FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

Folia Geographica 2023, 65/2, pp. 53–77

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS IN PHOENIX AND TEMPE, ARIZONA: SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS AND CURRENT TRENDS

Bálint Zoltán TÓTH A*

Received: September 2, 2023 | Revised: November 8, 2023 | Accepted: November 11, 2023

Paper No. 23-65/2-692

A* Corvinus University of Budapest, Doctoral School of International Relations and Political Science, Hungary
ORCID
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6291-9122
balint.toth3@stud.uni-corvinus.hu (corresponding author)



PDF
FULL TEXT

Abstract
In parallel with the growing concerns of climate change, sustainability, and a perceived lack of urban vibrancy and vitality, an increased number of planning and design movements, policies, and incentives have emerged in the US during the last decades, criticizing urban sprawl and praising the idea of 15-minute, compact cities. However, the tools meant to achieve these, including transport-oriented and mixed-use developments were typically hampered by residential perceptions and demand, especially in the spread, auto-dependent urban regions of the western USA. The aim of the research was to explore current trends in the development of mixed-use projects and the extent to which these processes are stimulated by sustainability concerns in Phoenix and Tempe, Arizona, located in one of the most spread urban regions in the world. Interviews were conducted with planners and city representatives in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, which are complemented by the review of municipal strategies and zoning ordinances, visualization and analysis of GIS data, and implementation of site visits. The findings show that the strategic aspirations towards mixed-use developments lack environmental considerations due to public perceptions being tied to other issues related to mixed-use developments, which can be traced primarily to Phoenix Downtown. As general difficulties, concerns aggravated by political, administrative, and funding problems. However, decoupled from sustainability, mixed-use developments are likely to proliferate in the Phoenix and Tempe areas due to political will and continuous gentrification processes.

Key words
Urban planning, Phoenix MPA, Mixed-use developments, Sustainability, Trends, Interviews, GIS.

