{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02509293680297398, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.834920634920635, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Developer-planner interaction in transportation and land use sustainability

Current planning and transportation regulations may be discouraging the development of alternative and perhaps more sustainable-land use approaches. Because of these restrictions, there is a significant unmet need for alternatives to traditional automobile-oriented development, and that planning interventions that restrict densities and land use mixing in developed areas is the reason these demands remain unmet. The study examines the demand for, as well as obstacles to, alternative development at the national as well as local scale. Alternative residential developments are those that are higher-density, compact and pedestrian-oriented, and/or consisting of mixed-land uses, especially as compared to the conventional, low-density, land-use-segregated, and automobile-oriented residential developments found in most American suburbs. The authors conducted a national survey of developers and studies four recent alternative developments in suburban locations built in California and in Michigan. Among the researchers' conclusions was the finding that developments deemed "successful" examples of alternative developments were approved and built due to a number of critical factors, such as existing market demand, entrepreneurial (as opposed to conformist) developers, and facilitative local governments and planners. The existing literature, current research and most policies frame the question in terms of the planning function, trying to impose a command-and-control type of land use framework that induces alternative, and more sustainable types of residential development. Despite the belief that the market demands single-family development in the suburbs, the research finds that there is a large market for alternative development that is not being met by a fairly conservative building industry (e.g. which bases its investment decisions most often on past successes rather than current demand) and restrictive planning functions (e.g. zoning regulations, planning commissions, and neighborhood resistance to alternative and more sustainable developments).