of the most architecturally significant, historic, and walkable neighborhoods in the City. Included in this area are the West Square Historic District, the North Main Street area, Brooklyn-South Square, and the well-designed streetcar suburb of Fulton Heights. Many of the neighborhoods in the area are graced with tree-lined streets, laid out in a well-connected, grid iron pattern, and have an extensive system of sidewalks. Public transit criss crosses the area and benefits from the relatively higher density development found here.

The entire area is convenient to the services of the central business district, and a wide range of cultural, civic, and educational institutions. Several public parks and cemeteries provide open space relief within walking distance of most residences. The area is also favored with a large number of employment opportunities within walking distance. Government, finance, education, business, and industry are all located within a short distance of most residential areas. In short, the older part of Salisbury embodies many of the preferred urban design principles set forth in this plan.

At the same time, however, many parts of the area continue to be challenged by issues typical of older, inner city neighborhoods. These issues include higher than average unemployment, school drop out and teen pregnancy rates, as well as drug abuse and crime. Generally speaking, the area also has a higher than average percentage of female-headed households and low-income elderly. Though it contains some of the most picturesque, tree-lined streets in the City, the area also suffers from substandard housing conditions and old infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, water and sewer, etc.).

Because the area is hampered largely by social and economic challenges, rather than by bad city form, the policies covering these neighborhoods include social and economic initiatives as well as physical improvements.

In addition, residents and property owners should be encouraged to provide ground level lighting, entryway lights, porch lights, etc. While lights alone are no substitute for a comprehensive neighborhood watch/crime prevention program, they are nonetheless one of the least expensive security systems available. Pedestrian-oriented streetlights and properly shielded area lights can also bring a sense of human comfort and safety to such areas.

"Cobrahead" Streetlight (Obstructed)	Pedestrian Oriented Streetlight (Unobstructed)

Salisbury’s City Council has identified neighborhood improvement as a priority goal. Recently, the City’s commitment to its neighborhoods was brought to the forefront through the creation of a special Neighborhood Improvement Task Force. This broad-based task force is made up

of property owners, real estate interests, clergymen, historic preservationists, elected officials, city staff members and others. City staff members on the task force include representatives of police, fire, public works, planning, code enforcement, finance, and administration.

The mission statement of Task Force is:

Early in the study process, the Task Force identified a wide range of issues in need of attention. Those issues included: vacant and boarded up houses, absentee landlords, poor property maintenance, abandoned or junked cars, cars parked in front yards, trash in yard, overcrowding, upholstered furniture/appliances on porches, vacant and overgrown lots, trash cans left at the curbside, drug activity, and noise.

The Task Force brings together a unique combination of private citizens and public servants to tackle Salisbury’s neighborhood improvement needs in a comprehensive manner. This approach also allows teams of specialists from various parts of the City's administration to focus their resources on particular target areas. In recent years, the primary areas of focus have been the West End and Park Avenue neighborhoods. Future efforts are being discussed which would bring similar levels of attention to the Fisher Street and Jersey City neighborhoods. Ultimately, through a combination of needed capital investments, improved ordinances, and targeted programs, it is hoped that permanent improvements can be achieved in these targeted areas.

It should come as no surprise that the most effective, lasting way to effect beneficial social change is through community self action. Therefore, community centers can be essential places for residents to gather (whether formally or informally), discuss, and solve neighborhood problems. When such opportunities can be provided at the local elementary school, the church fellowship hall, or through private clubs and civic organizations, so much the better. But where such opportunities are not readily available, it may be necessary for the city to assist in filling the void with a community center or recreation center.

This is especially important in the City’s most diverse neighborhoods, which are often its older neighborhoods. Unlike many suburban neighborhoods, which tend to focus on a relatively narrow economic and social niche, older neighborhoods often have a much more diverse population. Within a single urban neighborhood, it would not be unusual to find senior citizens, college students, young couples, singles, families with children, empty nesters, etc.

Recreation Center, which provides a valuable gathering place for area citizens and is well used by residents of all ages.