REFERENCES

  1. BARTLETT, R. (2003). Testing the “Popsicle Test”: Realities of Retail Shopping in New “Traditional Neighbourhood Developments”. Urban Studies, 40(8), 1471–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000094397.
  2. BEHRENDS, S., LINDHOLM, M., WOXENIUS, J. (2008). The Impact of Urban Freight Transport: A Definition of Sustainability from an Actor’s Perspective. Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(6), 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802493247.
  3. BOARNET, M., CRANE, R. (1997). L.A. Story: A Reality Check for Transit-Based Housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975914.
  4. BOUSSEMART, J.-P., LELEU, H., SHEN, Z., VALDMANIS, V. (2020). Performance analysis for three pillars of sustainability. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 53(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-020-00575-9.
  5. BUENO-SUÁREZ, C., COQ-HUELVA, D. (2020). Sustaining What Is Unsustainable: A Review of Urban Sprawl and Urban Socio-Environmental Policies in North America and Western Europe. Sustainability, 12(11), 4445. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12114445.
  6. CAPSTICK, S., WHITMARSH, L., POORTINGA, W., PIDGEON, N., UPHAM, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Climate Change, 6(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.321.
  7. CHASKIN, R., KHARE, A., JOSEPH, M. (2012). Participation, Deliberation, and Decision Making: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Mixed-Income Developments. Urban Affairs Review, 48(6), 863–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087412450151.
  8. CLUNE, W. H., ZEHNDER, A. J. B. (2020). The evolution of sustainability models, from descriptive, to strategic, to the three pillars framework for applied solutions. Sustainability Science, 15(3), 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00776-8.
  9. COUPLAND, A. (1996). Reclaiming the City: Mixed use development. London: Routledge
  10. CREWE, K., BRAZEL, A., MIDDEL, A. (2016). Desert New Urbanism: Testing for comfort in downtown Tempe, Arizona. Journal of Urban Design, 21(6), 746–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1187558.
  11. CULLINGWORTH, B., CAVES, R. W. (2014). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues, and processes. New York: Routledge.
  12. DALAMPIRA, E.-S., NASTIS, S. A. (2020). Back to the future: Simplifying Sustainable Development Goals based on three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, 6(3), 226-240. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/10.1504/IJSAMI.2020.112089
  13. DUANY, A., PLATER-ZYBERK, E., SPECK, J. (2000). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.
  14. FIORETTI, C., PERTOLDI, M., BUSTI, M., VAN HEERDEN, S. (2020). Handbook of Sustainable Urban Development Strategies, JRC Research Reports JRC118841, Joint Research Centre.
  15. FISCHEL, W. A. (2004). An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects. Urban Studies, 41(2), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000165271.
  16. FRANK, L. D., ENGELKE, P. (2005). Multiple Impacts of the Built Environment on Public Health: Walkable Places and the Exposure to Air Pollution. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017604273853.
  17. FRENKEL, A. (2004). The potential effect of national growth-management policy on urban sprawl and the depletion of open spaces and farmland. Land Use Policy, 21(4), 357-369.
  18. GAMMAGE, G. (2016). The Future of the Suburban City: Lessons from Sustaining Phoenix. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-624-0.
  19. GARCÍA-PALOMARES, J. C. (2010). Urban sprawl and travel to work: the case of the metropolitan area of Madrid. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(2), 197-213.
  20. GEHL, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press.
  21. GLAESER, E. (2012). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Books.
  22. GOMES SILVA, F. J., KIRYTOPOULOS, K., PINTO FERREIRA, L., SÁ, J. C., SANTOS, G., & CANCELA NOGUEIRA, M. C. (2022). The three pillars of sustainability and agile project management: How do they influence each other. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1495–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2287.
  23. GRANT, J. L., Bohdanow, S. (2008). New urbanism developments in Canada: A survey. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549170802221435.
  24. GRANT, J., PERROTT, K. (2011). Where Is the Café? The Challenge of Making Retail Uses Viable in Mixed-use Suburban Developments. Urban Studies, 48(1), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009360232.
  25. GURWITZ, A. (2019). Atlantic Metropolis: An Economic History of New York City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  26. GYOURKO, J. E., RYBCZYNSKI, W. (2000). Financing New Urbanism projects: Obstacles and solutions. Housing Policy Debate, 11(3), 733–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2000.9521384
  27. HAJILOU, M., MESHKINI, A., MIREHEI, M., GHAEDRAHMATI, S. (2022). Urban sprawl: Do its financial and economic benefits outweigh its costs for local governments? GeoJournal, 88, 2325-2342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10747-9.
  28. HANDY, S. L., CLIFTON, K. J. (2001). Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation, 28, 317-346.
