Traditional Neighborhood Development (suburban, market, regional, transportation)

[pandorafan5687]

Acronym TND. W/o all this talk of city planning, there hasn't been much talk of Traditional Neighborhood Developments and new urbanism. Unlike typical suburban dwellings, these are often very pedestrian oriented, w/ sidewalks and all streets ultimately leading to a town center or square. They typically have a mix of apartments, single family homes, and work space. Often they are of mixed income. They seem to be more carefully planned, than the typical suburban dwelling, and there usually a variety housing in them.(i.e. not the same four of five builders). They vary from size from relatively small like 50 acres, to being over 500 acres.
It's still somewhat unknown, but it's a growing trend. Examples would include River Ranch(Lafayette), Celebration(Osceola County Florida), Evia and Beachtown(Galveston).

They seem to be more carefully planned, than the typical suburban dwelling, and there usually a variety housing in them.(i.e. not the same four of five builders). They vary from size.

What do the folks here think of them? A few of you may even live in one. You may live near one. Your town may have one. Anyway, I'd like to hear all of the views. Likes, dislikes, pros, cons, the benefits, the lifestyle. Let the games begin!

[chet everett]

Economic downturns tend to force both good development practices and poorer ones aside for whatever is cheapest in the short run. Good planning eats upfront money...

[flintysooner]

From what I've heard the recession pretty much stopped new TND and those that are already going were having serious problems as are most all housing developments.

Around where I am in Oklahoma City it is very difficult to acquire financing for any kind of mixed use development.

[pandorafan5687]

My hometown was supposed to get one but the project is on hold right now

I hope we can still get one or two of them b/c the lake area could stand to use some. We have more than enough space for one. This recession can't stay this bad forever.

[flintysooner]

I really like the idea of TND and find a lot of support for the idea of being able to live and shop in a smaller, more intimate, walkable area. For some people there is also the desire to be able to work in the same area.

I think getting grocery retail is perhaps the most difficult task.

A building with multi-use such as retail on first floor and office on second and living on third is really hard to finance. There's also some resistance to ADU (accessory dwelling units) by local groups. But I personally like the idea of both.

[wburg]

I tend to be very skeptical of TND because it replicates some of the forms of old neighborhoods without necessarily modeling the functions. If it still functions as a car-centric neighborhood (people have to drive to work, typically the same distances as any other auto suburb) and the housing mix doesn't match the economic distribution of historic communities (there are no homes for poor people) and the product is a greenfield development far from the job centers where its inhabitants work, it is little improved from the standard product.

Celebration is, quite literally, a Disneyland imitation of a real traditional community--their "town hall" is a sales office, while the actual town governance is done from a remote building surrounded with a very "traditional" parking lot. It's a stage, resembling an idealized image of old neighborhoods with none of the substance. It is based on the assumption that "traditional" neighborhoods had no poor people, everyone commuted to work in their horse and carriage, and the only difference today is that our carriages are gasoline-powered.

I live near a development similar in principle to TND, a "pedestrian pocket" called Laguna West, designed by Peter Calthorpe. It was supposed to get a light rail line and was to be built as a complete, walkable community. It was built out as a traditional snout house suburb, the light rail line never arrived, and Calthorpe now considers it a huge failure.

Function matters, not appearances. Actual historic neighborhoods had small, inexpensive places where poor people lived, they had fixed-rail transit that was generally built out before the neighborhood (assuming the neighborhood was built after about 1850) and job centers were close at hand. Obviously, there are elements of historic cities that we wouldn't want to simulate (coal-fired home heating, open sewers, slavery, etcetera) but any project calling itself "traditional" should concentrate more on function and less on facade.

[jimmyev]

Originally Posted by wburg

Celebration is, quite literally, a Disneyland imitation of a real traditional community--their "town hall" is a sales office, while the actual town governance is done from a remote building surrounded with a very "traditional" parking lot. It's a stage, resembling an idealized image of old neighborhoods with none of the substance. It is based on the assumption that "traditional" neighborhoods had no poor people, everyone commuted to work in their horse and carriage, and the only difference today is that our carriages are gasoline-powered.

