Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do they work? As you can see from my comments below - I am not a fan.
I'm in car-oriented El Paso Texas and there is a proposal for a suburban "smart growth/urban village" at Mesa/Argonaut . Of course like all smart growth proposals it is tied to tax concessions. Its a mixed use proposal of 4-5 story apartments, townhomes, single family homes, a big parking garage, and shopping. While this may work in larger eastern cities remember this is car oriented suburban & desert Texas.
El Paso’s First Major Smart-Growth Development May Hinge on Tax Breaks Expecting to spend $575 million on their transit-oriented Monticello village, which could include stores, restaurants, offices and open space, along with 2,595 apartments, 379 townhouses and 117 single-family homes, the developers want the city to create a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) and issue more than $50 million in infrastructure bonds. They also count on $4.4 million to secure a match from a federal tax credit program for commercial development
My concerns:
- mixed use apartments/homes wont work - who wants to buy a home next to apartments? - esp. when there are same priced alternatives
-townhome/groundfloor business setups don't work - living over your shop sounds ideal but businesses have different location needs than homes - typically someone tries to run their service business (cell phone store, accounting,1 man real estate office ...) from the store front but they don't last and can't be supported by the small neighborhood
- the most a complex like this can support in a car oriented culture is a convenience store
- parking garage will be magnet for trouble (we have few parking garages out here)
- plans for narrow roadways and wider walkways will lead to more crime - more safe havens from car bound police officers - this is an issue in many older planned public housing communities - they just look pretty on paper
Do they work? As you can see from my comments below - I am not a fan.
I'm in car-oriented El Paso Texas and there is a proposal for a suburban "smart growth/urban village" at Mesa/Argonaut . Of course like all smart growth proposals it is tied to tax concessions. Its a mixed use proposal of 4-5 story apartments, townhomes, single family homes, a big parking garage, and shopping. While this may work in larger eastern cities remember this is car oriented suburban & desert Texas.
El Paso’s First Major Smart-Growth Development May Hinge on Tax Breaks Expecting to spend $575 million on their transit-oriented Monticello village, which could include stores, restaurants, offices and open space, along with 2,595 apartments, 379 townhouses and 117 single-family homes, the developers want the city to create a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) and issue more than $50 million in infrastructure bonds. They also count on $4.4 million to secure a match from a federal tax credit program for commercial development
My concerns:
- mixed use apartments/homes wont work - who wants to buy a home next to apartments? - esp. when there are same priced alternatives
-townhome/groundfloor business setups don't work - living over your shop sounds ideal but businesses have different location needs than homes - typically someone tries to run their service business (cell phone store, accounting,1 man real estate office ...) from the store front but they don't last and can't be supported by the small neighborhood
- the most a complex like this can support in a car oriented culture is a convenience store
- parking garage will be magnet for trouble (we have few parking garages out here)
- plans for narrow roadways and wider walkways will lead to more crime - more safe havens from car bound police officers - this is an issue in many older planned public housing communities - they just look pretty on paper
Surely "2,595 apartments, 379 townhouses and 117 single-family homes" could support more than a convenience store?
"[W]ho wants to buy a home next to apartments"? It depends on who is living in the apartments. If they're perceived as a dumping ground for poor people who can't afford a house, people might not want to live there. However, if it's a mix of people with different incomes, some of whom prefer an apartment because it's low maintenance or because they don't need as much space, it's not a deterrent.
If "car bound police officers" are a problem, get them out of their cars. Foot patrols have been proven to reduce crime.
"[N]arrow roadways and wider walkways" work if building are built on the street. "[O]lder planned public housing communities" might have a problem if they're set off the street or have a lot of nooks and crannies. Put putting them on the street, especially one with wide sidewalks that encourage foot traffic, enables everyone to see who is going into the building. If drug dealers or gang members are hanging out there, everyone will notice (including the officers on foot patrol).
