From the 1970s to 2013, over 60 Sector Development Plans were each crafted over months and years, with much input, engagement, passion, and energy from local residents and businesses.  Many of these plans included policies and regulations intended to protect and enhance neighborhoods and special places.

Clarion Associates, a firm hired to help write the Integrated Development Ordinance because of their expertise in writing city-wide Development Ordinances, emphasized that our old regulatory system – comprised of the Comprehensive Zoning Code and more than 40 Sector Development Plans that also establish special zoning in discrete areas – was one of the most complex it had ever seen after working in over 130 cities. The process of mixing area-specific planning (policy guidance) and zoning in standalone Sector Development Plans outside a city-wide zoning code is not a national best practice. It often leads to confusion about the rules of development and inconsistencies in interpretation and enforcement.  One of the key goals of this effort was to simplify and consolidate our system of regulations, while still prioritizing effective protections for our neighborhoods and special places. 

Clarion made the following recommendations in 2015:

1. The City needs to replace the existing system with one that clearly distinguishes between planning advice (i.e. policy) and zoning regulations (i.e. regulations) for specific areas and provides more effective protection for special places and neighborhoods.
2. Many neighborhoods have invested months and years of work in Sector Development Plans, and that hard work will be respected in the new system.  We need to absorb the best policies for protecting and enhancing community character in the Sector Development Plans into the Comprehensive Plan, and we need to include the best area-specific regulations into the Integrated Development Ordinance, where they can be better monitored and enforced.
3. Many of the ideas for preserving character and quality in the current Sector Development Plans are very similar, and can be turned into general standards applicable to similar development throughout the city without weakening any of the current negotiated standards.
4. For unique areas, it may be necessary to create area-specific development overlays or regulatory controls, but this will be the exception rather than the norm. 

The content of Sector Development Plans that was still relevant, effective, and representative of a neighborhood's vision for future development was retained by carrying it into the updated Comp Plan (goals and policies); the IDO (regulations), where it can be better understood, monitored, and enforced; or as a historical document in Appendix D of the Comp Plan to inform the Community Planning Area Assessments.

Read more in this 5-page handout.

See also:

• Where can I find regulations from my Sector Development Plan that apply to my area in the IDO?
• What happened to zoning in Sector Development Plans (e.g. SU-2 zones)?
• What happened to my Sector Development Plan?
  • Summaries for each Sector Development Plan
• How does the IDO balance citywide rules with small area protections?
• How does ABC-Z propose to improve public engagement with the City?

The City has adopted several Arroyo Corridor Plans as Rank 3 Plans. Under the old system (prior to the Integrated Development Ordinance or "IDO"), some of these plans had regulations (i.e. zoning regulations) that applied to private property developed next to these arroyos. Those regulations were moved into the IDO when it was adopted in 2017, and the adopting legislation (O-17-49) changed the status of the Arroyo Corridor Plans to be Resource Management Plans with policies that guide the maintenance of arroyos.

Summaries of Arroyo Corridor Plans with regulations that moved to the IDO:

• Amole Arroyo Corridor Plan
• Bear Canyon Arroyo Corridor Plan
• Pajarito Arroyo Corridor Plan

Resource Management Plans:

• Plans and Publications on the City Planning webpage

There are several ways. Three online maps below let you look up your Neighborhood Association by geography.  You can also find links to Neighborhood Association websites on the Office of Neighborhood Association webpage.

If you only want to see Neighborhood Associations, this is the map for you! Interactive Map of Recognized Neighborhood Associations.

Neighborhood Associations are also one of many layers of information you can turn on via the IDO Zoning Interactive Map or the AGIS Advanced Map Viewer.

If a property has zoning, the property owner is entitled to build at the density allowed by that zone. Local government cannot legally stop people from developing their property when they have the entitlements, unless the government buys it from them at fair market price or passes a moratorium on growth.  Even if a moratorium or growth boundary could be passed politically, these come with their own set of challenges, such as affordability issues when property values rise, which can ultimately lead to displacement.

