How to improve i-Thrive

Throughout this blog, I discuss how to build sustainable communities in a broader sense, but is it possible to quantify improvements to ensure design characteristics match up with those of a thriving 'sustainable' neighborhood? iThrive is one such method. As a growth management excel-based tool, it can help engineers and planners assess the sustainability benefits of development by a land use and transportation design evaluation. The Excel document contains three sheets: metrics, guidelines, and a summary page.

The metrics measure the following:

• degree of land-use mix 
• density 
• proximity to services 
• street connectivity 
• land use evaluation
• road network and sidewalk 
• parking 
• aesthetics and human scale 

We visited a suburb of the Hague, Ypenburg, a master- planned development on airport land from the 1990s, and applied these criteria. Although the neighborhood felt denser than your average suburban neighborhood in North America, it did not fulfill my image of a thriving neighborhood. The neighborhood, to put it bluntly, lacked any form of vibrancy and excitement. Even the Dutch professional mobility planners we spoke to considered it to be boring.

The neighborhood of Ypenburg would do well on iThrive metrics for its floor area ratio (FAR) and units per hectare (UPH), and proximity to transit, services, and greenspace

iThrive, though comprehensive, does miss a few important details which define a sustainable community. For instance, CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) ought to be a valued factor. In addition, the metrics miss social equity, such as how much social housing or social mix a neighborhood has, as well as how diverse it is racially, culturally, or by age. Economic factors might also be left out; how can one ensure that commercial development is sustainable, especially since traffic patterns can impact how well local businesses are frequented?

In devising mobility and land use designs for a neighborhood in Kelowna, British Columbia, different groups applied iThrive metrics to their projects. Our scores ranged from 60% (at lowest) to 75% (at highest). All of our designs had something unique to them, and I would consider each a thriving sustainable community model. However, the iThrive score depends on subjective evaluation of performance on metrics and could contain biases based on the individual inputting the data. Some might be more optimistic about meeting the requirements, while others are critical. iThrive is a valuable assessment tool, but it needs to improve in its metric valuation system or be paired with other assessment tools such as EIA and Healthy Community indicators.