Infill & Re-Development

By Peter Stempel

One important thread that runs through the concept of "growing better" is that of using what we already have to the best of our abilities. That means not building redundant, extraneous, or overly costly infrastructure when existing infrastructure can do the job.  Doing this requires that we think more carefully about where various developments are placed throughout our communities.

The traditional pattern of development in the United States resembles a grass fire: the active burning zone is at the edge, and the fire in the center has largely burned out. We see this in large cities, but we also see it in suburban development. As new housing and new retail spaces develop at the edges of communities, the life in the centers tends to wane.  

This development pattern emphasizes the use of automobiles to the exclusion of other transportation modes. It often leaves "dead zones" of under-utilized infrastructure, and ultimately undermines community stability. This trend, however, is slowly changing. In major metropolitan centers, there is a growing emphasis on creative re-use, re-development of somewhat underutilized central areas, and what is referred to as "infill".  

Infill is not just for major cities however, it can have hugely beneficial effects in towns and even smaller rural communities.  What is it? In its most simple terms, infill development refers to using the space in between things well.  Rather than dwell on definitions, however let me give a few examples of infill development. 

In many cases, small strip malls, and underutilized commercial buildings such as old supermarkets are located close to existing residential neighborhoods. Locations such as these are well-suited for redevelopment. While the businesses that once thrived there have been superseded by larger or newer stores, the proximity of the older location to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure makes it ideal for a different kind of development, specifically well tailored mixed-use projects. These projects contain small scale retail, and different types of housing, creating, in essence, a small town center. Because these sights are within one quarter mile walk of established neighborhoods, there is a ready made market to support such development. Moreover, developing options in the housing available removes financial barriers that prevent extended family from living nearby.  

Accomplishing an infill project such as the one illustrated above requires that we think differently about zoning. In most cases, zoning enforces setbacks and densities that virtually force single use, "strip style" development. As mentioned last week, tools like spot zoning and incentive zoning would allow the careful liberalization of zoning in appropriate locations. Doing this not only makes the type of project described above possible, it makes it desirable to re-invest in the core of our communities. 

Another way of looking at infill development is to compare it to filling missing teeth. In many cases small businesses stand isolated along main streets, separated by locations where buildings have long since been demolished. The cumulative effect of such "missing teeth" is to encourage people to drive between businesses on the same street rather than simply parking, and walking from business to business. While many people doubt that anyone will ever walk, any of you that have visited a functioning main street know that the life of the street, and the curiosity of what is around the corner, offer draw you from place to place.  Replacing the missing teeth often requires very little actual work, providing that towns remove disincentives to development.  Creating a comprehensive town parking plan that allows for distributed parking and re-evaluating zoning setbacks that might be making the lots difficult to develop are good initial steps. 

If we take the missing teeth analogy one step further, we can look at the gaps between major developments within city limits. In some cases, the roads from one development are a stones throw from another, yet people from both developments are funneled through small choke points. If the "gaps" are carefully examined, it is often possible to develop connectivity between developments, to develop additional variety in housing types, and sometimes, it is possible to create new collector streets that relieve the pressure on existing choke points in the road network. In short, using the space between can be a benefit to the surrounding developments. Achieving such results, however, requires that we look beyond the immediate property lines when making a new proposal.  

Accommodating people and businesses in the central areas of communities, using the small gaps that already exist, can go a long way towards preserving agricultural land on the edges of town - the space between our communities that makes them distinct from each other. To be sure, preserving some of our agricultural heritage, and some of the "space between" our communities will require other strategies. We will discuss these in an upcoming article. The important point in this article, however is that infill development can not only enhance the quality of life in our communities, it can lessen the development pressure on agricultural and open space sites that have known no previous development. The strategies I am illustrating above lower the net cost of new development. In so doing, they enhance affordability. We can also improve the tax base without adding miles of new roadway--and the future maintenance associated with them.  While infill development and re-development will not accommodate everyone who might be moving here, it is an important and economically viable way to create more choices, and to enhance all of our lives.

 Peter Stempel is an architect practicing in Virgin, Utah.  He is a member of the American Institute of Architects and the United States Green Building Council.  He is also a board member of Citizens for Dixie’s Future.