Design First Walters fm qxd 2/26/04 7: 50 pm page I

Figure 7.2
Connectivity Index Diagram. Street
connectivity is vital for efficient and sustainable
neighborhood design, and is measured by the ration
of ‘links’ to ‘nodes’. Links are represented by black
circles and nodes by stars. This example gives a
connectivity index of 1.22 (dividing 11 links by 9
nodes). This is barely sufficient. An index ratio of 
1.4 or 1.5 is much preferred. For example, if the
two cul-de-sacs were eliminated and the streets
extended in a ‘north–east’ direction to connect to
adjacent streets, the number of nodes (stars), would
not increase, but there would be two extra links
(circles) created between the new intersections.
This would give a connectivity index of 1.44 
(13 links divided by 9 nodes).
6
EP
EP-Edge of Pavement
10
10
3
Figure 7.3
Cross-section of a Multi-use Path. Where
sidewalks adjacent to busy roads are not formed by
buildings, multiuse paths can provide valuable
connections for cyclists and pedestrians.
Walters_07.qxd 2/26/04 7:29 PM Page 162

---

streets, we recommended that selected greenway cor-
ridors could also provide bicycling commuter routes.
Mixed-use Activity Centers
(see Plate 17)
We made several detailed recommendations regard-
ing the location and design of mixed-use activity
centers throughout the study area, but we established
one overall principle: 
The Center of the Region should
be anchored by a series of neighborhoods and villages,
each with a defineable, coherent mixed-use core at the
appropriate scale
.
This recommendation marked a significant shift
from the current development pattern of single-use
office parks, apartment complexes and large-lot single
family subdivisions, and as such it was one of the most
important components of the plan. It is inherently
more sustainable to build the region around a series of
neighborhood or village centers linked by a transporta-
tion network that promotes walking, bicycling, and
public transit as alternatives to driving everywhere. This
new typology provides opportunities to live, work, play
and shop without long commutes, and supports a wider
range of lifestyles and different types of households.
These mixed-use centers comprise the most impor-
tant urban building blocks of the whole plan, pro-
viding focal points of activity and neighborhood
structure throughout the study area. Plate 17 indicates
the location of each of the 10 proposed centers, and we
illustrate three of them – the Triangle Metro Center,
the North Morrisville Neighborhood Center and the
RTP Service Center – in more detail, each differing in
scale and character. As stressed earlier in this chapter
and elsewhere, each type of center typically includes
some residential development and also has direct,
pedestrian connections to surrounding neighbor-
hoods. This residential element is essential. Good
restaurants, for example, will never survive by depend-
ing on lunchtime traffic alone; they must attract the
dinner crowd as well. Therefore, wherever it’s practical,
residential development needs to accompany new
retail and office development to provide both a day-
time and night-time market. The amount of office
development in each center, and its residential mix,
depend on its particular location and character.
Triangle Metro Center (see Plate 18 and 
Figure 7.4)
We made one major recommendation for this
key site, positioned at a future commuter rail station
at the edge of the RTP: 
The Triangle Metro Center
should be developed as a transit-oriented development
(TOD)
.
This area around the transit station planned at the
south end of the RTP has great potential for private
development. The Triangle Transit Authority has
envisaged this location as a main transfer point for
passengers to change between trains and local buses,
and we indicated how our amendments to the design
of a previously proposed Triangle Metro Center pro-
ject next to the station could build on this level of
activity by creating the hub of a new high-density
urban village (see Figure 7.4). The original project,
which predated the charrette, proposed significant
investment in offices, shops and housing, and we were
able to complement this effort by creating an urban
neighborhood on two large tracts of open property to
the south (see Plate 18). The land immediately to the
north of the Center is part of an existing large office
campus, and unavailable for development, although
at some future date connections between the research
buildings and the Center could be provided.
On the land to the south, we were able to create an
urban neighborhood that provided a variety of hous-
ing types for employees in the RTP and surrounding
office developments. Our design concept in Plate 18
shows development around the station area stretch-
ing for approximately 3/4-mile, but the intensity
of development tapers off beyond the five-minute
walk (1/4-mile). Within 1/4-mile of the station we
CHAPTER SEVEN
●
THE REGION