I was surprised to hear about all of the hurtles set up against "Infill Development." It seems a waste to develop perfectly good land when land already exists that has been degraded. Many of these hurtles, especially all of the economic ones, are easily removed. I feel like this is one of those examples where the public needs to be informed so that they can push the local governments to change. If financing is really such a hindrance, and the general public wants to rethink these empty urban spaces, it seems that a simple vote could change the problem.
One issue that I don't really understand is the 'Displacement' that can result from Infill Development. I suppose it makes sense in a way but thinking about displacing poorer communities sounds like an issue that shouldn't arise in the first place. It seems much more effective to turn an old broken down parking lot into cheaper housing than to go build expensive condo's somewhere else. I think the movement toward at Transit-Oriented community requires that cities rethink unused plots of land.
I have always wondered why there were so many run-down buildings in the center of a city. I don't think people really want to be walking around in a neighborhood that is inundated with areas of degradation. As I said, it seems to me that this issue is one that could easily be resolved.
Sadly, I think it often comes down to cost, liability and profit. Many urban sites are in less desirable locations which would cut into any profit margin of the developers. Brownfields sites also tend to be expensive to fix up and may have some liability attached to them, which drives some investors off as well. That being said, there are grants and gov't programs designed to encourage reuse of these sites. Municipal ordinances may help as well.
ReplyDelete