Freep.com had an article about Detroit experiencing a rebirth. As a variety of groups such as young professionals, immigrants, and baby-boomers rediscover inner cities; will Detroit be a part of "The Fifth Migration"? Professor Robert Fishman, a professor at The University of Michigan, wrote an article about "The Fifth Migration" (which refers to people migrating to inner cities) for the Journal of the American Planning Association. Fishman spoke last night at an event called Cityscape Detroit.
Bill McGraw, a free press columnist, wrote in his article yesterday that Professor Fishman says that a Fifth Migration is under way in America. The Fifth Migration can be seen in other global cities as New York, Boston, San Francisco/Oakland, Chicago and Los Angeles. He said “the Fifth Migration is a counterbalance to sprawl in that it is slowing the rush to build at the edges of metropolitan areas.” McGraw wrote how Fishman discussed that Detroit falls behind almost every city in America that is currently experiencing a type of rebirth, but the city should one day become a part of this race. People are beginning to return to cities and this migration should happen in Detroit also. Professor Fishman is not foreseeing the return of the manufacturing economy, but is speaking of “simple urbanity -- a lively street with diverse stores and apartments on which people can enjoy the best that high-density living has to offer.” McGraw noted that Fishman said Detroit is perhaps the "most challenged" city and region in the nation, but will move forward at a slower pace than other major cities experiencing the same thing.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
New Urbanist Sprawl
"New urbanism" conjures up many images in my mind: dense streetscapes with row houses, ancient shade trees hovering over the streets, neighborhood corner stores dotting the residential grid, and sprawling open fields for as far as the eye can see...
See a problem with this new urbanist vision? So do I. Unfortunately, leading new urbanist planning firm Duany Plater-Zybek & Co. (DPZ) doesn't. They are responsible for creating The New Town at St. Charles, one of the first new urbanist developments in the St. Louis metro area, located approximately 25 miles northwest of downtown St. Louis in St. Charles County, the metro area's fastest growing county. A new urbanist development so far away from the core city, you say? Well, at least it's close to something... right?
'Fraid not. Take a look at this September '06 aerial photo from New Town's website:
Standing in the heart of New Town, you'll quickly absorb the neighborhood's man-made, inorganic charm. But step to the edge of the neighborhood and you'll stare out over huge agricultural fields that separate this development from the rest of civilization. Of course, in the next fifteen to twenty years, expect to see New Town surrounded by more sprawling residential development.
There are two main flaws that The New Town at St. Charles embodies: sterilization and isolation. The first flaw is a complaint that could be directed at New Urbanism in general. In attempting to reconstruct the perfect traditional neighborhood, the product is created, packaged and sold to buyers for them to accept as it is. Every detail has already been considered, and there is no room for organic growth by residents of the community. Growth is planned for, never spontaneous.
The second flaw is the location of the development. Located 25 miles from downtown St. Louis, in a greenfield on the northern edge of the suburban City of St. Charles, in a county of 330,000 that doesn't even have a public transportation system, New Town is hardly connected to the metro region. Sure, you may be able to walk just five minutes to get to one of the neighborhood's shops, restaurants or other businesses; but New Town is not a self-sustaining community. To get anywhere outside the development, you'll need a car.
The Congress for New Urbanism, one of the leading promoters of the new urbanist movement, is self-described as "the leading organization promoting walkable, neighborhood-based development as an alternative to sprawl". Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zybeck of DPZ happen to be on the board emeritus for the Congress for New Urbanism. With that being said, we should expect that their work as new urbanists would embody the principles of the the new urbanist movement, including promoting alternatives to sprawl. Has the community they've created in The New Town at St. Charles really offered an alternative to sprawl? Or is it simply repackaged sprawl, designed with enough traditional character and substantial density overshadow its sprawling greenfield location? I would suggest the latter.
New urbanists should concentrate on the implied location of their moniker - the city. Reutilization of existing infrastructure, buildings, and transportation networks can help control the region's footprint and increase the efficiency of existing public services. When new urbanists develop greenfield sites on the suburban fringe, as DPZ have done with New Town, they are simply contributing to sprawl just like so many other developers, only they have a catchy name like "new urbanist" to help sell their product.