  29. HANLON, J. (2010). Success by Design: HOPE VI, New Urbanism, and the Neoliberal Transformation of Public Housing in the United States. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41278.
  30. HANSMANN, R., MIEG, H. A., FRISCHKNECHT, P. (2012). Principal sustainability components: Empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 19(5), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2012.696220.
  31. HEGEDŰS, L. D., TÚRI, Z., APÁTI, N., PÉNZES, J. (2023). Analyisis of the Intra-Urban Suburbanization With GIS Methods: The case of Debrecen since the 1980s. Folia Geographica. 65(1), 23-39.
  32. HIRT, S. (2007). The Devil Is in the Definitions: Contrasting American and German Approaches to Zoning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360708978524.
  33. HOMSY, G. C., WARNER, M. E. (2015). Cities and Sustainability: Polycentric Action and Multilevel Governance. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414530545.
  34. HOSTETLER, M., KNOWLES-YANEZ, K. (2003). Land use, scale, and bird distributions in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(2), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00096-8.
  35. ISMAEL, H.M. (2021). Urban form study: the sprawling city—review of methods of studying urban sprawl. GeoJournal, 86, 1785–1796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10157-9.
  36. JACKSON, A. (2018). Barriers to Integrating New Urbanism in Mixed-Income Housing Plans in Chicago: Developer, Housing Official, and Consultant Perspectives. Housing Policy Debate, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1433703.
  37. JACKSON, L. E. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(4), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00230-X.
  38. JACOBS, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
  39. JEPSON, E. J., EDWARDS, M. M. (2010). How Possible is Sustainable Urban Development? An Analysis of Planners’ Perceptions about New Urbanism, Smart Growth and the Ecological City. Planning Practice & Research, 25(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.511016.
  40. JOHNSTON, P., EVERARD, M., SANTILLO, D., ROBÈRT, K.-H. (2007). Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 14(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375.
  41. KAGAN, S., HAUERWAAS, A., HOLZ, V., WEDLER, P. (2018). Culture in sustainable urban development: Practices and policies for spaces of possibility and institutional innovations. City, Culture and Society, 13, 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.09.005.
  42. KAHN, M. E. (2000). The environmental impact of suburbanization. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(4) 569-586.
  43. KAJDANEK, K. (2014). Newcomers vs. Old-Timers? Community, Cooperation and Conflict in the Post-Socialist Suburbs of Wrocław, Poland. In Watt, P., Smets, P., eds., Mobilities and Neighbourhood Belonging in Cities and Suburbs. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003638_10.
  44. KENNY, J. T., ZIMMERMAN, J. (2004). Constructing the ‘Genuine American City’: Neo-traditionalism, New Urbanism and neo-liberalism in the remaking of downtown Milwaukee. Cultural Geographies, 11(1), 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474003eu294oa.
  45. KLIMOVSKÝ, D., ZELENSKY, T., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K., MUŠINKA, A. (2016). Roma settlements and poverty in Slovakia: Different policy approaches of the state, local governments, and NGOs. Anthropological Notebooks, 22(1), 23-42.
  46. KNAAP, G., TALEN, E. (2005). New urbanism and smart Growth: A few words from the Academy. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 107-118.
  47. KOCSIS, J. B. (2015a). A nagyváros útjában: A helyi társadalmak átalakulása Budapest délnyugati agglomerációjában. In Keszeri, A., Bögre, Zs., eds., Hely, identitás, emlékezet. Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó, pp. 163-184.
  48. KOCSIS, J. B. (2015B). Patterns of urban development in Budapest after 1989. Hungarian Studies, 29(1-2). 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1556/044.2015.29.1-2.1.
  49. KOCSIS, J. B. (2023). Recreating Locality: Recreating Locality: Community and Identity in Budapest Suburbs, 1995–2020. In Van Damme, I., McManus, R., Dehaene, M., eds., Creativity from Suburban Nowheres: Rethinking Cultural and Creative Practices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 198-232.
  50. KOCSIS, J. B., KASSAY, G. L. (2018). Urbanizációs folyamatok összehasonlítása Közép-Európában: Budapest, Bécs, Prága, Varsó várostérségi fejlődése. FALU VÁROS RÉGIÓ, 106-119.
  51. KOVÁCS, Z., HARANGOZÓ, G., SZIGETI, C., KOPPÁNY, K., KONDOR, A. CS., SZABÓ B. (2020). Measuring the impacts of suburbanization with ecological footprint calculations. Cities, 101. 102715.
  52. LANG, R. E., & LEFURGY, B. (2007). Boomburbs: The Rise of America’s Accidental Cities. James A. Johnson Metro Series. Brookings Institution Press.
  53. LEE, J., HONG, S., PARK, Y. (2017). Predictable Surprise: The Spatial and Social Morphology of Aging Suburbs in the U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Sustainability, 9(3), 458. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030458.
