NEW URBANISM’S TRUE ROOTS:
GREENFIELD TRADITIONAL TOWN PLANNING OR URBAN INFILL REVITALIZATION
By Steve Wright
As New Urbanism looks back over its first decade-plus of existence, a key question arises: are the movement’s true roots in building new towns such as Seaside and Kentlands, or should they lie in rebuilding Main Street America?
Michael Lander, founder and president of The Lander Group, a Minneapolis-based real estate development firm, is so rooted in urban infill projects, that his firm has done no greenfield work. Needless to say, he believes New Urbanism’s greatest accomplishments will take place in the city centers.
“We see transportation issues are huge all over the country,” he said, speaking of people fed up with hour-plus car commutes from suburbia. “We see the tremendous amenities in the core city: the arts, culture, sports. That’s pushing people back into the cities.”
But Lander said beyond brownfield issues and restrictive zoning, there are additional hurdles when doing infill redevelopment.
“The really interesting thing to me about infill development is if I go to a neighborhood meeting to propose a new project and I shut my eyes and listen to people, they complain about too much traffic, too much density,” he said. “They want a buffer, no stores near them. They ask for the prescription for suburbs, which is strange Even though my neighbors love the city, they describe suburbia, which is odd, because they say they are city people, that they’d never live in the suburbs.”
“With greenfield, the cows moo and you keep on going…there’s not much resistance to that. With infill, we do lots of neighborhood education. We meet a lot of resistance. Everyone is so fearful of their property values,” said Lander.
Tomorrow: Will Selman, a senior planning analyst in charge of New Urbanist development for the Lancaster County, PA Planning Commission
No comments:
Post a Comment