Sites suitable for mixed use development in Britain and America
| Author | Jan G. Laitos |
| Position | Sturm College of Law, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA |
Traditional zoning is a form of land use planning that focuses on separating and segregating land according to residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses. Such zoning often divides uses from each other, so that more intense uses are not located next to less intense uses ( Singer, 2010 ). For example, only residential uses may be allowed in residential districts, both residential and commercial uses may be allowed in commercial districts, and residential, commercial, and industrial uses may be allowed in industrial districts. Often, further distinctions are made within each type of use area. Some municipalities and local governments have enacted elaborate plans to manage growth, as well as location of development. The goals of traditional zoning include the protection of the environment, the promotion of low-density development, and the preservation of the character of the community ( Singer, 2010, pp. 654-655 ). These exclusionary zoning practices help to avoid the kinds of problems that arise when industrial factories are located beside residential units. However, the segregation of uses created by traditional zoning has brought about ecological concerns, and a belief that those kinds of separated land use patterns are not consistent with resource sustainability and the integration with socio-economic classes ( Campoli and MacLean, 2007, pp. 2-12 ).
Sustainable development focuses on the wise use and conservation of resources to fulfill present and future needs. Unfortunately, traditional exclusionary zoning often prevents land from being put to its most efficient use. When local patterns emphasizing a non-integrated, use-separated approach to land development dominate growth management and regional planning programs, resource and energy consumption are accelerated and infrastructure costs are increased ( Ziegler, 2009, pp. 147, 158 ). Excluded development and prohibited uses are forced to relocate further from the urban core, resulting in suburban sprawl ( Ziegler, 2009 ). Along with sprawl comes environmental harms, increased traffic, more fuel consumption, racial ghettos, and a disconnect between work and home. Low density, automobile-dependent regional sprawl is, in the long run, unsustainable ( Ziegler, 2009, pp. 164-167, 172 ). Ironically, the “successful” development of expanded metropolitan and vehicle-dependent environments has fostered obesity, poor health, social isolation, excessive stress, depression, and become a leading cause of death and disability ( Brody, 2012 ).
In light of a global economic downturn and a shortage of housing, many communities around the world are rethinking the future growth of metropolitan regions. Instead of creating land use regimes that bring about traditional segregated uses and spatially divided development patterns, urban zoning and planning can instead be deployed to promote resource sustainability by permitting and encouraging integrated uses. There is a growing awareness of the importance of coordinated, but diversified, urban planning policy at the metropolitan level ( Ziegler, 2009, p. 173 ; Leinberger, 2011 ). “Mixite,” or mixed use development, is a land use planning concept that focuses on creating urban core areas where people are not functionally separated from what they do; rather, these spaces are where the inhabitants can live, work, shop, and play, all without daily use of an automobile. For purposes of this article, the phrase “mixed use development” (mixite) encompasses neighborhood regeneration where multiple seemingly incompatible residential, commercial, and recreational uses are brought together in a coherent and functional manner so that, instead of spreading out these uses over a wide area, they are compacted into a relatively small area whose carbon footprint and environmental impact is small.
Urban planning that promotes mixed-use development is one antidote to the ills of traditional zoning. It reduces the spread of scattered development and minimizes automobile dependency ( Ziegler, 2009, p. 182 ). Higher density and functionally mixed urban spaces can be designed to reduce environmental impacts, consume fewer resources and energy, integrate social and economic classes, and provide for more economical and efficient infrastructure and public services, such as public transit. Mixite can accommodate a wide mix of housing types, social uses and amenities, and socio-economic classes.
The implementation of mixite themed planning requires urban space that is largely free of pre-existing uses. Such spaces exist in four forms. In the USA, these spaces are designated according to whether they are “brown” (contaminated by pollution), or “green” (park land or preservation lands), or “grey” (moribund or deserted shopping centers), or “red” (financially underwater properties). For purposes of this article, these four areas will be termed brownfields, greenfields, greyfields, and redfields ( Lerner, 2011, p. 16 ).
Brownfields may at first seem particularly suited to urban redevelopment. In the UK, “brownfield” land is generally defined as land that has the potential to be redeveloped, but that has been adversely affected by the prior uses of the land and surrounding land ( Gray, 2010 ). The land may also be contaminated ( Gray, 2010 ). These sites are derelict or underused, mainly located in developed urban areas, and require intervention before they can be put to beneficial use ( Gray, 2010 ). In the USA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines brownfields as “abandoned, idled, or under used industrial and commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination that can add cost, time or uncertainty to a redevelopment project” ( Applegate
This paper will discuss the decidedly mixed success, in both the UK and the USA, of brownfields being transformed into sites where much-needed, sustainable, integrated mixed-uses can emerge. Section II addresses the many barriers to brownfield development. Section III discusses the differing ways in which the UK and the USA have attempted to respond to these difficulties associated with development of brownfields. Section IV analyzes the disappointing success each country has experienced in actually creating mixed-use spaces from brownfield sites.
Section V argues that if a country has a policy of implementing mixite, it should not focus on brownfields, but instead should consider the other alternatives available – greenfields, greyfields, and redfields. Although greenfields usually have none of the financial problems associated with brownfields, they are often located too far away from urban centers, and instead seem best suited to supplying parks and open spaces for urban dwellers. Greyfields and redfields then become the preferred alternative. Section V explores why these particular locations should be the focus of planners determined to redevelop unused, abandoned land for mixite.
Brownfield development can be economically...
To continue reading
Request your trial