This article was first published in Places: Forum of Design for the Public Realm. www.places-journal.org

Dunham-Jones, Ellen

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech

S u b u r b a n R e t r o f i t s , D e m o g r a p h i c s , a n d S u s t a i n a b i l i t y E l l e n D u n h a m - J o n e s American legal and cultural attitudes have long held that cities are dynamic and should be expected to grow. Less obvious is the corollary that suburbs are not supposed to change. Suburban residents tend to contest any altera­tion to the original form and pattern of their communities. However, despite such intransigence, a number of factors—from aging buildings and infrastructure, to demographic change, to shifts in regional economies—are driving the retrofit of existing suburban development into more urban formats. As the articles and case studies in this issue illustrate, dead malls are being reborn as downtowns, com­mercial strips are being transformed Originally built in 1964, the Avondale Mall in Dekalb County, Georgia, is typical of a growing number of "dead malls" nationwide. Photo by Phillip Jones. into pedestrian-friendly boulevards, out-of-date office parks are finding new life as mixed-use business districts, and traffic-choked edge cities are being infilled and linked to new transit systems. What largely typifies such transformations is that a once-generic, auto-dependent, single-use site will become more particular. As better designed places, they are generally also characterized by increased connectiv­ity, walkability and density, a greater range of uses, an increased attention to public space, and a new concern for environmental performance. Such conversions are worthy of study, critique and strategic emulation in and of themselves. But specula­tion about their collective impact has raised the stakes even further. Can a concerted program of suburban ret­rofits promote regional sustainability? Wi l l it be possible to accommodate our burgeoning population in ways that both stimulate suburban life and preserve unbuilt land from develop­ment? Can the insertion of densified nodes into existing suburbs make transit feasible and trigger the retro­fitting of sprawl itself? W h y "Retrofit"? If one hopes the answer to above questions will someday be "yes," one must first distinguish between sub­urban retrofits, which seek to change their contexts, and ordinary infill or redevelopment projects, which seek to fit into theirs. Suburban development creates par­ticular difficulties. In a city, infill and redevelopment may augment positive Dunham-Jones / Suburban Re t ro f i t s Retrofitting Suburbia A Retrofit Gallery attributes—for example, increasing support for services, from transit to restaurants. But in a suburban location, every new square foot of new building only tends to increase traffic, stress the social infrastructure (including schools), and reduce prized open space. In other words, ordinary infill and redevelopment normally detracts from a suburb's most desirable and marketable qualities—one reason it tends to be so fiercely resisted by existing residents. Such NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) attitudes in turn become an important factor propelling continued patterns of land consumption. Suburban retrofits, by contrast, introduce more urban block, street and building typologies with the intention of systemically reduc­ing traffic, diversifying household types, and preserving open space. T h e best retrofits not only improve social, economic and environmental sustain-ability within their property lines, but within the region as a whole. What drives these engines of ( sub­urban renewal? How well do they live up to their potential? And what next steps will promote further retrofitting? There are many factors driving and differentiating suburban retrofits. In postwar suburbs like Lakewood, Colorado, the principal driver may be an alarming increase in the number of aging, run-down properties, which creates a fear of blight powerful enough to overcome the more typi­cal NIMBY resistance to change. In newer, high-priced markets such as Silicon Valley, or in booming edge cities, the catalysts may be quite dif­ferent: the arrival of regional transit, a desire for affordable housing, or an appreciation for smart-growth plans or policies—themselves empowered by fears that traffic and degraded air and water quality will take the bloom off the boom. 1 The majority ot suburban retrofits have been on dead mall sites. In its February 2001 "Grej ' . v1 Siudv,"Piicc\v,% rhouseCoo-pers reported that nearlv 20 percent of Vmerica's regional malls were dead or dying. This is in addition to the thousand or more "ghost boxes" (former big-b( >\ stores) n< >\\ present in the U.S.' Declining retail sites are 1101 1 .lie 1 .nh. ones that hold promise, however. As the examples <in the fol­lowing pages illustrate, a wide variety of prototypical suburban environ­ments mav be successfully retrofitted. Some typical strategies emplo\ ed by retrofits are as follows. Increase connectivity. Existing superlilocks mav be broken up In extend­ing existing street and pedestrian systems (such as neighboring streets, mall corridors and sidew alks). \uto-dependencv can be further reduced by designing for better integration with transit and increased walkabilitv and hike-ability. In addition to their environmental benefits, intercon­nected patterns of access allow for more healthful transportation choices andimpro\e< „ bi in 01 1 ndrn c s Design iimu mi public space. Replacing stand-ali me private I luildings sur­rounded l>\ [larking lots v\ ith attractive public squares, greens. 1 >r tree-lined streets, pn iv ides opportunities for informal public gathering and s i H 11I interaction sorely lacking in most suburban settings. Well-designed , 1 '1 • est , 1 1 e of 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 . contribute to the enduring economic value o f nearby properties, ami enhance the environmental performance of a site. \/.'\ . In! iiiid building types. Bringing residential, commercial, retail and civic uses together can create important synergies. In addition to reducing vehicle trips, increasing convenience, and allow ing a sharing 1 if resi HIIVCN and amenities, 11 can enhance the sense of communifv and ;ti • ! • • • ;., ,i> < ' s to h togethi 1 IJd density, 1 • ; , . . . . / . ' ' , to overparked sites. In addition to improving affonl-abilin , increasing density improves the effectiveness o f other retrofit­ting strategies. < >n mill s i r e s . pre-n>6S parking standards recommended ten instead of today's four parking spaces per 1.000 sq.ft. of retail space. The reduction allows the retrofit o t these sites today to include a limited number o [ "liner" buildings before having to build structured parking. These can be located both around the edges of the old parking lots (to front adjoining arterials) and on the interior (to create activ e new streets). There are many tools that proactive municipalities mav use to facilitate the above strategies. .Among the most important are rezoning, recoding, tax-increment financing (TIF), regional planning, and planning for transit. Note 1 (. )t f b ' i t - - - , _ > .< .> la (defined irrtlie study asanails where average sa ire ( h t , > n d : rhese;p]a;Ces isbejri«- tracked afveww.deadmaU* i i status. The fete of marry of P laces 17.2 

Suburban Retrofits, Demographics, and Sustainability

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/24026/1/suburban_retrofits.pdf

Suburban Retrofits, Demographics, and Sustainability

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech