Post #7: Building Mixed-Use Density - Part 1

In some of my prior posts, I have advocated for midwestern cities to both increase their density and to increase the diversity of uses within a given district or neighborhood.  This post will be the first of a two-part series that take a deeper dive into this “mixed-use density” (for lack of a better term) that I think is so essential to the future success of cities.

To be clear, I am not saying that every neighborhood should change into an assortment of high-rise mixed-use buildings.  Some areas will need to be relatively low density and some land uses do better in a specialized, single use environment.  Many people, for example, will have a strong preference for a single family home in a low-density neighborhood of similar single family homes -- that is perfectly fine.  As a second example, many manufacturing businesses function better when they are located in a low-density industrial district that allows only a very limited range of land uses.  There is no need to mix a steel plant with elementary schools and single family homes.

However, the typical midwestern city is far too spread out to be able to prosper in the future.  And many segments of our society would enjoy and would be better served with a wider variety of land uses located reasonably nearby than traditional development patterns have produced over the past several decades.  In my opinion, it will be crucial for cities to develop numerous nodes of mixed-use density (not just a single downtown core) throughout each urban region.  This is a trend which has been building slowly for the past decade or two, but the trend needs to be aggressively supported by cities for the next couple of decades in order to meet the economic, housing and social needs of our society.

This post is going to focus on the “why” of mixed-use density.  The next post in the series will focus on the “how” and “where” parts of the equation.  Before getting to the “why,” some background information might be helpful.

How Dense is Dense Enough?

This is a difficult question to answer because there are so many unique characteristics in any given situation, but I will suggest some general parameters that I think are a reasonable starting point.  First, however, it will be helpful to agree upon how density should be measured.  In the United States, the most common technique is called the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is the ratio of building floor area to land area.  For example, a building containing 5,000 square feet of floor area located on a lot that contains 10,000 square feet of land has a floor area ratio of 0.5.  The building could be either a 1-story building with 5,000 square feet on the ground floor, or a 10-story building with 500 square feet on each floor (or any of a variety of configurations).

For comparison purposes, a typical suburban single family neighborhood has a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.1 to 0.3.  A suburban strip center generally has a FAR of 0.2 to 0.3 and a suburban office park might have an FAR of 0.25 to 0.4.  At the other end of the scale, in New York City the

Financial District has an FAR of approximately 18, and even the mostly residential area of Greenwich Village has an FAR over 5 (1).

So where should midwestern cities be aiming?  This is an area that I think would benefit from a lot more analysis by planning researchers, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a mixed-use district (between 300 and 600 acres in size) should shoot for an average FAR between 1 and 3.  In some areas, it might be fine to go a bit higher (perhaps 4 or 5) but I think you can easily get into an area of diminishing returns where more density hurts the overall character and resilience of an area.  As much as I like visiting New York City, I wouldn’t want to live there and I don’t think that trying to create Manhattan-like densities in a midwestern setting would be a good idea even if it were possible.  Remember, city building is not just about density -- livability, mobility and sustainability need to be considered as well.  Which leads me to the three reasons that I think mixed-use density is vital for midwestern cities.

A Robust and Resilient Micro-Economy

A short while back, Amazon conducted a “search” for their second headquarters.  Hundreds of cities spent thousands of man-hours to put together information for the application process -- dreaming that their city would somehow win the economic development equivalent of the lottery.  In fact, the odds of Indianapolis, or Kansas City, or Tulsa landing the Amazon headquarters was infinitesimal. In my opinion, most cities would be much better off ignoring opportunities for what appears to be a “grand slam” to instead focus on hitting “singles” -- the much less glamorous process of building small businesses from the ground up.

Over 15 years ago, Richard Florida wrote a book entitled The Rise of the Creative Class (2).  The book was his attempt to explain the forces which had been (and continue to be) transforming our economy and society.  He argued that creativity was a fundamental economic force that was leading to a rise of a new economic class:  the creative class.  Not just artists and musicians, the creative class includes programmers, inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs, and media creators of all types.  Much of what he observed at that time is now widely accepted and much of what he predicted has come true.  This has led to a new economic development strategy that is much less focused on recruiting companies and much more focused on building a workforce that is smart, creative and technologically savvy.  If you have the right workforce, the jobs will appear.

From a community perspective, what this shift suggests is a focus on building places that are attractive to creative people.  It turns out that mixed-use density is one of the physical characteristics that cities which have been successful at attracting the creative class have in common.  And although the big metropolises on the coast have had notable successes, they don’t have a lock on the market.  Nashville, for example, may have been the real winner in the Amazon sweepstakes when it was announced that the company will be building a 5,000-employee “Operations Center of Excellence” in downtown Nashville.  It can’t be a coincidence that lots of smart, creative people call Nashville home and that the fastest growing

portions of the community are not the outer edges, but the core areas in and around the downtown.

Not every creative millennial, of course, will want to live in a condo above a coffee shop in a trendy, mixed use district.  Some will prefer a traditional single family home in a traditional neighborhood.  That is fine.  My point is that midwestern cities already have thousands of single family homes in nice neighborhoods.  What is missing are the trendy, mixed use neighborhoods.  Most cities have a handful, but what is needed are dozens and dozens.