See a problem with this new urbanist vision? So do I. Unfortunately, leading new urbanist planning firm Duany Plater-Zybek & Co. (DPZ) doesn't. They are responsible for creating The New Town at St. Charles, one of the first new urbanist developments in the St. Louis metro area, located approximately 25 miles northwest of downtown St. Louis in St. Charles County, the metro area's fastest growing county. A new urbanist development so far away from the core city, you say? Well, at least it's close to something... right?
'Fraid not. Take a look at this September '06 aerial photo from New Town's website:
Standing in the heart of New Town, you'll quickly absorb the neighborhood's man-made, inorganic charm. But step to the edge of the neighborhood and you'll stare out over huge agricultural fields that separate this development from the rest of civilization. Of course, in the next fifteen to twenty years, expect to see New Town surrounded by more sprawling residential development.
There are two main flaws that The New Town at St. Charles embodies: sterilization and isolation. The first flaw is a complaint that could be directed at New Urbanism in general. In attempting to reconstruct the perfect traditional neighborhood, the product is created, packaged and sold to buyers for them to accept as it is. Every detail has already been considered, and there is no room for organic growth by residents of the community. Growth is planned for, never spontaneous.
The second flaw is the location of the development. Located 25 miles from downtown St. Louis, in a greenfield on the northern edge of the suburban City of St. Charles, in a county of 330,000 that doesn't even have a public transportation system, New Town is hardly connected to the metro region. Sure, you may be able to walk just five minutes to get to one of the neighborhood's shops, restaurants or other businesses; but New Town is not a self-sustaining community. To get anywhere outside the development, you'll need a car.
The Congress for New Urbanism, one of the leading promoters of the new urbanist movement, is self-described as "the leading organization promoting walkable, neighborhood-based development as an alternative to sprawl". Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zybeck of DPZ happen to be on the board emeritus for the Congress for New Urbanism. With that being said, we should expect that their work as new urbanists would embody the principles of the the new urbanist movement, including promoting alternatives to sprawl. Has the community they've created in The New Town at St. Charles really offered an alternative to sprawl? Or is it simply repackaged sprawl, designed with enough traditional character and substantial density overshadow its sprawling greenfield location? I would suggest the latter.
New urbanists should concentrate on the implied location of their moniker - the city. Reutilization of existing infrastructure, buildings, and transportation networks can help control the region's footprint and increase the efficiency of existing public services. When new urbanists develop greenfield sites on the suburban fringe, as DPZ have done with New Town, they are simply contributing to sprawl just like so many other developers, only they have a catchy name like "new urbanist" to help sell their product.
Is Sprawl What the People Want?
Last week on Slate.com there was a three day series of excerpts from University of Pennsylvania real estate professor, Witold Rybczynski's new book, Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville.
Rybczynski spent four and a half years observing the progress of New Daleville, a residential subdivision designed in a "neotraditional" style that builds houses close together on smaller-than-usual lots in order to foster a stronger sense of community or as some believe to fit in more homes to make a larger profit. He witnessed every stage of development, from the purchase of a large tract of land in rural Pennsylvania through meetings with local community leaders to get planning approval, to the moment when a family moves into one of the first completed units. In the book he explains how land gets developed in the era of the new urbanism and pro- and anti-growth debates, and why so many Americans choose to live in suburbs despite often lengthy commutes.
In the first excerpt Rybczynski discusses, Why do we live in houses, anyway? According to Rybczynski, there is a preference for a single family detached home. He backs up his assertion with the fact that four out of five new housing units built in the U.S. are single-family homes. This desire for an single-family home expands beyond the U.S., to Europe, Africa, and Asia for those who can afford it.
The second excerpt explains how Americans fell in and out of love with the ranch house. In chronicling the rise and fall of the ranch house, Rybczynski makes some generalizations about home buyers and the housing industry. Since houses are the largest investments that most families make, most homeowners tend to be conservative to avoid unnecessary risk. Also, housing has always been governed by a simple rule, as people become richer, they spend more money on their homes. Spending more money has usually meant making the home bigger. In recent decades, buyers wanted larger houses, but California's widely copied Proposition 13, which required developers to pay for their own infrastructure, made land much more expensive. The builders' solution was to return to two-story houses, which don't need such large lots, and are cheaper to build. Today, more than half of all new houses have two stories, and it's goodbye to the ranch and split-level home.