Another example, just now emerging, involves the City’s efforts to establish a community center in the Park Avenue neighborhood. The project involves the restoration and adaptive reuse of two historic buildings located at the corner of Park Avenue and Boundary Streets. Once feasibility, programming, and architectural studies are completed, it is expected that these two former mill village commercial buildings will house meeting spaces, an after-school care and tutoring program, and a business incubator facility.

It is important that older homes are restored, remodeled and/or replaced and empty lots are developed in a manner that is compatible with the balance of the neighborhood. Architectural compatibility can be measured by several factors, some of which are: building proportion and size, setback from the street, building materials used, roof form, type of foundation, presence or absence of porches, placement of garages and outbuildings, use of fences and walls, and landscaping, etc.

Typically, structures in "traditional" older neighborhoods exhibit classic features such as: two stories, narrow lots, functional front porches, gabled, steeply pitched roofs, homes pulled up to the street, garages to the rear, etc.

security in communication and closeness, and in focusing as many eyes as possible on the street. Front porches and the pitched roofs of traditional house designs are also energy efficient, minimizing electric bills for air conditioning. This is especially important among low-income persons and the elderly on fixed incomes.

Interestingly, North Carolina state enabling legislation does not authorize local governments to conduct discretionary design review (i.e. review based on the opinion of a board) of structures located outside a historic district or certified redevelopment area. This would appear to rule out design review in most of the city’s older neighborhoods. Not so. Most significant measures of compatibility can be set forth in the city zoning ordinance through performance standards (numerical or simple checklist-style standards), which require no discretionary review. Examples include performance standards related to "build-to" lines for front yard setbacks, garages to be placed in the rear yard, homes to be built over crawl spaces, roofs to have a certain minimum pitch, as well as standards for floor-area ratios, lot coverage ratios, etc. The challenge, then, becomes one of identifying neighborhood areas with consistent development patterns that can be conveniently translated into performance-based standards. In doing so, such actions may also have the effect of bringing some older properties back on the market that have been rendered undevelopable by suburban style zoning.

In committing to an on-going reinvestment strategy for its older urban neighborhoods, it is important to remember that these areas are among the most cost effective parts of the community to serve. Property taxes collected over many decades have paid for the infrastructure of these areas many times over. Municipal services provided to these areas, including law enforcement, fire protection, refuse collection, street sweeping and so forth, can be delivered in a highly efficient manner, owing largely to the compact form of the older city. It is only fair, therefore, that these older neighborhoods should benefit from an on-going program of reinvestment commensurate with the cost efficiencies associated with servicing these areas. Public investment in infrastructure improvements should be focused in the following areas:

Parks: The efficiencies of smaller lot sizes and many residents close at hand call for nearby park facilities at the neighborhood level.

Sidewalks: Sidewalks are more intensively used in older urban areas and, therefore, warrant the highest levels of attention in maintenance and replacement.

Streets: The condition of neighborhood streets is often the most visible aspect of a local government’s commitment to the betterment of an area.

Street Lights: Well placed, pedestrian oriented street lights are critically important in older urban neighborhoods, where sidewalks are well used and pedestrian safety is of paramount concern.

Water and sewer lines: Though less visible than above ground infrastructure, adequate water and sewer lines are essential services.

Drainage: Older neighborhoods occasionally become the recipient of unwanted stormwater runoff from new "upstream" development. The best way to prevent this is through careful site plan review. It sometimes becomes necessary, however, to retroactively fix a drainage problem caused by new development.

The availability of groceries, pharmaceuticals and other necessities continues to be a basic need for residents in some older parts of the city. At the same time, small offices and other small businesses can provide suitable employment opportunities within walking distance of the home.

Over the past decade or more, the City has been quite effective in employing various grant programs, financing mechanisms, and development incentives to help revitalize the downtown core. The City should build upon this experience and momentum by encouraging the development of appropriately located and designed stores and services providing, particularly, daily necessities to presently underserved areas.