I live near a development similar in principle to TND, a "pedestrian pocket" called Laguna West, designed by Peter Calthorpe. It was supposed to get a light rail line and was to be built as a complete, walkable community. It was built out as a traditional snout house suburb, the light rail line never arrived, and Calthorpe now considers it a huge failure.

Function matters, not appearances. Actual historic neighborhoods had small, inexpensive places where poor people lived, they had fixed-rail transit that was generally built out before the neighborhood (assuming the neighborhood was built after about 1850) and job centers were close at hand. Obviously, there are elements of historic cities that we wouldn't want to simulate (coal-fired home heating, open sewers, slavery, etcetera) but any project calling itself "traditional" should concentrate more on function and less on facade.

It would be nice if they incorporated lower-income housing. Might even be a necessity if they want workers to staff their chain retail establishments, especially without mass transit.

These developments have to be car-centric to survive. It's how Americans travel, and it always will be. Even if gas suddenly disappeared, Americans would find something else to fuel their cars. What I like about these developments is that they hide the cars, with street-front entrances and parking garages in the middle of the block, behind the buildings.

Of course it would be nice if traditional neighborhoods realized that they needed parking tucked away somewhere. Then there wouldn't be a need for these greenfield developments. I drive over to my nearest walkable neighborhood (the bus is way too inconvenient on weekends), can't find parking, and end-up across the river at something resembling a TND. At least it's a brownfield development, and not a greenfield. Of course it means I'm spending my money at Starbucks instead of a locally-owned coffee shop. But it's just so much easier.

Just out of curiosity, would The Woodlands, Sugar Land and Pearland Town Centers be considered TNDs? They seem to have a mix of housing and retail.

[flintysooner]

Originally Posted by wburg

but any project calling itself "traditional" should concentrate more on function and less on facade.

I agree with the caveat that there are facade elements that may contribute to the function of community.

I like the ADU concept as a way to provide some lower priced living space. It can be financed but I think a centralized management structure is needed to relieve the owner from the details of leasing.

I've been thinking about a similar concept for the commercial area where a building might be owned by one primary user but then offer space for lease to others through a management company. For instance an office space primary user owns the building and occupies the 2nd floor but leases space on the ground floor for retail and space on the 3rd for living units. It is much easier to finance owner occupied and there is some incentive to gain additional income from the leasing activities. But it is not an easily explained idea.

In my thinking the car centric areas that I agree are necessary should be on the perimeter but accessible from the interior.

[chet everett]

Mixed used was based on the theory (which has some validity...) that certain kinds of retail will enhance the marketability of certain kinds of housing.

The difficulty that is currently encountered is that since most parts of the country have both a glut of multi- family housing and an excess of retail space neither can fetch the selling / leasing prices they were designed for.

It makes sense to locate housing near some kinds of retail --- people like to have drug stores, smaller groceries, service oriented retail (like hair saloons) close by. Resturants are a bit trickier, no one wants the cooking odors too close, and if the place has a big late night crowd that has negatives. Staff needs to be able to get to work too -- security and parking issues crop up.

So called "destination shopping" creates excessive parking demands, and that is why even big regional malls have gone to high density parking garages. If the residential component is seen as the "money bags" to finance the expensive upfront infrastructure (like parking garages) it hurts the value proposition for similar multi- family that has cheaper infrastructure....

Other issues of employment abound. The "park like campus" that still seems to be the favorite of larger corporate offices means that green space is a factor for both the residential and office components. Other kinds of employment present other issues. No retailer really can afford to pay wages that make it easy to live in a high end multi-family building. Low end buildings attract tenants that may also have other issues. Manufacturing jobs rarely are compatible with any kind of nearby residential, even if the manufacturing is low noise / pollution there is still the issue of transportation of raw materials and finished goods. Rail has it's challenges and trucks can only cope with so much residential...


Functionally it seems likely that overhauling urban industrial space to lofts is an easier way to achieve some of the same goals of TND. Of course "brown fields" often require even more toxic remediation upfront...

[pandorafan5687]

I hear much of these neighborhoods or neighborhoods of this particular kind were intended for mixed income. However, that almost never works out b/c upper class and *coughs*yuppies*coughs* take interest the moment the building is complete. That's the same thing that happens when low income housing is torn down. Those ppl need somewhere to live as well. As much as we hate housing projects, there will to some extent be a need for housing like that.