I wonder how many downtown turnarounds really began with a comprehensive strategy and how many began because one slightly irrational person looked at a building everyone else ignored and thought, I can make something out of that.
Then someone else noticed.
There’s probably more economic development happening that way than we give credit for.
Myth: More homes = more traffic chaos.
Reality: Dense developments near jobs/shops mean shorter commutes & fewer cars overall.
Blocking them forces sprawl, which actually clogs highways.
Evidence shows infill eases congestion; let’s embrace it!
I’ve always laughed at couples who start dressing alike and people who somehow resemble their dogs.
Then I started thinking about neighborhoods.
Live somewhere beautiful and well maintained long enough and you start expecting beauty and maintenance.
Live around neglect long enough and eventually some of it becomes invisible.
Environment trains expectations.
There might be no better tourism advertisement than seeing people who actually live somewhere enjoying themselves.
A crowded neighborhood restaurant does more for me than a restaurant billboard.
People walking downtown do more than a downtown slogan.
Families using a park do more than a professionally produced video about quality of life.
People are remarkably good at recognizing when a place is genuinely working.
Here’s a city planning question I hadn’t considered before:
Why does a parking lot have to do only one job?
If we’re already spending the money to build it, could the same property provide parking while also storing stormwater underneath, adding shade and taking some pressure off the drainage system during a major storm?
Cities of the future are going to have to squeeze more usefulness out of the infrastructure they already have.
Parking lots seem like a pretty good place to start experimenting.
Good point, especially for us in Florida. I’m definitely not suggesting the same solution works everywhere. Sand, groundwater and maintenance all matter.
I’m really more interested in changing the question. If we’re spending millions on infrastructure anyway, what else can we make it do for us?
Yes. That’s really the larger point I was trying to make. Maybe solar works at one location and stormwater storage at another. Maybe both. I just think cities should start asking what else a piece of infrastructure can accomplish before spending millions to build it for one purpose.
That’s a fair question, and obviously it won’t work under every parking lot. Utilities, groundwater, soil and drainage all matter.
My larger point is really: if we’re rebuilding infrastructure anyway, why aren’t we routinely asking what else it could do?
Sometimes the answer will be stormwater storage. Sometimes it won’t. But I’d rather ask the question.
@MauraAlwyen The cities that plan for the future will be light years ahead as the time comes for change. And change IS coming! I have so much more to say in the topic 😇
The strongest brand statement a city can make isn’t a slogan about innovation. It’s letting people see innovation actually happening.
Construction fences. New restaurants. Restored buildings. Experiments. Entrepreneurs trying strange things. Public spaces full of people.
You don’t have to tell me your city has momentum if I can see it from the car.