Urban Infill and Suburban Infill Is Coming

Sorry that I haven't posted in awhile! While I certainly will try to update my blog on at least a monthly basis from now on, I am not going to make any promises (like I said two posts ago)! But what's been on my mind lately is related to infill in both urban and suburban places. This has been a big trend lately in the development community within city centers and regional edge cities. Instead of our continual march outward, most American cities have acknowledged that sprawling fifty miles plus from downtown is no longer economically viable for growing a city. 

Calhoun Street in Cincinnati, OH - ten years ago

Calhoun Street, as of this year

Instead, developers are looking at infilling the free spaces we have. In downtowns and city centers, developers are converting abandoned lots and old surface parking lots into new apartment buildings, mixed used towers, or other suitable uses. In the suburbs, developers are snapping up any vacant land, big or small, and building their new developments on these vacant parcels rather than more greenfield development on the urban fringe. Both types of infill have their pro's and con's, and in this post, I am going to parse through this new trend.

Starting with urban infill, most planners agree that infilling our city centers and bringing life back into our downtowns' stagnant streets is wonderful. I, too, find this movement very positive. Its hard to complain about removing a parking lot and replacing it with a place to live, work, and play. Urban infill is bringing new residents, businesses, and activities to our downtowns that for too long haven't seen any growth. These new developments bring in a new tax base that allows cities to do more for their citizens. New taxes allows cities to reinvest in themselves, providing much need infrastructure upgrades or new social services for its people.

Many argument against urban infill as they fear it will displace residents and gentrify low-income neighborhoods

For this reason, I find urban infill necessary for American cities. While urban infill can result in gentrification, I struggle to understand the argument that its better to just leave our streets empty and stagnant. Whether we gentrify our city centers or not, the United States still faces a major housing crisis where people can no longer afford to stay in their homes. It's a multi-faceted issue that won't be solved by stopping all urban infill. In fact, it would probably exasperate the problem because as of right now, our cities cannot afford to solve this issue with depleted taxes revenues. We need innovative solutions to solve homelessness and preventing a renewal of our cities centers won't solve anything. I challenge those on the extreme left who are opposed to any urban infill projects to explain to me why these projects are bad for our cities and bad for our labor force.

Urban infill brings back people, jobs, and money to our city centers. It allows cities to put forth new investments in their infrastructure system that suit the needs of the city and its greater region. It allows cities to create mixed-income, diverse neighborhoods that better the local schools and parks. In addition, urban infill is a more sustainable and greener way to develop new homes and businesses. People are free from cars, allowed more options of mobility, and can live healthier lifestyles. It creates density and lowers the crime rate. Infill comes with the threat of gentrification and soaring property taxes, but compared to other options, urban infill is a smarter way to develop in our 21st century anthropocentric world.

Rendering of a future apartment community in Duluth, GA

Now focusing outward on our suburbs, suburban infill comes in many different ways and fashions. The general trend follows crowding in our edge cities and highway corridors with as much development as possible. Recently, I saw a Facebook post complaining about overcrowding in the greater Atlanta county of Gwinnett. Recent development trends have been to develop density-intense apartments in communities that have only ever seen single family homes.

And it makes sense why people would complain in Gwinnett when county government can barely manage the growth as it is. The number of high schools have increased (practically exponentially) from eleven in 2003 to nineteen (going on twenty) high schools today. The interstate can no longer expand the number of lanes it has because the federal government told the county that it has maxed out on interstate expansion (currently seven lanes). Its jails are overcrowded with court backlogs that go back for months. And on top of that, the county will join the ranks of Orange County, California in the next ten years for suburban counties with over a million people as the county's population continues to grow.

So while I understand people's complaints about the ongoing "suburban infill" trend in Gwinnett and other American suburbs, I also wholeheartedly disagree with the prevention of new development. Instead of complaining about "being full," this infill trend is a call to arms for suburban communities to develop sustainable forms of mass transportation. This trend is indicative that it is not too late to correct the mistakes of sprawl, and to instead develop new places that encourage community, walkability, and sustainability. Suburban infill is happening, so instead of letting market forces carry it out (as most conservative suburbs would let), suburbanites need to take charge of the growth going on around them and shape the infill to fit the needs of their community and region. (Go to planning commission meetings people!!)

Suburban trends of racial profiling developments can no longer continue

What can't (and physically won't due to growth pressure, I predict) happen is for suburban moms and dads to prevent density from infilling their communities because this infill brings in the "wrong crowd." In this century, business-as-usual won't cut it anymore. We live in a world with growing pressures and new environmental needs; this means everyone will have to make sacrifices. Change will have to happen, so instead of being apart of the backlash against change, I challenge members of the suburbs to embrace change and shape it in a way that fits their growing needs and challenges.

In conclusion, this post acknowledges that infill of our cities must happen if we are to continue grow in a sustainable and productive way. What this post also does is challenge the nay-sayers to rethink the way they see the change (the infill) going on around them and to shape it into the goodwill for all.