  54. LOSONCZY, A. K., ORBÁN, A. BENKŐ, M. (2022). Contemporary Decentralized Development of a Centrally Planned Metropolis: The Case of Budapest. Urban Planning, 7(3), 144.-158. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5426.
  55. MALIZIA, E., SONG, Y. (2016). Does downtown office property perform better in live–work–play centers? Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9(4), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1056212.
  56. MATLOVICOVA, K., KOLESAROVA, J., MATLOVIC, R. (2016). Selected Theoretical Aspects of the Destination Marketing Based on Participation of Marginalized Communities. Conference: 8th International Annual Scientific Conference on Hotel Services, Tourism and Education. Prague, Czech Republic Oct. 19, 2016. 128-143.
  57. MATLOVIC, R., MATLOVICOVA, K. (2020). First and Second Order Discontinuities in World Geographical Thought and Their Primary Reception in Slovak Geography. Folia Geographica, 62(1), 52-76.
  58. MATLOVIC, R., SEDLAKOVA, A. (2007). The Impact of Suburbanisation in the Hinterland of Presov (Slovakia). Moravian Geographical Reports, 15(2), 22-31.
  59. MCCRIGHT, A. M., & DUNLAP, R. E. (2013). Bringing ideology in: The conservative white male effect on worry about environmental problems in the USA. Journal of Risk Research, 16(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.726242.
  60. MARKLEY, S. N. (2018). New urbanism and race: An analysis of neighborhood racial change in suburban Atlanta. Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(8), 1115–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1454818.
  61. MEEROW, S., HELMRICH, A. M., ANDRADE, R., LARSON, K. L. (2021). How do heat and flood risk drive residential green infrastructure implementation in Phoenix, Arizona? Urban Ecosystems, 24(5), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01088-x.
  62. MEGDAL, B. S. (2012). The Water Report. Arizona Groundwater Management. Envirotech Publications.
  63. MOCAK, P., MATLOVICOVA, K., MATLOVIC, R. PENZES, R., PACHURA, P. MISHRA, P. K., KOSTILNIKOVA, K. DEMKOVA, M. (2022). 15-Minute City Concept as a Sustainable Urban Development Alternative: A Brief Outline of Conceptual Frameworks and Slovak Cities as a Case. Folia Geographica, 64(1), 69-89.
  64. MOORE, J. E., MASCARENHAS, A., BAIN, J., STRAUS, S. E. (2017). Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implementation Science, 12(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0637-1.
  65. MOOS, M., VINODRAI, T., REVINGTON, N., SEASONS, M. (2018). Planning for Mixed Use: Affordable for Whom? Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1406315.
  66. MORENO, C., ALLAM, Z., CHABAUD, D., GALL, C., PRATLONG, F. (2021). Introducing The “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities, 4, 93-111. https://doi.org/10.3390/Smartcities4010006.
  67. MOYER, J. D., HEDDEN, S. (2020). Are we on the right path to achieve the sustainable development goals? World Development, 127, 104749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104749.
  68. MUALAM, N., SALINGER, E., & MAX, D. (2019). Increasing the urban mix through vertical allocations: Public floorspace in mixed use development. Cities, 87, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.027.
  69. MUNASINGHE, M. (1993). Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development. World Bank.
  70. NÆSS, P. (2001). Urban Planning and Sustainable Development. European Planning Studies, 9(4), 503-524, DOI: 10.1080/713666490.
  71. NASRI, A., ZHANG, L. (2014). The analysis of transit-oriented development (TOD) in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan areas. Transportation Policy, 32. 172-179.
  72. NEUMANNOVÁ M. (2022). Smart Districts: NewPhenomenon in Sustainable Urban Development. Case Study of Špitálka in Brno, Czech Republic. Folia Geographica 64(2), 27-48.
  73. NIEMIRA, M. P. (2007). The Concept and Drivers of Mixed-Use Development: Insights from a Cross-Organizational Membership Survey. Research Review, 4(1) 54.
  74. OWENS, S. (2003). Is there a meaningful definition of sustainability? Plant Genetic Resources, 1(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1079/PGR20034.
  75. PURVIS, B., MAO, Y., ROBINSON, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5.
  76. RENNE, J. L. (2009). From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 14(1), 1-15.
  77. RUGGERIO, C. A. (2021). Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Science of The Total Environment, 786, 147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481.
  78. SANDER, T. H. (2002). Social Capital and New Urbanism: Leading a Civic Horse to Water? National Civic Review, 91(3), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.91302.
  79. SEN, S., ROESLER, J., RUDDELL, B., MIDDEL, A. (2019). Cool Pavement Strategies for Urban Heat Island Mitigation in Suburban Phoenix, Arizona. Sustainability, 11(16), 4452. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164452.
  80. SENNETT, R., SENDRA, P. (2020). Designing Disorder: Experiments and Disruptions in the City. Verso.
  81. SHRIVASTAVA, R., SHARMA, A. (2012). Smart Growth: A Modern Urban Principle. Architecture Research, 1, 8–11. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.arch.20110101.02.
  82. SIEMIATYCKI, M. (2015). Mixing Public and Private Uses in the Same Building: Opportunities and Barriers. Journal of Urban Design, 20(2), 230–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1009012.