Within the Comprehensive Plan, areas designated as "Reserve" Development Areas in the County are intended to ensure that development that does happen on our edges does so as a master-planned community, with a balance of jobs and housing, necessary infrastructure to support growth, and a development form that is better for the larger community and more sustainable than low density residential-only sprawl.

As for development inside our urban footprint, it is often very challenging to develop infill sites.  Neighbors are often uncomfortable with proposed changes.  Small sites often struggle to meet development standards that are often written for larger, greenfield sites without the constraints that smaller infill sites have.  Utilities often need upgrades or costly repairs, etc.  Sometimes the location or size of vacant land is not conducive to particular kinds of new development.

The bigger issue is not so much about vacant land as it is about under-developed or outdated development.  Until there is a good reason to do so, many property owners do not redevelop.  Local government has to find ways to make it more financially desirable to redevelop than to continue with existing rents.  In the Comp Plan and through regulations, we look for ways to direct / encourage / incentivize growth where the Comp Plan says it is desirable (i.e. in Areas of Change).

Direct public investment in infrastructure, community facilities, and parks or open space is the best way, but there are always limited funds and many competing political priorities.

How density looks varies a lot! It varies by housing types, building height, 

Many different factors affect the density of any particular housing development.

• Different housing types create different densities. For example, on 10 acres of land, single-family homes on individual lots will often result in less density than a multi-family apartment complex on the same amount of land because of the number of dwelling units that can fit in the same space.
• Lot size can affect density. Larger lots with single-family houses take up more space, resulting in fewer dwelling units per acre than smaller lots with houses.
• When more than one dwelling unit is allowed in a building, a building’s height or mass can affect density. Larger buildings will result in higher density than smaller buildings when the dwelling units are the same size.
• When more than one dwelling unit is allowed on a lot, the size of the dwelling can affect density. Smaller dwelling units will result in higher density than larger dwelling units in a building of the same size.
• When more than one dwelling unit is allowed on a lot, the amount of lot that a building covers can affect density. A multi-family apartment complex on a large lot with lots of area devoted to parking and recreational amenities in a more suburban setting will often be less dense than a garden apartment on a smaller lot in a walkable neighborhood near transit, amenities, and services in a more urban setting.

The Planning Department has studied how density looks in different areas of Albuquerque in several reports over the years. 

• Urban Design Series (1997)
• Visualizing Density (2015)

Arguments debating the pros and cons of density have existed long before the current public health emergency. Many arguments take differing angles on the benefits of or drawbacks to density.

Benefits

The main benefit of increased density is that it often brings housing, jobs, transportation, and community amenities closer together. Clustering uses in one area makes it easier and more cost effective to provide infrastructure and services to support more residents and businesses. This holds true for streets, transit systems, deliveries of goods, health care, retail, schools, affordable housing – all systems that benefit from hubs of activity that draw people and from economies of scale (i.e. the cost per person, per area, or per mile goes down by serving more people).

This compact development pattern also provides environmental benefits compared to a low-density pattern of development with uses spread farther apart – often referred to as sprawl. Sprawl is often associated with many negative environmental impacts, including increased consumption of land and natural resources and lower air quality due to increased auto emissions from increased number and distance of vehicle trips.

Drawbacks

The main drawback of increased density is that it can lead to overstressing various systems when it becomes too difficult or problematic to serve too many people in a small area. Traffic is a good example. When uses are very far apart, people drive farther but faster, since fewer people are generally on the road at any one time. In a dense urban environment, people may not drive as far, but it may take longer, since speeds are often much slower due to the increased number of drivers on the road in a given area. That same urban environment will provide better opportunities to offer efficient and cost-effective transportation alternatives to driving, such as biking, walking, or transit.

Complexities

These basic arguments often overlook a more complicated reality on the ground. For example, some supporters of density gloss over how different neighbors may experience density differently. For some lower-income people, more dense living, such as apartments, may not be a choice but rather an economic necessity. Higher-density neighborhoods that have fewer resources than surrounding neighborhoods may not experience the benefits density can bring, such as safe access to public transit or walkability to jobs, services, and amenities. On the other hand, in neighborhoods with more resources, opposition to density is often conflated with racist and classist misconceptions about who lives in apartments.