"Appropriately located" as used here, typically means the placement of stores and services at street corners where they can be conveniently accessed from several directions. "Pedestrian oriented, designed, and scaled" means structures that are compatible with the architectural style and scale of surrounding structures, which are pedestrian rather than automobile oriented, and which have operating characteristics compatible with nearby residences (i.e. limited parking or parking in the rear, sidewalks, compatible lighting and signage, attractive landscaping, appropriate buffering, etc.). In doing so, the City will also be instrumental in taking yet one more action consistent with the overall objective of reducing automobile dependency and traffic congestion on area streets.

(Also see Policies C-23 to C-32 where much greater detail is provided concerning Pedestrian-Oriented, Neighborhood Businesses.)

During the town meetings held for the Comprehensive Plan, support for public transit was clearly evident. In fact, among all transportation issues, public transit was the second most frequently identified issue receiving support.

Significantly, since the World War II, public perceptions about public transit have changed dramatically. As our cities have become more dependent upon the individual automobile, most of us have been conditioned to believe that public subsidies to the bus system are a cash-out-of-pocket cost, while our much greater public subsidies to the road system (and hence the individual automobile) are a public necessity. Unlike bus system subsidies, however, these subsidies are largely hidden or accepted matter-of-factly as a cost of living.

Consider, however, federal, state and local subsidies for sprawling street systems, multiple lane thoroughfares, highways, bridges and interstates. Fuel taxes, included in the cost of gasoline, create a steady source of capital to expand the street and highway network. Over and above that, Congressional appropriations divert massive sums of money to the nation’s transportation infrastructure, usually with some budget "crumbs" (relatively speaking) set aside for mass transportation, bicycle facilities, and other alternatives to the automobile.

"Induced demand" is an expression which is gaining increasing recognition in transportation planning. It means the tendency for new highway facilities to generate even more traffic congestion than before the facility was constructed, or before more lanes were added. While this certainly does not apply to all new facilities, it is a principle that warrants examination when new facilities are being considered. Regardless, while public understanding about the real costs and benefits of new transportation facilities is often less than it should be, it is beginning to improve.

In contrast to road infrastructure, public transit has many redeeming values and few negative ones. Public transit reduces congestion on the streets and generates less air pollution. It also cuts down on the need for extensive parking lots, thereby reducing visual blight, and storm water runoff from paved surfaces.¹ On another level, public transit can be instrumental in encouraging persons of different racial, ethic and economic class to at least "share the same space" during their daily commute, perhaps breaking down social barriers to some degree.

supported and expanded where possible. The objective of City government, therefore, should be twofold: (1) to continue to support and expand the bus system where reasonable need can be justified, and (2) to promote and reinforce development patterns and neighborhoods that make bus service more effective to operate.

frowned upon, except as necessary for large gatherings. Service and delivery functions, such as for mail, the newspaper and refuse collection, are normally located at the street edge, near the end of the driveway.

Homes are typically within a prescribed, fairly narrow price range and square footage. Average household incomes tend to closely parallel home prices, thus creating low, middle, upper middle and upper class neighborhoods. Streets and blocks are typically long, with few intersections, and may be straight or curvilinear, to add interest.

Public parks and designed open spaces are often absent, owing to the open spaces associated with each large lot. It is not unusual for these large lots to function as their own private "playgrounds", with a basketball goal in many driveways and a swing set in most back yards. When community recreational amenities are present, they are most often in the form of a private club with pool and/or tennis courts. A private golf course may also be present in higher end developments. Schools, work and shopping tend to be well removed from these areas, thus assuring a uniform residential appearance throughout the subdivision.

In summary, the greatest attributes of these spacious neighborhoods may be their predictability and consistency. By assuring uniformity in lot sizes, home prices, square footages, architecture, land use, household incomes, and social structure, each property owner’s standard of home life is also assured, and the investment in the home is seen as protected and secure.

