The Revitalist

In a similar story to the Virginia battlefields, the town of Wellesley is considering new zoning regulations to discourage McMansions. New houses being built in Wellesley average 4,437 sq ft on lots averaging 100' x 100'. The town wants to require planning board review of homes 3,900 sq ft or larger on small lots and 4,500 or 6,000 for larger lots. The goal is to step and make changes that will help the behemoths blend better with the existing street and not overwhelm their neighbors as badly. Of course, the vast majority of these new mansions are built on tear down lots, and this ordinance doesn't seem to address demolition permits. Not surprisingly, the proposal is vociferously opposed by builders, contractors and some residents desiring to live large. But the article suggests that the planning board is standing firm and determined to institute some control. They say that they are trying to strike a balance between preserving the community's look and feel and maintaining a workable, streamlined process. Good luck to them!

The New York Times chronicle the battle to save northwestern Virginia's rural Civil War battlefields from DC sprawl. The inexorable march of commuter suburbs and gated communities has marched steadily west until it affecting communities west of Leesburg. In several municipalities, residents are fighting back. In Unison, VA, the Unison Preservation Society is trying to have land around the town declared a national historic battlefield in order to gain protection from the National Park Service. And in Waterford, VA, a bucolic affluent community, the independent Waterford Foundation has been buying acres to buffer the town from development. Declaring part of your town a national historic battlefield is a pretty drastic step, but when you're facing 60% growth since 2000, I guess you start to get anxious about the pace of change.

In a recent post on Planetizen's Interchange blog, former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening talks about his efforts to utilize the power of state government to promote smart growth. Since leaving office, he has founded and runs the Governors' Institute on Community Design, which works to develop smart growth initiatives on the state level.

This reminded me of a short news item I heard on the radio yesterday: the state's Smart Growth fund is facing insolvency. In the 2004 the state created the "smart growth housing trust fund" to make incentive payments to communities with 40R projects under development. The fund is reportedly almost empty, no provisions to refund it have been made, and there are several projects in the pipeline expecting incentive and per-unit payments. Perhaps Gov. Patrick should call Gov. Glendening for advice?

A little light reading for your sunny, summer weekend: Mapping the Growth of Older America: Seniors and Boomers in the Early 21st Century by William Frey from The Brookings Institution (via The Creativity Exchange). The Creativity Exchange's post was less sensitively titled "The Geography of Getting Old." Essentially, the question is: with the senior boom looming, where will they be and where will senior housing/services be hardest pressed? The answer:

The dark orange is 140%+ increase in seniors age 65 and older.

• The aging of the baby boom generation makes pre-seniors this decade's fastest growing age group, expanding nearly 50 percent in size from 2000 to 2010.
• Pre-senior populations are growing rapidly everywhere, especially in economically dynamic Sun Belt areas previously known for their youth, such as Las Vegas, Austin, Atlanta, and Dallas.
• The World War II generation currently entering its senior years is growing fastest in the Intermountain West and South Atlantic states, especially suburban areas there.
• In states where senior populations will grow fastest over the next 35 years, "aging in place" rather than migration will drive this growth.
• Projected boomer aging will cause the suburbs of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles to be considerably "older" than the cities themselves by 2040. 

There is clearly an opportunity here to provide housing and services that meets this group's needs and to combine it with smart growth elements that by happenstance are senior friendly, like walkable neighborhoods that engage people with their neighbors, retail accessible to residential areas and residents on foot, public transportation as an effective alternative to driving. The work that we are already engaged in can easily be focused on this demographic.

Although, I read this and thought of a Wall Street Journal article that I read this week about how practically none of us are saving enough for retirement – gives you chills. 

The Ground Floor, ULI's blog, is working on a roundup of land use and development blogs from around the net. They've listed a few that are new to me and look really interesting. Plus, people will be adding to the list, so watch the comments.

Public health researchers at the University of Washington have released a study that concludes that more walkable neighborhoods have healthier residents (via CEOs for Cities). The study assigned Seattle area neighborhoods a walkability score based on residential, retail and commercial density and other factors and then tracked the health of a group of more than 900 elderly residents [text temporarily available]. The study concludes that where there are more destinations in a walkable radius and where the pedestrian environment is more attractive, people are more likely to walk for exercise and therefore improve their overall health. One of the authors says the study is "potentially important at the public health level when looking at the obesity epidemic and the epidemic of inactivity coming down the pike. The results suggest that as a society, we'd be better if we had more of these kinds of (walkable) neighborhoods."

This is an interesting follow up to Friday's post on walkability and public transit. That study concluded that street amenities aren't a major influence on people walking to the commuter rail in the morning. However, this article points out that people will walk more in their neighborhoods for exercise and socializing if the environment is right. The results of both articles suggest, though, that people won't walk if there is nothing to walk to: train station, grocery store, retail shops, park/garden, etc. So, denser, more varied neighborhoods aren't just good for the environment, they are good for our bodies—the data confirms what we suspected all along.

