3 NEW URBAN TERMS
Introduction:
For the past 15 years, there’s been a lot of talk about walkable, mixed-use, and density in our city planning. These are worthy aspirations; they are in hope of livability, community, and affordability for all. However, they have proven difficult to achieve in any comprehensive fashion – and the terms are met with apprehension. The inverse concepts of drivable, separated, and low-density are meaningfully ingrained in our society. They represent freedom, safety, and privacy.
To date, these two ways of approaching our urban fabric have been at odds and without an approach that would bring all six ideals into concurrent reality.
My hope is to reframe and re-energize the conversation and bring the opportunity for these six values to be in practical harmony in our urban fabric: 1) livability, 2) community, 3) affordability, 4) freedom, 5) safety, and 6) privacy.
I will introduce three new terms which will serve as a vehicle for this conversation:
1 - Commuter Destination Fabric
Commuter destination fabric is what we have. Most of us drive to most places. We are commuting to our destinations – and our fabric reflects this. Our fabric is marked by wide and expensive roads and streets (and their buffer zones), large parking lots, and large monotonous buildings. We wouldn’t say this type of urban fabric is beautiful, or cost-effective, or a good use of space, but we don’t see another option.
2 – Integrated Neighborhood Fabric
The alternative to commuter destination fabric is integrated neighborhood fabric. Here, the places we go most, are integrated within the neighborhood, within walking distance. (Not dissimilar to the 15 Minute City and Complete Communities) We have some bits of fabric of this definition. It is marked by smaller buildings, often attached, more trees and landscaping, narrower streets, smaller parking areas, wider sidewalks, more plazas, and more parks. It has a mix of uses within a walkable distance. This type of fabric prioritizes pedestrian movement over vehicular movement. It has integrated uses such as retail, shopping, entertainment, fitness, work and school all within walking distance of residences. Residences are the primary use in this type of neighborhood. Residents are the primary patrons of the mix of uses. The dwellings are closer together, and often attached; they have beautiful private courtyards and rooftop terraces. When developed at scale, all resident parking can be underground and directly connected via stair to each dwelling. Rather than using landscaping to buffer, landscaping is more intentional and more useful. With more of life happening in the neighborhood comes a greater sense of community. With more ability to walk in pleasant landscapes and streetscapes, and to be outside within the normal course of living, comes a greater livability. These types of places are where we often vacation; we find them beautiful and livable.
With such benefits of integrated neighborhood fabric, why is it that we don’t have more of it? This brings us to our third new term:
3 – Neighbor-Led Development
Our current process of development focuses more on individual sites and less on fabric. Cities make comprehensive plans, which are seeking to improve fabric, but the actual development of buildings and sites is done piecemeal, led by a developer, or property owner. The entitlement process can be long, uncertain, and expensive, so developers will assemble multiple parcels and often make one big building maximizing yield. Neighbors often oppose development because change is uncertain and the possible downsides real – more traffic, more people, more noise, loss of light and views. Cities work hard to require developers to provide clear public benefit, but these are rarely enough to assuage neighbors.
Neighbor-led development is a new concept. In this framework, the neighbors (both owners and renters) would be the instigators of development. They would receive monetary benefits of development, as well as the benefit of living in the new beautiful and livable place. While each development location would be at the choosing of neighbors, cities would first need to commission a series of conceptual images, plans, and diagrams of walkable and integrated neighborhoods for neighbors to review and choose. This design work would include both the public realm as well as dwelling types of varying densities and designs. Neighbors of a particular location, sizing from a few lots to a few blocks, with the help of the city, would choose their preferred level of density and begin a development process. From here, developers, builders, and consultants would be engaged to fully define the scope and design of the project (without the entitlement risk). Transparent numbers and terms will be important. The investment of neighbors, including their land, time and stability, would be compensated appropriately by a payment or by a new home within the new community. This type of development would, without gentrification, bring newness and vitality to each neighborhood. It would bring livability, community, affordability, freedom, safety, and privacy – among a myriad of other benefits.