At the same time, the hidden costs of these post war suburban neighborhoods are well documented, if not widely known by the general public. These large lot subdivisions have generally consumed a great deal of land per housing unit, thus contributing to the pervasive loss of farmland and open space in America in the latter half of the 20th century. The spread out nature of these areas requires much greater initial costs and on-going maintenance and replacement costs for infrastructure. Each larger, wider lot requires greater lengths of streets, sidewalks (if present) water and sanitary sewer lines, storm sewers, and electric, telephone, cable and natural gas utilities.

Likewise, the costs of providing services to these areas are also more expensive per household. Included in these higher service costs are mail delivery, police and fire protection, refuse collection, street cleaning, school bus services, and meter reading, among others.

Environmentally, these areas generate more stormwater runoff per housing unit, due to more street pavement, driveway pavement, and roof area (not to mention paved areas in shopping centers and work places made necessary by automobile dependent subdivisions). Of interest, air quality impacts from suburban-based automobile emissions are causing serious problems in many parts of the country, notably Los Angeles and Atlanta, but also in the Piedmont Triad area.

Socially, near total dependence on the automobile for daily activities tends to isolate people economically and otherwise. This isolation makes children completely dependent upon their parents for transportation to most activities. Similarly, the non-driving elderly become confined to their homes, unable to grocery shop or get to the doctor without special assistance from others with a car.

Subdivision n. A tract of land divided into smaller lots.

Neighborhood n. An area defined by the commonality of its inhabitants or other characteristics.

Finally, the generally low development density of these areas also makes it uneconomic to provide public transit service, effectively eliminating that alternative to the automobile.

Over the next several decades (through about the year 2030) the elderly population of the United States is going to grow exponentially. North Carolina is expected to continue to be a major draw for retirees. Given the quality of life and prime location of Salisbury in the central Piedmont, this area could witness a sizeable increase in retirement population.

As the baby boom generation, now middle aged, reaches its retirement years, the ability of our society to deal with the living needs of the elderly is expected to be severely strained. Suburban subdivisions and retirement communities, initially occupied by the active-retired, will eventually be filled with elderly residents who can no longer drive. Homes in many of these isolated residential developments will be far removed from shopping and medical facilities. Despite the obvious need, bus service will be difficult to provide, due to the high costs of serving these large lot, very low-density areas. Group housing and nursing homes, costly even today, will be pressed to meet the long-term care needs of the multitudes.

Accessory or "infill" housing provides an opportunity to address this problem. Many residential lots in Salisbury’s post-war suburban neighborhoods average 10,000 to 15,000 square feet or more per lot. The size of these lots affords good opportunity for attractively designed rear yard cottages, "carriage houses" or "granny flats". Larger homes could also be modified to accommodate small, independent senior living spaces within. Regardless of the approach used, such units would be highly affordable to build, because there would be no additional land costs. In fact, the potential income from an accessory unit (if rented) would supplement the income of the main house family, thereby making both housing units more affordable.

Second, public transit, now uneconomical to operate in the suburbs, could become more feasible to operate with the addition of more housing units in the same area of land. The availability of public transit would not only meet the needs of the non-driving elderly population, but would also encourage working age people and older children to use public transit.

Third, from the builder’s perspective, many more affordable housing units could be provided without the cost of building expensive infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, power and telephone lines, etc.) Similarly, the community's costs of servicing the population and maintaining the infrastructure would remain relatively constant, despite the larger numbers of people served, and the larger tax base created.

Obviously, the addition of such housing to an existing residential neighborhood is not to be done without considerable public dialogue and consensus among area residents. Changes in the city’s zoning ordinance and perhaps the neighborhood’s restrictive covenants might be necessary. Well defined design standards for such infill development would be required to make sure that any such living spaces or new accessory structures would fit in well with the character of the neighborhood.

Changes like this do not occur overnight. Yet, as the great bulk of the baby boom generation continues to age over the next three decades, public support for such changes may gradually evolve. Baby boomers who built large houses to raise their families may seek ways to stay on their property by offsetting their housing expenses. Like so many other societal trends, it may take several successful examples to demonstrate how such development can be well done. The sooner Salisburians begin to think about these and other options, the better prepared we will be to act upon them when the time is right.