MassINC and The Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program have issued a new report entitled Reconnecting Massachusetts Gateway Cities: Lessons Learned and an Agenda for Renewal (via WBUR and USA Today). The report looks at the State's overall successful transition to a "knowledge-based economy" and why 11 of its Gateway Cities seem to be left out of the good news.

The Gateway Cities examined in the report are all former mill and industrial cities that have faced decline since the 1970's. They are home to 15% of the state's population but 30% of residents living below the poverty line.

Brockton
Fall River
Fitchburg
Haverhill
Holyoke
Lawrence
Lowell
New Bedford
Springfield
Pittsfield
Worcester

 The report points out that these cities have significantly lower housing costs than the Metro Boston area and therefore offer a solution to the workforce housing crunch. They also are ideal for "smart growth" development and have intact, diverse populations that are hungry for growth and economic advancement. The report's recommendations break down into three categories: 1. Fix the basics—both physical and human infrastructure improvements, removing barriers to entry for new development and business. 2. Build the Middle-Class Workforce of Tomorrow—education, education, education and greater support for low-income families. 3. Create New Economic Connections for the 21st Century—connections between local business communities and the Metro Boston core and support for/from the UMass system.

I didn't see much that was earth shatteringly new, but the report does a good job of laying out the potential of these communities and the challenges that they face. Obviously, we believe that these cities are a good investment. As the USA Today article points out, Lawrence has come a long way in the few years that we've been working there, adding capacity at the municipal level and getting some city investment on the ground. We get the feeling that the tide is starting to flow into these communities. We are excited to be a part of it but aren't selfish—the more, the merrier.

With the US population at 300 million, USA Today looks at where will all those people live. The exec. director of Smart Growth America is quoted as saying, "The rate of land consumption is twice the rate of population growth." The article runs down some of the evolving trends in development and urban planning that will hope to address the pressures of growing population and declining greenfields. But the words "adaptive reuse" or "historic preservation" are not mentioned once. The adaptive reuse of former industrial and commercial buildings in urban cores (already built to handle high-density populations) is inherently a sustainable solution to this housing crunch. Unfortunately, while the smart growth and brownfields redevelopment advocates are really good at getting their word out, the preservation and adaptive reuse crowd lags behind. We have an opportunity to participate in the reshaping of our communities that serves many needs at once, but we aren't selling ourselves well. Preservation organizations need to focus not just on saving historic homes, but also on their role in the community and economic revitalization of our cities. The greenies, smart growthists, brownfielders and the adaptive reusers are all working for the same goal – we need to start working together.

The EPA's has published online a new resource called Smart Growth Illustrated. It lays out 10 principles of Smart Growth planning and design and links to two examples of each principle. They are:

Mix Land Uses
Take Advantage of Compact Building Design
Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices
Create Walkable Neighborhoods
Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place
Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty, and Critical Environmental Areas
Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities
Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices
Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective
Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration in Development Decisions

Once again the majority of the examples are in the West, with a smattering of Southeastern sites thrown in. Are there no good smart growth projects in midwest or northeast? (I'm not trying to be snide, just asking.)

This list is inspiring because it looks beyond project-level development and sets out goals for communities and municipalities. I particularly like "Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective" - not only will the efficiencies save money, but you will encourage more investment if the process is predictable and reasonable. If a community could be united around these principles, wouldn't you want to live there? People would be beating down the door.

Picture the scene: it's 2025, and you and your family are living in a beautiful, leafy-green village that seems more 19th century than 21st, even though it has only been in existence for ten years and is just 20 miles from a major American city.You know all of the 150 or so souls in the village; you see them at the market where you pick up a box of locally-grown produce once a week. You see half of them in the morning as they board the commuter train for school or work in the city; the other half are the network warriors who work from home or, on warm days, use the free Wi-Fi in the village square.It all seems a world away from the crumbling old 20th-century suburbs people used to live in, if you could call it living. You shudder to think you could still be living there. Oh, and you see that really nice house just down the bicycle lane? That's yours, the fruits of your smart move to plunk down a payment on a piece of the hottest new trend in real estate.

CNN reports that "New Villages" like Hercules, CA are the wave of the future with the density and convenience of urban life and the bucolic friendliness of the countryside. This is essentially the transit-oriented village concept transplanted out into the more rural hinterland. The Center for Transit-Oriented Development notes that the demand for housing within walking distance of transit will more than double by 2025. The article notes that these developments are smart investments not just because of the increasing demand, but also because of the efficiencies in denser designs.

Sounds like a nice place to live. I guess if you're going to do greenfield development, it might as well be dense and smart growth. But how many greenfields are you going to be able to find that are 20 miles from a major urban center and on a rail line? Pretty soon we're going to have to consider demo-ing already built suburbs to create new pastoral environments that are close to the city - is that going to be feasible?