Marketplace of Ideas

1) We are, to a very large extent, on the same page. I’m sure that was due, in part, to self-selection; developers interested in putting acres of tract housing and strip malls out in Stafford County don’t come to the Urban Marketplace event. It was nonetheless inspiring to see the degree to which developers, government officials, neighborhood representatives, and researchers agreed that density, mixed-uses, and a commitment to walkability and reduced automobile usage were the way to go. That’s not to say everyone was in complete agreement on all counts: developers want more parking and incentives, neighborhoods want a larger share of green space, governments want to see jobs for locals, and so on. But the overwhelming sense of an agreed-upon framework within which all the details get hashed out was clear. I must admit, I had to shake my head in wonder when Sakina Khan of the D.C. Office of Planning indicated that she saw surface parking lots as a weakness (thinking, as I was, of the Brentwood Home Depot or the Washington Gateway Retail Center going up at South Dakota and New York Avenues). Still, even if the execution isn’t always there, the direction that’s sought is clear and positive.

2) Often, residents are the bottleneck. With developers and government planners in general agreement on the direction, if not the specifics, of new development, it’s often existing residential populations that stand in the way of new growth, or alter the growth to more closely resemble the development patterns they’re used to. This shouldn’t be surprising; residents have a strong interest in their immediate neighborhoods, often have different time horizons than planners, and aren’t exposed to the kinds of detailed information leading planners to generate the new construction forms we’re seeing.

That residents are concerned about new growth isn’t exactly stunning. What was interesting to me was the difference in development attitudes between those living in the city and those living in suburbs. Developers responsible for “new urbanism” style projects in Maryland, near Metro stations and around the Beltway, reported far less community opposition to their plans than did developers in the District. They also noted that much of the concern or support from local communities depended on the quality of the architecture and design in a development. By contrast, District developers reported that one of the most enduring complaints about projects was the effect they might have on traffic and parking.

I can’t readily explain the difference, but it is clear that leaders in the District need to do a better job explaining why density is a good long-term solution to traffic problems.

3) Planners believe density is a good long-term solution to traffic problems—up to a point. Throughout the day, prominent officials in a variety of roles touted the benefits of transit-oriented, dense, and walkable developments—with good reason. It’s clear that such developments are a good way to reduce the long-term growth of traffic. Looking, for instance, at the Brookland area and nearby neighborhoods, we see that much of current traffic flows consist of commuters traveling from the city through residential neighborhoods into the suburbs, and from local residents forced to drive to shops by the lack of good, close retail options.

By developing neighborhoods densely, and with mixed-uses, the city creates more housing for people working in the District and it increases the extent to which local shopping can be done without a car. With large growth in the number of new residents, it’s probable that overall traffic will increase, but the number of trips per person should continue to fall precipitously.

Still, as I heard these refrains over and over, heard the continuing paeans to transit-oriented development, I was frustrated by the absence of any mention of new transit growth. Again looking at the Brookland area, we see an incredible amount of new development coming on line, much of it stretching west from the Metro station and away from transit connectivity. Catholic University is preparing to build on several of its underused lots near the Brookland station, the Armed Forces Retirement Home is developing its southeast corner, the city is working to build at the McMillan sand filtration and reservoir site, and the Washington Hospital Center—a massive focus of local employment—continues to expand its operations.

The developers involved are willing to discuss the challenges involved in bringing so much new growth online and in coordinating movement of people between the developments and local transit stations, but no one is even mentioning light-rail, despite the fact that a corridor through the developments is already in the long-term area plan, and despite the fact that the District is currently pursuing light-rail construction in two other areas.

Why is the leadership on new transit not forthcoming? Part of the explanation is probably that the gains resulting from a new transit line wouldn’t be focused enough on any one developer to justify their leadership. While Catholic University would undoubtedly benefit from a cross-town light-rail line, the benefits aren’t great enough for the school to handle the push for transit all on its own. If all the principle land-owners could coordinate such an effort, a push for transit would be more likely, but coordination is costly in its own right. In this case, the city needs to provide the leadership. The District government needs to look forward to the coming growth and understand that increasing the city’s transit infrastructure will only add value to its land.

4) It’s easier to shape new development than you think. One of the lessons that repeatedly came across during the day was that developers make a lot of their decisions at the margins. There’s not a clear-cut case, for example, for giving up ground-floor retail in favor of big-time office lobbies that boost rents. It’s just that when you tot up the long-term returns to the different approaches, the lobbies tend to win out, if only by a little bit. In order to change the kinds of buildings we get, then, we don’t need to overthrow the whole development paradigm, we just need to nudge developers in the right direction, tweaking rules here, providing tax breaks there, offering subsidies elsewhere.

It’s interesting to me that developers get this when they’re responsible for their own massive projects. EYA’s Bob Youngentob, a developer who has worked on many local projects, noted that for his large developments he viewed retail as an amenity for residents. As such, he chose to subsidize retail businesses with revenues from other parts of the project, because good retail options increase the total value of the development.

This is a lesson the District should absorb. It’s not in the city’s interest to extract as much revenue as possible from local retail businesses, because a large, diverse, and vibrant retail community increases the value of surrounding properties. By altering the incentives that face local retailers and developers, we can increase the ability of local retailers to survive and thrive.

5) Churches can be active participants, or even leaders, in improving communities. One of the most inspiring of the day’s events was an address by the Reverend Floyd Flake, a former Congressman and pastor of the Greater Allen A.M.E Cathedral in Jamaica, Queens. Reverend Flake described his church’s efforts to improve its neighborhood in the face of suburban departures and growing poverty. His church bought up as much vacant neighborhood property as it could…and developed it as workforce housing for civil servants, assisted-living housing for older congregants, schools, and other needed facilities. The church actively cultivated relationships with local banks and retailers, bringing in the financing they needed and the shops residents wanted to see. As a result, new developers in the community now come to the church first and work with the congregation in bringing along new development.

Reverend Flake acknowledged that with increasing property prices, he was beginning to see some of his parishioners cashing in and moving away, but the decades-long successful effort to keep buildings occupied and affordable was a stunning counterpoint to the path taken by a handful of prominent District churches.

My sincere thanks to ULI for putting on the event (and inviting me along). There was, throughout the day, the clear sense that the Washington area is a unique case for urban growth, going in some really surprising directions and offering some truly notable examples of urban success. It’s a very interesting time to be associated with urban planning and urban life. I’m glad to be here, now, seeing these changes first hand.