Due to the spread out nature of most of Salisbury’s newer suburban neighborhoods, it is not likely that people in these areas will be in the habit of walking to distant services. Studies have shown that the average person may be induced to walk rather than drive on an errand, when the destination involves a walk of five minutes or less. (Other factors, such as the availability of parking also factor in…) Bicycles, however, offer a reasonable alternative and can cover a much greater distance than the pedestrian in a typical five-minute period. Salisbury’s relatively moderate year round climate, general lack of ice and snow, and gently rolling terrain make bicycles a reasonable alternative.

Much will need to be done, however, before bicycle transportation can become a significant travel option. First, public perceptions of the bicyclist as an unwanted intruder in the "domain of the automobile" will need to change. This is a huge task. A major area-wide educational program will need to include effective signage, and the support of elected officials, civic groups, school programs, and other initiatives.

major streets leading to and from neighborhood areas may be necessary. Such routes and lanes must connect significant destinations, such as shopping areas and work places, with continuous safe travel routes along the entire length of travel.

Third, the disconnected, non-continuous street system of many of Salisbury’s adjoining suburban neighborhoods will present a particular challenge. If possible, opportunities to link existing adjoining neighborhoods with biking or walking paths would be a very desirable goal. This might require an occasional mid-block or end-of-the-cul-de-sac bicycle connector where an existing utility easement, greenway, or other reserved open space is already in place.

Regarding walkways or sidewalks, many suburban neighborhoods might welcome the addition of such facilities, particularly where there has been a history of one or more children being injured by high-speed traffic. Increases in property values may also offer some appeal to the retrofitting of existing suburban neighborhoods with sidewalks. Regardless, any such sidewalk or bikeway connections would require considerable public input from within the affected neighborhoods.

(More on this in the Bikeways section and the Sidewalks section.)

This policy is intended to address a situation that sometimes occurs when a formerly quiet rural or suburban roadway becomes, with increased urbanization, a well-traveled, perhaps multi-lane thoroughfare. When this happens, existing homes along the roadway are exposed to levels of traffic and noise that are no longer suitable for residential living. Often, when this happens, one of two undesirable scenarios occur:

Undesirable Scenario 1: Gradual downward spiral of property upkeep and property values. If no action is taken, residential structures along the roadway will eventually go from being primarily owner-occupied to being primarily renter-occupied. While some rental property owners will try to keep their property up, others will let it decline. The quality of renters will also decline, and the downward spiral will continue, further affecting the stability of residential property values along the roadway, and in the area at large.

Under this undesirable scenario, the rental incomes that residential structures along the roadway produce generally become insufficient to pay for their proper upkeep. Eventually, declines in the value and upkeep of these structures have a negative effect on both the perceived and real value and stability of homes along the roadway, as well as nearby homes off the roadway. Property appearances also create a negative image for travelers entering the community along these declining roadway sections.

Undesirable Scenario 2: Transition to intensive commercial development. If, on the other hand, intensive commercial activity is allowed to displace existing single family homes along the roadway, the bright lights, noise, nighttime activities, and traffic generated can make adjoining residential properties unlivable, increase cut though traffic and traffic volumes in the adjoining neighborhood planning area, and cause a downward spiral, affecting the stability of residential property values and the viability of nearby residential areas.

Under this undesirable scenario, intensive commercial activity is permitted to displace existing single-family homes along the roadway. Such commercial development brings with it all the objectionable impacts associated with intensive commercial activity. Allowing intensive commercial activity to occur in the vicinity of other existing homes in the area causes a steady decline in the value of residences in the area. Commercial strip development along these roadway sections also creates a negative image for travelers entering the community and contributes further to traffic congestion.

Clearly, neither of these two scenarios is a desirable outcome. Rather, this plan suggests a third, preferred scenario that avoids many, if not most, of the undesirable consequences outlined under these two unwanted scenarios.