The series ends with a slide show that follows the step-by-step evolution of New Daleville, Pennsylvania, from a rural cornfield to subdivision. Rybczynski contends that rural growth is driven less by home buyers' desire for open space but rather by the movement of jobs to the periphery of metropolitan areas and by high property values in traditional inner suburbs. The latter are largely the result of the obstacles placed in the way of development. Suburban communities effectively slow growth and raise land prices through restrictive zoning and lengthy permitting processes. Unfortunately this further contributes to sprawl and residential greenfield developments like New Daleville.
Rybczynski spent four and a half years observing the progress of New Daleville, a residential subdivision designed in a "neotraditional" style that builds houses close together on smaller-than-usual lots in order to foster a stronger sense of community or as some believe to fit in more homes to make a larger profit. He witnessed every stage of development, from the purchase of a large tract of land in rural Pennsylvania through meetings with local community leaders to get planning approval, to the moment when a family moves into one of the first completed units. In the book he explains how land gets developed in the era of the new urbanism and pro- and anti-growth debates, and why so many Americans choose to live in suburbs despite often lengthy commutes.
In the first excerpt Rybczynski discusses, Why do we live in houses, anyway? According to Rybczynski, there is a preference for a single family detached home. He backs up his assertion with the fact that four out of five new housing units built in the U.S. are single-family homes. This desire for an single-family home expands beyond the U.S., to Europe, Africa, and Asia for those who can afford it.
The second excerpt explains how Americans fell in and out of love with the ranch house. In chronicling the rise and fall of the ranch house, Rybczynski makes some generalizations about home buyers and the housing industry. Since houses are the largest investments that most families make, most homeowners tend to be conservative to avoid unnecessary risk. Also, housing has always been governed by a simple rule, as people become richer, they spend more money on their homes. Spending more money has usually meant making the home bigger. In recent decades, buyers wanted larger houses, but California's widely copied Proposition 13, which required developers to pay for their own infrastructure, made land much more expensive. The builders' solution was to return to two-story houses, which don't need such large lots, and are cheaper to build. Today, more than half of all new houses have two stories, and it's goodbye to the ranch and split-level home.
The series ends with a slide show that follows the step-by-step evolution of New Daleville, Pennsylvania, from a rural cornfield to subdivision. Rybczynski contends that rural growth is driven less by home buyers' desire for open space but rather by the movement of jobs to the periphery of metropolitan areas and by high property values in traditional inner suburbs. The latter are largely the result of the obstacles placed in the way of development. Suburban communities effectively slow growth and raise land prices through restrictive zoning and lengthy permitting processes. Unfortunately this further contributes to sprawl and residential greenfield developments like New Daleville.
Monday, April 16, 2007
From Mill Towns to High-Tech Cities
Back in February, the RealEstateJournal.com's article: Steering Mill Towns Closer To Tech-Boom Riches indicated that the old mill towns in Massachusetts may be affordable housing solutions. The technology boom has benefited the Boston area, but bypassed the historic mill towns of Massachusetts, which are no longer an integral part of today's knowledge economy. But now those old manufacturing centers are being seen as an answer to the problems stemming from Boston's success: congested highways and workers who can no longer afford to live there. Between 1994 and 2005, real median home prices in Boston more than doubled to $429,000, complicating the area's effort to recruit workers and residential development in Boston consumed nearly 90,000 acres of undeveloped land between 1985 and 1998, contributing to road congestion.
A report by the Brookings Institution and Boston think tank MassINC, Reconnecting Massachusetts Gateway Cities, suggests that the old mill towns could provide the Boston area's high-tech employers with needed workers, affordable housing and a model for growth that doesn't involve suburban sprawl.
Massachusetts shows how unevenly distributed a high-tech boom can be. According to the Brookings and MassINC report, the Boston area's share of the state's technology companies has grown to 60% from 53% in 1994. The area added 467,000 jobs between 1970 and 2005. Today, it is home to 40% of the state's population and 50% of its private-sector jobs and generates 60% of the state's payroll.
