Edward H. Ziegler (Denver) sent along his most recent paper, The Case for Megapolitan Growth Management in the 21st Century: Regional Urban Planning and Sustainable Development in the United States (Download ziegler_megapolitan.pdf). Here's the abstract:

This article provides an analysis of urban planning issues in the United States related to automobile-dependent regional sprawl and discusses the need for a metropolitan sustainable development governing framework for growth management in the twenty-first century. The paper discusses how unsustainable regional sprawl is now legally required throughout most metropolitan areas of the United States as a result of local zoning, growth management, and parking programs. The paper examines the potential benefits of creating a metropolitan governing framework to identify and regulate “growth areas” in a region and how linking these areas to regional transit planning is necessary to achieve the development of higher-density, mixed use, and intensive urban core job/housing areas where people could live, work, shop, and play without the use of the automobile. The paper further discusses some related lessons from Europe and discusses potential legal and political issues and institutional arrangements related to creating this type of regional sustainable development framework for urban planning in the United States.



It would also help the environment that we would be building up instead of out! Businesses should have to use abandoned buildings first instead of building completely new areas. It would also be cheaper for them too!

11/30/2008 2:34:51 PM

Quote :

"Businesses should have to use abandoned buildings first instead of building completely new areas. It would also be cheaper for them too!"

Incorrect. Very old structures like some of the old mills and factories around NC cost a hell of a lot to renovate and it would be more beneficial in the long run to tear them down and replace them with brand new buildings that meet current building codes.

11/30/2008 3:00:26 PM

well they don't have to renovate. I didn't say they did. Just use the spot, instead of grading and paving a whole new spot.

11/30/2008 3:17:37 PM

Yeah that doesn't work either. Older building sites don't meet code for parking, access, geotechnical requirements, etc. If you want to keep anything from the old abandoned building you'll be renovating the whole thing. If you don't want to spend that kinda cash, you're tearing everything out and starting from scratch.

It'll also have to be regraded, etc to meet storm drain requirements that are set out by the city/county/whoever/the jews.

11/30/2008 3:34:41 PM

It's cheaper to use never-been-developed land, than to re-use old lots.
It's cheaper to landfill wastes, than to recycle them.
We should build more landfills, stop recycling, abandon old lots, and increase the development of virgin land.
Oh, and also, we should drink bleach and jump in front of fast-moving trains.

11/30/2008 3:58:32 PM

I know but this is like wal-mart and home depot etc... we are talking about. They have loads of cash!!! And these are also man made "laws" we are talking about. They can be changed.

In the long run it's not cheaper!

11/30/2008 4:06:31 PM

Mindstorm, I don't think folks are suggesting Target should have to set up shop in a historic landmark. But there are plenty of ready-for-use shopping centers that go unoccupied. It would be nice if there was some extra incentive to get businesses in there instead of starting a new commercial development every other month.

11/30/2008 6:33:34 PM

This thread is stupid and pointless.

11/30/2008 7:09:54 PM

I get along fine without a car. I only drive every two or three weeks to keep the battery charged.

11/30/2008 8:02:15 PM

I drive out of town way too much but Its worth it

But I agree that people should be using existing sites even if its more expensive

11/30/2008 8:23:36 PM

It is not hard to get people to use existing sites: stop building roads through the wilderness. Afterall, the DOT is a politicised government agency, I'm sure one more incomprehensible directive from the legislature will fix everything.

That said, thanks to zoning laws it is already a miracle that anything ever gets built. As such, if a developer is putting in their own roads and managing to navigate the existing government structure then for goodness sakes let them be.

That said, revamping the tenancy laws to allow landowners more leniency to kick out tennants for no good reason would help improve the land use of many urban areas since it would make it possible to level old buildings to build newer bigger ones.

11/30/2008 8:58:41 PM

Willy Nilly, you're a troll, so I've nothing to say to you.

Marilynlov, big companies are managed by shareholders that will not let the company's profit be obliterated by draconian building code requirements. They have massive legal departments and strong political ties that would fight and undo any decision that was made to require big companies to change their sprawl business model (which is very profitable) to a new business model which hasn't been properly tested on the public market yet. We're also not talking about taxing them or forcing them to do something with a knife held to their balls in the name of sustainability as that's socialism and we'd like to stay as far away from that as possible. We're trying to find a way to nudge new development and planning in a direction that lets us build new high-density pedestrian-friendly mixed-use districts that allow people to get around on foot while tying these new areas in with the old areas through a well-funded public transportation system. Some amount of redevelopment will go with this new business model (i.e. reusing old buildings) but often times it will make more sense to just kick over the shoddy stuff that's in place and to reuse the land (as is the case with many of the already-abandoned shopping centers that popped up when the sprawl development model got rolling in the early to mid 20th century). Not every abandoned building out there safe to redevelop, and the buildings that were used for tobacco road tend to be more of an exception rather than the rule as far as abandoned buildings go (i.e. not every building is a nifty old factory that'll stand up for another 200 years).