As the policy suggests, appropriately designed and scaled office or institutional uses along the periphery of a neighborhood planning area can serve as a useful buffer between the heavily traveled thoroughfare and the homes to the interior of the neighborhood planning area. Such uses can also provide the opportunity for jobs within walking distance of nearby residences.

"Architecturally compatible and residentially scaled" means that any such non-residential uses along the periphery of the neighborhood planning area must be of a type and design that will be compatible with nearby residential properties. Measures of compatibility can be specified in the City’s zoning ordinance, and might include, for example:

• No bright lights.
• Permitted uses which typically, do not have nighttime hours.
• Permitted uses which typically do not generate high traffic volumes.
• Architecture, (whether of new construction or of rehabilitation) that is of a scale and design sympathetic to a residential area.
• Retention of trees.
• Heavily landscaped parking areas.
• Carefully controlled access.

subdivisions. It also deprives families and their children of the full range of daily activities which makes for a complete quality of life.

As noted in the chapter on Neighborhood Planning Areas, the addition of commercial and other services at the intersection of major streets forming the corners of a neighborhood planning area can be helpful in bringing such services closer to area residents. It should be noted however, that in contrast to Policy N-11 above, such commercial (as opposed to office and institutional) development is limited to the corners of the neighborhood planning area only. This allows traffic from the commercial services to be dispersed on the intersecting major streets and diminishes the possibility that traffic will be tempted to cut through the adjoining neighborhood planning area on local residential streets.

As is the case under Policy N-11, several conditions are in order, however, to assure that such commercial development is a good neighbor, rather than an objectionable nuisance. First, the size and scale of commercial or other non-residential uses must be tailored to the specific location. While some locations are appropriate for larger scale shopping or work places, other locations will call for relatively small enterprises of a residential scale.

Second, the specific design of the non-residential use(s) will be important in assuring that the new development is compatible with nearby residential areas. Not surprisingly, many of these requirements are similar to those noted under Policy N-11: Signage must be limited in size and height. Lighting must be carefully shielded to prevent spilling over into the adjoining neighborhood. Street access must be carefully planned to prevent any demand for cut through traffic in the adjoining residential area.

If all of the appropriate precautions are taken, the addition of, for example, an appropriately located and designed grocery store, can be a welcome asset. Inconvenient, time-consuming trips to a distant shopping center for a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs or a gallon of milk can be avoided. At the same time, neighborhoods need not be subjected to the bright lights, plastic signage, unadorned architecture, and barren parking lot that have come to be associated with the typical convenience store or "big box" retailer. Commercial and retail services can be attractive and of reasonable size, as well as convenient.

Still, many "new urbanists" believe that the past fifty years of automobile-oriented sprawl is actually an aberration from the norm. They claim that the preceding two hundred fifty years of largely pedestrian oriented development will eventually return as the preferred model. The ability of automobile oriented growth to sustain itself is dependent, to some degree, upon cheap sources of energy, particularly crude oil. But even as automobiles become more efficient, and alternative sources of energy are developed, there are indications that the whole sprawling system of development is starting to self-destruct. Driving distances and commuting travel times continue to increase with each passing year. Traffic congestion on Salisbury’s major roadways (as well as in most urban areas) has been growing at ten times the rate of population increase. People fed up with traffic are simply rejecting the inefficient, separation-of-use growth model of the past fifty years. They may not understand why it is happening, but they clearly don’t like it.

In addition, unhealthy air pollution levels have caused the US Environmental Protection Agency to stop all federally subsidized road construction in several urban areas. Atlanta, for the past two decades a major growth dynamo in the South, has had its business prospects dimmed by EPA’s action. Similar threats are now facing the Piedmont Triad area, just to the north of Salisbury.

As traffic congestion continues to choke the economic growth prospects for whole regions, it is hoped that the average citizen will become increasingly receptive to better ways of building our cities. Likewise, the business community, including homebuilders and real estate interests in particular, is beginning to recognize that unless something is done, anti-growth initiatives and development moratoriums will come to the forefront. As a result, "smart growth" ballot initiatives passed easily in many states during the last elections. In North Carolina, Governor Hunt has made "smart growth" one of his highest priorities.