During the same period, 11 Massachusetts mill towns or gateway cities -- Brockton, Fall River, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, Pittsfield, Springfield and Worcester -- lost more than 11,000 jobs. Today they account for 15% of the state's population, 13% of its private jobs and less than 10% of its public payroll.
In addition to the uneven distribution of high-tech jobs, the wealth gap is correspondingly large. The mill towns, which have large numbers of immigrants and minorities, account for 30% of the state's residents living in poverty, according to the report. These trends represent "a serious threat to the overall economic competitiveness of Massachusetts" according to the report.
Brookings and MassINC acknowledge transforming the mill towns into realistic alternatives for high-tech employers will be a challenge. But the report suggests the state needs to try to make the mill towns more economically attractive. Among its recommendations: linking state aid to local governments' cost-control efforts, establishing data systems to track local spending, making city budgets more transparent, and developing public-private partnerships.
Haverhill, Massachusetts, an industrial town 35 miles north of Boston is already trying to capitalize on its location and affordability. The median home price is $266,000, 38% less than in Greater Boston and rezoning has allowed for the redevelopment of shuttered factories into residential loft space, as well as the city's first big-box retail development. The town has good rail and road connections to Greater Boston and is positioning itself to attract biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. It will be interesting to see if these mill towns will be successful in luring high-tech industries or if they will continue to lose jobs to the Boston area.
A report by the Brookings Institution and Boston think tank MassINC, Reconnecting Massachusetts Gateway Cities, suggests that the old mill towns could provide the Boston area's high-tech employers with needed workers, affordable housing and a model for growth that doesn't involve suburban sprawl.
Massachusetts shows how unevenly distributed a high-tech boom can be. According to the Brookings and MassINC report, the Boston area's share of the state's technology companies has grown to 60% from 53% in 1994. The area added 467,000 jobs between 1970 and 2005. Today, it is home to 40% of the state's population and 50% of its private-sector jobs and generates 60% of the state's payroll.
During the same period, 11 Massachusetts mill towns or gateway cities -- Brockton, Fall River, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, Pittsfield, Springfield and Worcester -- lost more than 11,000 jobs. Today they account for 15% of the state's population, 13% of its private jobs and less than 10% of its public payroll.
In addition to the uneven distribution of high-tech jobs, the wealth gap is correspondingly large. The mill towns, which have large numbers of immigrants and minorities, account for 30% of the state's residents living in poverty, according to the report. These trends represent "a serious threat to the overall economic competitiveness of Massachusetts" according to the report.
Brookings and MassINC acknowledge transforming the mill towns into realistic alternatives for high-tech employers will be a challenge. But the report suggests the state needs to try to make the mill towns more economically attractive. Among its recommendations: linking state aid to local governments' cost-control efforts, establishing data systems to track local spending, making city budgets more transparent, and developing public-private partnerships.
Haverhill, Massachusetts, an industrial town 35 miles north of Boston is already trying to capitalize on its location and affordability. The median home price is $266,000, 38% less than in Greater Boston and rezoning has allowed for the redevelopment of shuttered factories into residential loft space, as well as the city's first big-box retail development. The town has good rail and road connections to Greater Boston and is positioning itself to attract biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. It will be interesting to see if these mill towns will be successful in luring high-tech industries or if they will continue to lose jobs to the Boston area.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Wanted: Successful Economic Development
According to the March 30th edition of the Commercial Appeal, a recent study concluded that Memphis' economic development program is the "most underfunded in the nation." Here's the scoop, since access to the March 30th article appears to be hit-or-miss over at CommercialAppeal.com.
Memphis Tomorrow--a public-private group of chief executives that includes both mayors, the Memphis Regional Chamber and local businesses--commissioned the study as part of a broader economic growth initiative called Memphis Fast Forward that will focus on crime, government efficiency, economic development and education, and workforce development.
Atlanta-based Market Street Services prepared the study that compares the Memphis/Shelby County economic development budget to peer cities such as Louisville, Nashville, Knoxville, Charlotte and others. It found that the 2005 budget for Memphis' current economic development plan, Think Memphis, was $324,000 compared to Nashville's 2005 budget of $3 million for Nashville 2010 (incidentally, Market Street Services also developed Nashville 2010). Other examples in the article paint a clear picture that Memphis' economic development efforts are woefully underfunded. A little digging unearthed information suggesting that this is not a surprising or new trend. Think Memphis' Partnership for Prosperity report indicated that Memphis' 2002 economic development budget of $4.8 million placed it dead last in comparison to--you guessed it--Nashville, Louisville and Charlotte (see p. 17 of the report).
