Comments on: Building Suburbs That Last #2 – New Urbanism and Parcelization

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:06:00 +0000

While I agree with the general principle of the overdetermined form in the suburbs, keep in mind that the junk that they are throwing up today in the form of big box stores are essentially empty shells. It’s nothing to tear these down and redevelop the sites. In one of Detroit suburbs, they tore down a good section of a development that was less than 10 years old in order to redevelop it in a different form. Compare this to older buildings which are much more solidly constructed and have higher demolition costs for a whole host of reasons.

By: The Urbanophile

The Urbanophile — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:08:00 +0000

anon 3:39 – thanks, you are making me blush over here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:39:00 +0000

Thank you for your brilliant, articulate, concise post. Have learned more from this than did from certain 10 week college courses.

By: JG

JG — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:30:00 +0000

Thanks for the comment ALON. I do agree this is NOT the trend we have seen in urban areas, however I’d like to focus more on the older SUBURBAN areas with multi-acre vacant retail complexes. I can think of a few of these in my city, Indianapolis.

My suggestion is something that BREAKS with previous trends – where as you stated structures are razed and land left vacant for decades. Smaller agricultural operations could be ONE OF MANY ways to use this land productively. Certainly it would only work in a community where co-ops were desired, crop selection would be important, and I agree that there are better regions for such a plan than others. KIB in Indianapolis is sponsoring a similar project this year. Thanks again for the feedback.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:41:00 +0000

This doesn’t work everywhere. It’s most workable in areas where the land is fertile and water is plentiful, such as the Northeast and parts of the Midwest and Southeast. Ideally you’d also want a place with wildfire risk, like South Jersey, because rural land is an effective buffer against wildfires.

But in practice, it’s not going to happen regardless. Urban areas don’t shrink in geographic size unless they also shrink in population and economic activity. Even then, they rarely ruralize. When unsound buildings in decaying inner cities are razed, they’re not replaced with farms, but with vacant land or sometimes parking.

By: JG

JG — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:34:00 +0000

Another idea to consider with suburban retail strips that have become economically undesirable is to covert the land back to agriculture. Bear with me on this, for this is a suggestion for probably 1-5% of the land in question. The idea would be to convert multi-acre retail sites into fields or green houses to grow produce, that could be sold locally at food co-ops. Co-ops are gaining some popularity around the country, and this would only work in a community with a real desire for such.

I realize many sites will require massive environmental clean-ups, etc that could make this an expensive proposition – but certainly not for all. Select sites with extremely low value, manageable environmental issues, and a community who wants locally grown produce could make this a PART of the solutinon. Any thoughts?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:36:00 +0000

If it’s over-developed, then it’s in terms of total urban land, not in terms of total available housing space.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:14:00 +0000

What has been the population growth in america since the 1970’s. And how much development took place during this time???

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:12:00 +0000

Alon, I definitely used bull-dozing to an extreme. I’m just wondering how much america is OVER-DEVELOPED. Think of it like what type of inventory are most stores trying to get rid of…now that we’re faced with in this economy where we won’t be borrowing money to an extreme anymore. Just a thought.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:24:00 +0000

Anon @ 2:15: I don’t see this happen anytime soon. Bulldozing and redeveloping requires mapping out a new street grid, moving the water and sewer mains, and building an entirely new neighborhood from scratch. This is not only expensive, but also futile. Building new neighborhoods from scratch creates socially isolated cities, regardless of whether you build them as housing projects, cul-de-sac suburbs, or traditional urban areas. A good example of this in action is Battery Park City, a new urbanist neighborhood built on reclaimed land, which looks like a ghost town.

To us the idea of any life in the suburbs may seem strange, but in the 1970s people thought the same of SoHo. At the time, you’d need to be crazy to believe that the inner city offered the poor great housing, as Richard Florida does now. The traditional brownstone is still ridden with problems like poor exterior lighting, and uniformity of color and design; people live in it because it’s what’s available and because it’s not that bad. Still, SoHo lofts had to be extensively modified to support modern habitation, just like big box stores. And new condos look quite different from old apartment buildings, with elements like balconies and larger window space, and with less exposed brick.