The message is finally beginning to emerge in the mainstream news media that adding another lane on the highway is not going to solve the problem of traffic congestion. The answer lies in creating neighborhoods and whole sections of our cities with patterns of mixed use which rely less upon the automobile, and more upon walking, biking and public transit. For Salisbury, the answer lies in the form of the city’s future development, the majority of which will be taken up by our "Neighborhoods Yet To Be".

This is a broad policy statement, which is further detailed in the specific policies following in this section. A compact neighborhood is a more densely developed neighborhood. Yet the word density is an abhorrent term to many citizens and community leaders who have, for three generations, been taught to associate density with the evils of the industrialized city. Reid Ewing, of Rutgers University has described this perception very well.

zoning. Such new neighborhoods will lend themselves to walking, biking and the use of public transit. Front yards and street trees will take on new importance as the street is returned to a functional space for pedestrians too. Neighborhood safety will be heightened by the security of having neighbors close at hand. The costs of providing public and private services will be reduced by the inherent efficiencies of a compact neighborhood. As a result, Salisbury’s new neighborhoods will be more affordable, walkable, attractive, functional, secure, and easier to serve.

In recent years, many design professionals, builders, developers, and municipalities have begun to advocate making streets no wider than necessary to serve their intended purpose. The City of Salisbury is among this progressive group. The City’s current standard for right of way and pavement width on minor streets is for 50 feet of right of way and 26 feet of pavement from back of curb to back of curb. Since 1997, the City has allowed local, residential streets to be built with rights of way as narrow as 45 feet and with pavement widths of as little as 22 feet (with on-street parking on one side).

As mentioned above, narrower streets have several advantages. In new developments, for example, narrower streets mean less land consumption and lower initial construction costs. In a competitive building environment, these savings to the builder are ultimately passed along to the homebuyer. Narrower streets have also been shown to slow drivers down as they pass through a residential area. And, in contrast to wider streets, narrower streets generate less stormwater runoff, less summer heat, and lower maintenance costs.

(For more on the proper use of narrow streets, see the Minor Streets section.)

Each neighborhood planning area should have one or more focal points that may include, for example, a community building, central open space, an elementary school, and one or more churches. (Also see next recommendation, and the Commercial Areas Yet to Be section.) Ideally, these focal points should be located to the interior of the neighborhood planning area within a five to ten minute walk of any home in the area. Such focal points provide a necessary place for residents of the various neighborhoods in the neighborhood planning area to come together for community gatherings. More importantly, they provide opportunities for informal meetings and social exchanges in day-to-day living— errands, walking and bicycling, etc.

(Also see Policy Section P-5 under the Parks, Open Space and Recreation chapter concerning the provision of adequate open space in proportion to the acreage being developed or number of new housing units being created.)

Established neighborhoods customarily view new commercial development in their vicinity as an intrusion. Given the form of new commercial developments over the past several decades, their objections are usually justified. The typical large building scale, monolithic, boxy design, bright lights and signage, extensive parking, and traffic of today's standard commercial development is enough to frighten any homeowner.

As noted previously, however, not all commercial development need be ugly and offensive. In new neighborhoods, small scale shopping and work places can be incorporated into the fabric of the community if they are carefully located and designed from the outset. The objective should be to contain as many small errands as possible within the bounds of the neighborhood planning area, rather than requiring an automobile trip on a collector or thoroughfare. (For much greater detail on this policy, see section on Small Scale, Pedestrian-Oriented Neighborhood Businesses Yet To Be, Policies C-24 to C-32)⁴

results in a city in which people of different ages and incomes are socially isolated and alienated from one another. This sorting of people by age and income has far-reaching, negative social and political consequences that are beyond the scope of this brief section to address. (See section on City History and City Form—Lessons Learned for more on this.)

