Track in housing/built environment goal

Suggestion: break down buildings and square footage to show which are in growth centers, and which aren't, to illustrate how much growth centers are being utilized over time.

See comment above. % means less than location for this.

This needs to include physical maps/overlays to show zoning, infrastructure, etc. Might not be valuable as a changing indicator, but for reference materials this will be important.

Curt revision: “Provide land and building capacity for employment supported with adequate infrastructure.”

is structure meaningful given variation in size of structures? I suppose it would not be difficult to overlay coverage maps with building locations. But still, would area (in acreas) be better?...

Once again, will 'areas planned for growth' be subject to manipulation?

Any such 'build out capacity' would require some big assumptions about use, parking demand, transport, no? Sounds nice in theory but I don't know if it is practical.

This treats all 'areas planned for growth' equally, when in fact some might not be planned for non-res growth. Would actual acreage (rather than percent) of land with key services (including water, sewer) be more meaningful?

I know permitted gives an indication of capacity to come on line, but not all permitted buildings are built. would not constructed buildings be better?

If the goal pertains to areas planned for growth, must not the indicator reflect that?

This Indicator, which is good in itself addresses one small part of this multi-factor goal.

Goal seems too complex to be measured with clarity. I would think we either need to condense into something higher level and simpler or to break down into several goals,