  83. SQUIRES, G., HUTCHISON, N. (2021). Barriers to Affordable Housing On Brownfield Sites. Land Use Policy, 102, 105276. Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Landusepol.2020.105276.
  84. TALEN, E., KOSCHINSKY, J. (2014). Compact, Walkable, Diverse Neighborhoods: Assessing Effects on Residents. Housing Policy Debate, 24(4), 717–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2014.900102.
  85. TIAN, G., PARK, K., EWING, R., WATTEN, M., WALTERS, J. (2020). Traffic generated by mixed-use developments – A follow-up 31-region study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 78, 102205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.102205.
  86. TRUDEAU, D. (2013). A typology of New Urbanism neighborhoods. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6(2), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.771695.
  87. VAN LEUVEN, A. J. (2022). The Impact of Main Street Revitalization on the Economic Vitality of Small-Town Business Districts. Economic Development Quarterly, 36(3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912424211038060.
  88. WALKS, R. A., MAARANEN, R. (2008). Gentrification, Social Mix, and Social Polarization: Testing the Linkages in Large Canadian Cities. Urban Geography, 29(4), 293–326. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.29.4.293.
  89. WANG, Z.-H., VON GNECHTEN, R., SAMPSON, D. A., WHITE, D. D. (2019). Wastewater Reclamation Holds a Key for Water Sustainability in Future Urban Development of Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Sustainability, 11(13), 3537. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133537.
  90. WARDNER, P. (2014). Explaining mixed-use developments: a critical realist’s perspective. In Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES) Conference: Resilient Communities: Providing for the Future.
  91. WENTZ, E. A., WILLS, A. J., KIM, W. K., MYINT, S. W., GOBER, P., BALLING, R. C. (2014). Factors Influencing Water Consumption in Multifamily Housing in Tempe, Arizona. The Professional Geographer, 66(3), 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2013.805627.
  92. WHITE, M. A. (2013). Sustainability: I know it when I see it. Ecological Economics, 86, 213–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.020.
  93. WHITTEMORE, A. H. (2021). Exclusionary Zoning: Origins, Open Suburbs, and Contemporary Debates. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1828146.
  94. WILKINSON, A., HILL, M., GOLLAN, P. (2001). The sustainability debate. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1492–1502. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410865.
  95. YILDIRIM, Y., AREFI, M. (2021). How does mixed-use urbanization affect noise? Empirical research on transit-oriented developments (TODs). Habitat International, 107, 102297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102297.
  96. ZHOU X., WANG Y. (2011). Spatial–temporal dynamics of urban green space in response to rapid urbanization and greening policies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(3), 268-277. Web References
  97. CITY OF PHOENIX, 2022A. Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Retrieved from: https://phoenix.municipal.codes/ZO. Accessed on 18 June 2023.
  98. CITY OF TEMPE, 2022. Zoning and Development Code. Retrieved from: https://library.municode.com/az/tempe/codes/zoning_and_development_code. Accessed on 18 June 2023.
  99. CONGRESS FOR THE NEW URBANISM, n.d. The Charter of the New Urbanism. Retrieved from: https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism. Accessed on 18 June 2023. Datasets
  100. City of Phoenix. (2022b). Proposed Zoning. [dataset] Retrieved from: https://mapping-phoenix.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/Phoenix::proposed-zoning/explore?filters=eyJaT05JTkciOlsiV1UiXX0%3D&location=33.475532%2C-112.018330%2C12.82. Accessed on 18 June 23.
  101. City of Phoenix. (2022c). Zoning. [dataset] Retrieved from: https://mapping-phoenix.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/Phoenix::zoning/explore?location=33.591793%2C-112.111500%2C11.06. Accessed on 18 June 23.
  102. City of Phoenix. (2022d). Walkable Urban Code. [dataset] https://mapping-phoenix.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/Phoenix::walkable-urban-code/explore?location=33.294846%2C-112.205850%2C9.23. Accessed on 18 June 23.
  103. City of Tempe. (2020). Zoning District. [dataset] Retrieved from: https://data.tempe.gov/datasets/tempegov::zoning-district/explore. Accessed on 18 June 2023.
  104. City of Tempe. (2023a). General Plan 2040 Data [dataset] Retrieved from: https://data.tempe.gov/maps/general-plan-2040-data/about. Accessed on 18 June 2023.
  105. City of Tempe. (2023b). Zoning and Overlay Districts. [dataset] Retrieved from: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/zoning-and-overlay-districts-3ef0c. Accessed on 18 June 2023.
  106. Howard, J. (2021). Existing and Planned Light Rail in Maricopa County, Arizona. [dataset] Maricopa Association of Governments. Retrieved from: https://geodata-azmag.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/AZMAG::existing-and-planned-light-rail-in-maricopa-county-arizona/explore. Accessed on 18 June 2023.