appen grocery
Georgia Automation & Home Theater
appen dec 2010

May 02, 2013
For anyone paying attention, there is a new method gaining ground in planning cities. Often called "new urbanism," it's actually a throwback to older, simpler times. Smaller streets, more walking, less car-centric planning.

While there is certainly a charm associated with such planning, for Chuck Marohn, a Minnesota blogger and engineer, there is also a financial reason to build them.

Marohn spoke April 25 at the monthly meeting of Roswell NEXT, a civic and social group in Roswell. His message was simple – the way we've been building cities for the past 60 years is bankrupting the nation.

That's quite a claim.

Using simple examples from his hometown of Brainard, Minn., Marohn picked two lots of the same size on the same street. One has an aging, run down development of small shops close to the side of the road – there are pawn shops and other not-so-friendly stores. In the other lot is a brand new fast food restaurant, complete with little strips of greenspace and sidewalk.

Now, choose which lot is more profitable to the city? According to Marohn, it's the run down lot.

Strictly going by property value, those shops turn more money over to the city than the fast food restaurant.

Getting bigger, the same examples were given for a large big box store and out parcels compared to old downtown Brainard, with city blocks and dilapidated buildings. He said it's exactly the same – the big box store is worth less than the junky part of town.

Part of the reason is property value, but also, what happens in 10 years when that big box store either moves on or shuts down? The whole property is dead. There is hardly a market for empty boxes.

For the downtown – with so many little shops, if one goes under, there are still dozens more to balance it out.

The point, Marohn says, is cities have been funding or subsidizing projects such as the big box store or the fast food place for decades, seeing them as more profitable. Oftentimes they are a drain on the city, especially if it has to pay for sewer and roads to entice them. That's a long-term responsibility.

In Roswell's case, look no further than Canton Street. Lots of small shops with plenty of walking space. As soon as one shop closes its doors, another immediately takes its place. In a typical strip mall, can the same be said? Look at the comparable property values of one Canton Street property and a strip mall.

copsey
(click for larger version)
Marohn was sounding an alarm for governments. With less-than-prime building going on and the recent economic shakeup, local governments are beginning to feel a pinch in their wallets as years of poor planning are catching up with them.

Things need to change and cities need to look closer at what the actual, long-term costs of development might be.

Sometimes, it can be as simple as adding a new lick of paint to give an aging city block the impetus it needs to start turning itself around.

I'm no economist or engineer, but Marohn's lecture was fascinating in many ways. If you missed it, you missed out on some interesting material. Check out Marohn's website, www.strongtowns.org, for a more in depth look at this trend.

list visuals View images.
Editor, Milton Herald
printPrint
emailEmail Link
CommentFeedback
shareShare
  1. report print email
    Great article
    May 02, 2013 | 05:33 PM

    I've listened to the Strong Town's podcast for a while now. Chuck really knows his stuff.

    Scott Jones
    Madison
  2. report print email
    Chat on You Tube
    May 03, 2013 | 07:24 AM

    Is interested, can see the You Tube. The title is "Town Hall Roswell - Curbside Chat with Chuck Marohn"

    Michael Hadden
    Roswell
  3. report print email
    Urbanize?
    May 03, 2013 | 10:57 AM

    I don't see "less-than-prime building" in this area. Maybe in Minnesota or Roswell but not in the rest of north Fulton. I also don't see a pinch in anyone's wallet right now. So why should we urbanize and bring about the density and towering buildings that could come with it?

    Let's have this conversation in the Fall during election season. Jonathan, how about asking candidates for city office what they think of new urbanism?

    S Lee Guy
    Alpharetta
  4. report print email
    Towering Buildings.. Really?
    June 19, 2013 | 10:06 PM

    Lee, after all our back and forth, you still don't get it. New Urbanism is not about the type or height of the building and it's also not about density. Yes, all of the above can work in a New Urbanist design.. but single family is also a very vital feature of New Urbanist design. Vickery Village is textbook New Urbanism. So is Glenwood Park in south Atlanta. Serenbe is also a New Urbanist community. I'm sure anyone on the city council would be happy to have any of these developments within the city of Alpharetta. In fact, the majority of New Urbanist developments have buildings that are four stories or lower. To broadly associate New Urbanism with high density & high rises is a gross misrepresentation.

    Michael Hadden
    ROSWELL
READER COMMENTS Submission
When posting feedback please be respectful. Be nice. :
* required value
Your Name*

Town*

Email (not shown on website)*

Subject*

Comment*

Verification*
Identify the animal




Atlas Pools
Coldwell Banker
RECENT CLASSIFIEDS
Garden/ Lawn

John Deere LT155 - Great Mower

July 12, 2014 | 10:27 PM
2001 Model John Deere LT155 »
Antiques

Antique Queen Bed & Dresser

July 11, 2014 | 08:13 PM
- Queen Bed: Distressed White »
Moving Sale

Moving Sale

July 10, 2014 | 08:36 PM
Johns Creek: Saturday, July »

Krogh-Built Cabinetry
appen dec 2010 Duplicate