As for your comment Bridget, like I said, shopping centers are the problem that this article is seeking to address. Strip malls, shopping malls, mega malls are all the sort of thing this article wants to stamp out. Encouraging companies with existing sprawl models to use these old buildings in old sprawl malls will just encourage mini sprawl bubbles that end up popping and deflating just as they did a couple decades ago when those shopping complexes first failed. Those places are likely so poorly-built and so long-abandoned that it would be safer and cheaper to just recycle the building materials used in their construction and to put a new mixed-use medium-density complex in its place. The only incentive you'd really want to give companies that build there is to get them to either recycle the old building and plop down a new LEED certified center in its place with at least residential and commercial space within walking distance of one another OR to go in and add new buildings to the site to allow the old shopping center to be used as the commercial district of a new residential/industrial/commercial center which doesn't resemble the sprawl-friendly designs of old. You've also got to throw them a bone as far as public transportation and pedestrian transportation goes so people can bike or ride a bus/train/tram/subway to other parts of town to do business.

Personally, I think the guy is on the right track as he's talking about linking/creating proper public transportation systems to new development (in concert with a few other changes) in order to allow for higher-density mixed-use development to be possible in areas which (currently) are lower-density megaburbs (like the triangle). Raleigh definitely fails from a public transit standpoint, and their planning department is absolutely making sprawl worse and causing the automobile to remain a mainstay of the average citizen's life in this area.

(El Cliffo's notes start here on my opinion on all this:) Here's REALLY what I'm talking about when I say "cheaper to bulldoze" and some of this other shit in the context of this article:

- City planners need to focus on long-term growth plans that are based on population and sustainability and that focus very highly on ensuring that public transit will exist that allows people to remain pedestrians or cyclists and to avoid the use of an automobile.

- City planners will need to adjust codes, zoning, and development requirements to enable residential, commercial, and industrial development to be within walking distance of one another (with industrial things like chemical plants, foundries, etc to be built farther away from the city but still linked with to the other city areas by a very efficient public transit system).

- Incentives must be made (tax or cash incentives) to encourage businesses to reuse those buildings in the area which can be reused (like redeveloping massive old factories into mixed use commercial and residential space, which really requires a big incentive to make it worth doing at all).

- Laws must be made regarding old "sprawl-era" buildings which will enable them to be redeveloped into higher-density mixed-use construction with a provision for them to be torn down and replaced if it is financially insolvent to get the building to meet a minimum LEED standard (i.e. the cost to recycle, tear-down, and replace with new green-construction is cheaper than the cost of upfitting the building to meet new energy requirements and redeveloping its interior).

(/El Cliffo's Notes)

This is basically a policy shift that local governments would implement by adjusting building codes to favor medium-density development (e.g. tax per parking space and for any building space that touches the ground) and they would ensure that a higher-density pedestrian-friendly results by offering incentives to the developers. This would be something like saying "if you build apartments over retail storefront in this part of town and use this spot which straddles the railway for industrial development, we'll cover the cost of a bike trail which connects all these areas and put up to six bus stops at key locations which we can determine as the project moves forward". The town spends some tax money, the developer ends up putting together a more design-intensive project which is more sustainable than some vinyl box houses and a strip mall, and some tax incentives are taken advantage of by the new residents/business owners which are now occupying LEED certified buildings. Periodically the town also fronts large incentive packages which are partially funded by the federal government which encourages a developer to take on the task of developing an old structure like the tobacco road mills/factories. Those big packages aren't the norm however as nobody could afford that shit.

Yeah, that's how I see it. That clear up all the confusion about the "bulldoze that stank shit and build something new" now? And about why I'm disagreeing with some of you...

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 9:29 PM. Reason : EPIC TEXT BOMB! NOBODY GON READ THIS SHIT!]

11/30/2008 9:27:38 PM

Quote :

"Mindstorm: As for your comment Bridget, like I said, shopping centers are the problem that this article is seeking to address. Strip malls, shopping malls, mega malls are all the sort of thing this article wants to stamp out. Encouraging companies with existing sprawl models to use these old buildings in old sprawl malls will just encourage mini sprawl bubbles that end up popping and deflating just as they did a couple decades ago when those shopping complexes first failed. Those places are likely so poorly-built and so long-abandoned that it would be safer and cheaper to just recycle the building materials used in their construction and to put a new mixed-use medium-density complex in its place. The only incentive you'd really want to give companies that build there is to get them to either recycle the old building and plop down a new LEED certified center in its place with at least residential and commercial space within walking distance of one another OR to go in and add new buildings to the site to allow the old shopping center to be used as the commercial district of a new residential/industrial/commercial center which doesn't resemble the sprawl-friendly designs of old. You've also got to throw them a bone as far as public transportation and pedestrian transportation goes so people can bike or ride a bus/train/tram/subway to other parts of town to do business."

Where did you say any of that? All I read before this latest post was you being know-it-ally about how hard it is to get old buildings up to code.

Do you have some sort "like I said" twitch?

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ?]

11/30/2008 10:05:33 PM

Okay, I read everything you wrote, and I agree with you.

You are thinking long term. I'm thinking short term. If everything remains as it is, the best thing to do is to get businesses to use vacant shopping centers instead of building new ones that are just the same.

If we could redesign the whole system, then hell yeah, level the sprawl and build some shit that actually works for us. No building shorter than five floors. First floor commercial. Second and third floors for offices. Fourth and up would be residential. Lots of public park space that would take the place of the lawns we've come to expect in the suburbs. In terms of transportation, walkers/public transport > trucks > cars...get creative.

12/1/2008 12:24:38 AM

Personally, I like sprawl. But I do enjoy visiting dense places.

12/5/2008 10:28:33 PM