Referring to the Memphis Fast Forward economic growth initiative, the article mentions that it will target four key industries: logisitics, music/film, biosciences and tourism. Its goal is the creation of 49,395 jobs that will generate $53.3 million in tax revenue for the city and $32.1 million for the county after five years. The plan is being prepared by Market Street Services as well. A subsequent Commercial Appeal editoral on April 1st entitled "Mayors prime new jobs pump" considered the finer details of the plan and it is available here (apparently the CA has access to the plan that the general public has not been granted). The editorial noted that "one of the plan's most useful elements may be its list of 15 disparate strategies for progress in Memphis that engage our attention from time to time but are rarely considered as parts of a coherent whole." Hold onto that thought for a second.
Smart City.org has been tracking Memphis' economic development for quite some time and well-acquainted with many of its key players. If you are interested, I highly recommend heading over to the Smart City Memphis blog and check out its' April 1st post entitled "The money: First step in a long journey" where the author(s) (presumably Carol Coletta) suggest that while more funding is necessary to market Memphis, there needs to be a "new reality that is conducive to economic growth in the first place." This "new reality" is the understanding that a convergence, or alignment, of factors that are not generally considered in the realm of economic development--things such as sustainable communities, civic health, green spaces--is necessary to attract and retain valued businesses and labor. This is very similar to the sentiment expressed in the CA editorial statement quoted above. And it appears that a Refocused Chamber is working to organize along this principle as well.
There are a lot of issues at play here. Does successful economic development require a more holistic approach? If so, does Memphis need to change its perspective on economic development? How might a holistic perspective to economic development affect public and private funding in other areas? Does it make sense to provide additional funding for marketing the city--since that's really what the economic development budget is--without a viable strategy for "connecting the dots" in place? If we do need to connect the dots, should this initiative be generated by the economic development sector or by another sector, such as the mayors' offices?
This is fascinating stuff, y'all. Take a few minutes and check it out.
Memphis Tomorrow--a public-private group of chief executives that includes both mayors, the Memphis Regional Chamber and local businesses--commissioned the study as part of a broader economic growth initiative called Memphis Fast Forward that will focus on crime, government efficiency, economic development and education, and workforce development.
Atlanta-based Market Street Services prepared the study that compares the Memphis/Shelby County economic development budget to peer cities such as Louisville, Nashville, Knoxville, Charlotte and others. It found that the 2005 budget for Memphis' current economic development plan, Think Memphis, was $324,000 compared to Nashville's 2005 budget of $3 million for Nashville 2010 (incidentally, Market Street Services also developed Nashville 2010). Other examples in the article paint a clear picture that Memphis' economic development efforts are woefully underfunded. A little digging unearthed information suggesting that this is not a surprising or new trend. Think Memphis' Partnership for Prosperity report indicated that Memphis' 2002 economic development budget of $4.8 million placed it dead last in comparison to--you guessed it--Nashville, Louisville and Charlotte (see p. 17 of the report).
Referring to the Memphis Fast Forward economic growth initiative, the article mentions that it will target four key industries: logisitics, music/film, biosciences and tourism. Its goal is the creation of 49,395 jobs that will generate $53.3 million in tax revenue for the city and $32.1 million for the county after five years. The plan is being prepared by Market Street Services as well. A subsequent Commercial Appeal editoral on April 1st entitled "Mayors prime new jobs pump" considered the finer details of the plan and it is available here (apparently the CA has access to the plan that the general public has not been granted). The editorial noted that "one of the plan's most useful elements may be its list of 15 disparate strategies for progress in Memphis that engage our attention from time to time but are rarely considered as parts of a coherent whole." Hold onto that thought for a second.