Apartments above businesses work just fine--it is in no way required for the person who works downstairs to work upstairs. But their presence allows people the option to live near their workplace, even if it isn't directly below them, or near the business district where they do work. They are also overlooked in many contemporary "smart growth" developments, which is bad, because they provide affordable housing for service workers. Without that affordable housing, they must commute in!
tpk-nyc outlines that wide sidewalks and narrow streets certainly don't "lead to more crime," but they do lead to more pedestrians. Eyes on the street, whether pedestrians or those second-story apartment dwellers, make cities safer because it's harder for crimes to occur unobserved. And yeah, what's stopping the cop from getting out of their car?
No housing development can be "smart growth" if it is car-oriented. Cars require that every place you go, whether it is home, work, school, shopping, church, or the park, has a parking space. This dramatically multiplies the amount of space needed to build everything, most of it wasted. Subtract that amount of space and you can put things much closer together--close enough that you can walk to most things. For far-off places, a public transit network allows people to move farther without cars. In between, there are bikes. Cars do have a role in such a place--but they are just one of several transportation choices, not the undisputed rulers of the landscape. Making cars less convenient, in conjunction with making other modes of transportation safer, easier and cheaper, means they will stay parked in that garage more often--or, for many people, make them redundant entirely.
And yes, generally this means that "smart growth/urban village" projects that don't have public transit are still car-oriented, and they are generally failures. Laguna West, designed by TOD guru Peter Calthorpe, was supposed to be a model "urban village." But the houses, instead of being close to lot edges with pedestrian entrances in front, became traditional snout homes with big yards. The promised light rail line never arrived, and buses don't do a very good job of filling the same role. It ended up just turning into an auto suburbs of car-centric Elk Grove. Proper "smart growth" projects build the transit first, then the neighborhood. Along with failure to provide housing for all economic levels, this is the greatest failure of most "smart growth" projects.
It can and does work. Check out Belmar Lakewood and the Streets at Southglenn in Suburban Denver. These were both dead suburban shopping malls that were torn down and remade into exactly what you describe above. The same has happened at the Englewood Station in Englewood, CO. The mall was torn down and a transit oriented development was put in place to complement the light rail that had just started operating.
Granted, I'm not buying a house in El Paso, but as far as who wants to buy a house next to apartments: I do, at least potentially. I much prefer to live in a neighborhood with mixed housing options. And narrow roads and wide walkways sounds far, far better to me than narrow sidewalks and wide roads, which is often the case in many new suburban developments.
Still, I agree that in some cases much of the new urbanist stuff seems to be just window dressing for gussied-up subdivisions, and they end up failing (not appealing to those who want a more traditional suburban community, and not appealing to those who want it more traditionally urban, and ends up being the worst of both worlds). I have no idea if that's the case in this instance or not. Perhaps if there's not a lot of other walkable options out there (not sure what El Paso's housing market is like) there will be a large demand for this sort of place. I'd prefer an older, existing neighborhood and home myself, but many people like newer construction. This gives them an option that doesn't require moving out to a subdivision or trying to take on an urban infill project. Those who prefer the subdivisions presumably are not the target audience here, and if you (meaning the OP) doesn't understand the appeal of this particular development, there are many others out there who don't understand the appeal of somewhere that doesn't have many of these traits. Now whether or not this particular project is done right or will work is another story, but in theory and if done correctly then development of this sort can absolutely work. And as to whether or not there's demand for this in El Paso: I have no idea about that, but if I were to suddenly move to El Paso I would want mixed-use and walkable, so maybe there are others (whether transplants or those local who just prefer more options) who either do want this or will discover its benefits once it's built.
Granted, I'm not buying a house in El Paso, but as far as who wants to buy a house next to apartments: I do, at least potentially. I much prefer to live in a neighborhood with mixed housing options. And narrow roads and wide walkways sounds far, far better to me than narrow sidewalks and wide roads, which is often the case in many new suburban developments.