In any event, one objective of this plan is to encourage a mixture of housing types and prices within each neighborhood planning area. This can be accomplished in two ways. First, housing units of different types can be designed into the layout and mix of a single development, so long as the overall scale and design of the buildings in which the units are located is compatible (e.g. single family homes, duplexes, town houses, garage apartments etc., all of appropriate height, bulk, and style of architecture).

Second, no one neighborhood planning area should focus on a single price range and style of housing (e.g. all single family, $150,000 to 175,000). Such single use areas create large, homogeneous blocks of uniform housing (and by default, race, age, family type, etc.) for an entire area of the city.

One good way to allow for a variation in housing types and prices is to employ a community park or other amenity as a common central focal point around which different housing developments can be arranged. This "pinwheel" format satisfies the entrenched market demand for separation of housing types by value, while encouraging community interaction among residents of varied economic strata.

This policy recognizes current development practices and real estate market forces that drive the development of relatively large scale apartment and condominium complexes. Even in a relatively small town like Salisbury, it is not unusual for such "multi-family" developments to contain one hundred or more housing units. At the same time, the sizeable parking areas, traffic volumes and other concentrated activity associated with such projects usually create considerable opposition from nearby single family residential areas. Apartment complexes thus usually fall into the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) category.

In terms of access, it makes a great deal of sense to have a convenient transit stop at or very near each major multi-family development. Density makes transit work. Also, it is critically important that multi-family developments have direct access to a thoroughfare, to minimize travel desire to or from the project on minor residential streets. Automobile access to a multi-family development through a lower density residential area should be avoided.

In terms of design, multifamily developments should have many of the same features favorable for community interaction as found in a single-family neighborhood. Functional front porches can soften the building façade, encourage neighborly dialogue, and put more eyes on the street. Townhomes pulled up to a street help create an attractive street space, rather than the sterile parking lot found in so many post-war apartment complexes. Homes built up off the ground provide for necessary privacy and improve "defensible space". Sidewalks aid community interaction and encourage pedestrian movement.

Each new neighborhood should not be viewed as an isolated island or pod, but rather as another element of the intricate tapestry that makes up the city. The streets, bikeways, and sidewalks of one neighborhood should be connected with those of adjacent neighborhoods. This will allow children, for example, to walk and bike to school, or to a friend's house, or to other activities, etc. without having to use a major thoroughfare. Adults too, should be able to walk or bike to work by passing through quiet residential streets.

By developing a fully connected honeycomb or grid system of local streets, a child or adult should be able to travel anywhere within a one-half to one square mile neighborhood planning area without having to cross or use a major thoroughfare. At the same time, the pattern of the street layout, pavement width, intersections, etc. can be carefully designed to discourage cut-through automobile traffic. (See illustration from the section entitled The Neighborhood Planning Area: The Common Sense Building Block of a More Livable, Less Traffic Congested City")

Policy N-20 states that all new neighborhoods shall have streets which cater equally to the pedestrian and the automobile. This policy requires that City standards be established and implemented to make this happen.

For bike routes and greenways to be most effective, they must establish continuous corridors for travel movement. For Salisbury, a conceptual greenway master plan has been prepared which identifies general corridors for future greenway development. The conceptual greenway master plan, included by reference as an element of this master plan, should be recognized when new neighborhoods are built in the vicinity of proposed greenway corridors. This is analogous to the reservation of designated thoroughfare corridors during development plan review.

The same principle should apply to proposed bikeway corridors. Unfortunately, the City does not have in place an official bikeway master plan. Therefore, the first step in implementing this policy would be the formulation of such a bikeway plan. A second step would be the adoption of an open space dedication provision in the City’s subdivision regulations, providing a mechanism by which greenway corridors may be reserved at the time of subdivision approval. Even when major greenway or bikeway corridors are not anticipated within or adjacent to a new development, provision should still be made for on-street or off-street bikeways connecting to adjacent developments. (For more detailed information on bike routes and greenways, see the Chapters on Bikeways and Parks, Open Space, and Greenways.)