Smart City.org has been tracking Memphis' economic development for quite some time and well-acquainted with many of its key players. If you are interested, I highly recommend heading over to the Smart City Memphis blog and check out its' April 1st post entitled "The money: First step in a long journey" where the author(s) (presumably Carol Coletta) suggest that while more funding is necessary to market Memphis, there needs to be a "new reality that is conducive to economic growth in the first place." This "new reality" is the understanding that a convergence, or alignment, of factors that are not generally considered in the realm of economic development--things such as sustainable communities, civic health, green spaces--is necessary to attract and retain valued businesses and labor. This is very similar to the sentiment expressed in the CA editorial statement quoted above. And it appears that a Refocused Chamber is working to organize along this principle as well.
There are a lot of issues at play here. Does successful economic development require a more holistic approach? If so, does Memphis need to change its perspective on economic development? How might a holistic perspective to economic development affect public and private funding in other areas? Does it make sense to provide additional funding for marketing the city--since that's really what the economic development budget is--without a viable strategy for "connecting the dots" in place? If we do need to connect the dots, should this initiative be generated by the economic development sector or by another sector, such as the mayors' offices?
This is fascinating stuff, y'all. Take a few minutes and check it out.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Architecture, Planning, & a Few Other Tidbits
In light of many recent discussions and relevance to what we're learning in our classes, I thought this podcast, posted on planetizen.com would make for an interesting discussion on our next meeting. Some suggestions for what you might pay close attention to include: congestion pricing, national attitudes toward affordable housing, Gore's environmental struggles, and planning's visibility, to name a few. I feel that some of the numbers presented are next to amazing and seem to veer far from my hypothesis on national attitudes toward housing.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Payment in Lieu of Taxes or Just Don't Pay At All (not delivering on promises)
This blog will concern itself with the March 27th article in the Commercial Appeal regarding Shelby County and its use (or abuse) of the PILOT program. The article stated that the Shelby County Commission recently voted on concerning the use of the "Payment in Lieu of Taxes." Local government typically uses this program to lure prospective companies from locating and doing business/creating jobs within the county while freezing its tax liabilities for an established amount of time with the agreement that the benefited company would create jobs and an acceptable salary/pay range for those jobs and thus benefit the economic impact for the county. While this program from its definition should spell a win-win situation for the county, the ugly truth is that the program is grossly taken advantage of with little oversight or consequences....Until now. The commission voted 12-0 "to alter the program to ensure better oversight and require companies seeking public funding to pay higher wages." While it does erode the potential tax base, the program is essential for the city and county to compete with other cities and counties. The new measures voted on included:
(1) companies offering medical benefits with targeted wages $12 to $15 (with new employees making $10) per hour.
(2) competitive site-based test requiring companies to demonstrate why public investments is necessary to stimulate public growth
(3) Tougher compliance measures, including random site visits to make sure companies are living up to their commitments
(4) 75 percent of employees must live within Shelby County
(5) to make the IDB's Jobs Plus program mandatory. (Jobs Plus is designed to give local minority, women-owned and small businesses a chance to do business with companies seeking PILOTs)
The issue that I have regarding the use of the PILOT program is simply the non-compliance issues. It is frustrating to know that the program lacks the teeth needed to ensure that companies comply with their agreements in order to gain the much desired tax freeze that ultimately saves that company millions while potentially costing the local government asizeable addition to its tax base. Only time will tell if these new proposed rules will have the teeth needed to ensure compliance or not. Much to come on this debated program.
(1) companies offering medical benefits with targeted wages $12 to $15 (with new employees making $10) per hour.
(2) competitive site-based test requiring companies to demonstrate why public investments is necessary to stimulate public growth
(3) Tougher compliance measures, including random site visits to make sure companies are living up to their commitments
(4) 75 percent of employees must live within Shelby County
(5) to make the IDB's Jobs Plus program mandatory. (Jobs Plus is designed to give local minority, women-owned and small businesses a chance to do business with companies seeking PILOTs)
The issue that I have regarding the use of the PILOT program is simply the non-compliance issues. It is frustrating to know that the program lacks the teeth needed to ensure that companies comply with their agreements in order to gain the much desired tax freeze that ultimately saves that company millions while potentially costing the local government asizeable addition to its tax base. Only time will tell if these new proposed rules will have the teeth needed to ensure compliance or not. Much to come on this debated program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