Still, I agree that in some cases much of the new urbanist stuff seems to be just window dressing for gussied-up subdivisions, and they end up failing (not appealing to those who want a more traditional suburban community, and not appealing to those who want it more traditionally urban, and ends up being the worst of both worlds). I have no idea if that's the case in this instance or not. Perhaps if there's not a lot of other walkable options out there (not sure what El Paso's housing market is like) there will be a large demand for this sort of place. I'd prefer an older, existing neighborhood and home myself, but many people like newer construction. This gives them an option that doesn't require moving out to a subdivision or trying to take on an urban infill project. Those who prefer the subdivisions presumably are not the target audience here, and if you (meaning the OP) doesn't understand the appeal of this particular development, there are many others out there who don't understand the appeal of somewhere that doesn't have many of these traits. Now whether or not this particular project is done right or will work is another story, but in theory and if done correctly then development of this sort can absolutely work. And as to whether or not there's demand for this in El Paso: I have no idea about that, but if I were to suddenly move to El Paso I would want mixed-use and walkable, so maybe there are others (whether transplants or those local who just prefer more options) who either do want this or will discover its benefits once it's built.
Agreed. Belmar Lakewood is a perfect example. A few blocks away are 50-60 year old suburban tract homes. It's still very auto oriented.
Agreed. Belmar Lakewood is a perfect example. A few blocks away are 50-60 year old suburban tract homes. It's still very auto oriented.
I don't have a source for this other than 'hearsay' from one of my planner friends, but I've heard that Bel Mar is 'tanking' and the development as a whole isn't doing nearly as well as the developer (and planners) had intended.
And, as far as it being auto-oriented, it seems like it is. It seems like, based on my own observation, most people drive to it and park in the huge parking lots that surround it. I think it's served by only two or three bus lines at the most and won't be near the new 'West' light rail line that is under construction.
I don't want to rip it apart, but I don't think it's a good example of a TOD.
Last edited by cowboyxjon; 08-09-2010 at 03:43 PM..
Do they work? As you can see from my comments below - I am not a fan.
I'm in car-oriented El Paso Texas and there is a proposal for a suburban "smart growth/urban village" at Mesa/Argonaut . Of course like all smart growth proposals it is tied to tax concessions. Its a mixed use proposal of 4-5 story apartments, townhomes, single family homes, a big parking garage, and shopping. While this may work in larger eastern cities remember this is car oriented suburban & desert Texas.
El Paso’s First Major Smart-Growth Development May Hinge on Tax Breaks Expecting to spend $575 million on their transit-oriented Monticello village, which could include stores, restaurants, offices and open space, along with 2,595 apartments, 379 townhouses and 117 single-family homes, the developers want the city to create a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) and issue more than $50 million in infrastructure bonds. They also count on $4.4 million to secure a match from a federal tax credit program for commercial development
My concerns:
- mixed use apartments/homes wont work - who wants to buy a home next to apartments? - esp. when there are same priced alternatives
-townhome/groundfloor business setups don't work - living over your shop sounds ideal but businesses have different location needs than homes - typically someone tries to run their service business (cell phone store, accounting,1 man real estate office ...) from the store front but they don't last and can't be supported by the small neighborhood
- the most a complex like this can support in a car oriented culture is a convenience store
- parking garage will be magnet for trouble (we have few parking garages out here)
- plans for narrow roadways and wider walkways will lead to more crime - more safe havens from car bound police officers - this is an issue in many older planned public housing communities - they just look pretty on paper
It seems to work in car-oriented Houston, Ft Worth and Dallas. And the developments do tend to be somewhat car-oriented - Pearland Town Center is one that isn't served by public transit and provides plenty of parking. It's just centrally located. Sort of like an outdoor mall with apartments and townhouses scattered about.
I don't have a source for this other than 'hearsay' from one of my planner friends, but I've heard that Bel Mar is 'tanking' and the development as a whole isn't doing nearly as well as the developer (and planners) had intended.
And, as far as it being auto-oriented, it seems like it is. It seems like, based on my own observation, most people drive to it and park in the huge parking lots that surround it. I think it's served by only two or three bus lines at the most and won't be near the new 'West' light rail line that is under construction.
I don't want to rip it apart, but I don't think it's a good example of a TOD.
I wouldn't know about the finances of the place. I just think it's lame. Lakewood, after G** knows how many years in existence, decided it wanted a downtown, so put its support behind this Belmar project. The shopping area lacks a good dept store; other than that it has everything your local mall has. This is the case with a lot of these "New Urbanist" places.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