Finally, allowing mixed uses not only makes it easier to build a hip neighborhood, it allows the neighborhood to adapt quickly to changing economic conditions.  Rapid adaptability is essential for economic resiliency and it allows the creative class to do what they do best.  It also increases the odds that combinations of businesses will build economic synergies where the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Lifestyle and Mobility Options

The auto-oriented, suburban style development patterns that have dominated urban growth for the past 70 years were designed primarily for the benefit of affluent white people who had a lifestyle that fit into a fairly limited range of options (e.g. nuclear family, young single professional, empty nest retiree, etc.).  People of other races, ethnicities or sexual orientations were left to fend for themselves in the older parts of the city that were left behind.  The result was suburb after suburb that was safe, pleasant, and bland.  In fact, blandness was virtually ensured through development regulations that prohibited anything that was too odd, too eye catching, or too different.

In my opinion, one of the most positive hallmarks of the millennial and gen-z generations is their willingness to accept a wide variety of backgrounds and lifestyles as normal.  To be honest, I have a hard time keeping track of the various labels and characteristics, and I try to suppress my Boomer inclination to be judgemental.  Younger generations, however, seem to embrace the diversity and celebrate the differences.  The very areas that affluent whites escaped in the 70s and 80s are now being reborn as hip, urban oases that pulse with energy around the clock.  It is this diversity and energy that fuel the creative class.  Even people who can’t tolerate the chaotic energy 24/7 will visit on a regular basis because these areas are fun and exciting.

The new “knowledge economy” is a global economy, and you won’t thrive in a global economy unless you embrace diversity.  Cities will not thrive in the new economy unless they build places where people from different backgrounds create unexpected connections, odd business combinations create unexpected synergies, and buildings designed for one thing end up being used for something completely new.  It is in these creative places where mixed-use density is most appropriate.

Hand in hand with a diverse array of lifestyles is a need for a diverse array of transportation options.  Although the younger generations own cars and appreciate their usefulness, they are not in love with the automobile the way that Baby Boomers were and they are much less likely to let a car be a major part of their self-image.  Consequently, they are much more open to other forms of transportation.  The problem is that other forms of transportation are really effective only where there is density.  Walking, biking, scooters, Ubers, transit and car shares are convenient when your destination is relatively close by, but much less convenient in low-density suburbia.

While all of these options are important, the one that should be at the top of the list is walking.  It is easy, cheap, flexible and provides all sorts of mental and physical health benefits.  If walking came in the form of a pill, it would be considered a wonder drug.  Unfortunately, most cities make walking hard.  Streets are designed to maximize vehicular flow so that pedestrians feel unsafe.  Sidewalks are often too narrow, in poor condition, or missing entirely.  Buildings are allowed to present blank facades to the street so that walking is boring.  All of these problems are easily corrected provided cities prioritize the pedestrian environment and pay attention to streetscape design instead of treating it like a left-over wasteland in between buildings.

Municipal Solvency 

Although the first two reasons are compelling, midwestern cities should embrace mixed-use density simply because it is the best way (and perhaps the only way) they will have the financial capacity in the future to meet the demands of their citizens.  Municipal budgets are being eaten alive by rising service costs and infrastructure maintenance requirements at the same time that revenue sharing from state and federal sources has largely dried up.  Many cities chase new growth at their edges thinking that the additional tax revenue from that development will solve their dilemma -- it won’t, it just makes it worse.  New suburban growth requires that new infrastructure be built which simply adds to a city’s infrastructure liabilities.  Yes, there is a bump in revenue, but like a Ponzi scheme, the new revenue is never enough because it can’t keep up with the growing liabilities.  (For more information, see the writings of Charles Marohn on his Strong Towns website. (3) )

The dirty little secret of municipal finance is that what cities build most of -- single family neighborhoods and strip shopping centers -- doesn’t pay enough in taxes to cover on-going service costs and long-term maintenance costs.  Everything seems fine initially, but after 60 or 70 years infrastructure starts to crumble and it is really expensive to replace.  So cities start to prioritize.  Critical infrastructure tends to get fixed correctly, although often several years after it really needed to be replaced.  Less important infrastructure tends to get “band-aid” maintenance that appears to fix the problem but really lasts for just a few years before starting to crumble again.  Low priority infrastructure, often concentrated in poor neighborhoods, gets either minimal maintenance or none at all.

The problem is a difficult one to solve and I certainly am not going to claim to have all the answers.  But basic math seems to dictate that either tax revenue per square mile must go up and/or costs per square mile must go down.  Moving to minimal maintenance is an example of a “costs going down” strategy although it is not as useful as you might think.  Cities aren’t necessarily spending less per square mile, it is just that their maintenance needs have skyrocketed as infrastructure has reached the end of its useful life and their maintenance dollars are spread so thin that band-aid solutions are all that can be accomplished.

A more productive approach, in my opinion, is to increase tax revenue per square mile.  This is where increased density comes into play, but it only works if cities increase density in areas that are already served by existing infrastructure.  In other words, what is needed is redevelopment of existing neighborhoods not new development on the edge of town.  Actually, there will probably always be some new development on the edges, but it should be a small fraction of the amount of redevelopment or infill in areas that already have streets, sidewalks and utilities.

Redevelopment can be done in several different ways, but it almost always involves neighborhoods that are declining or blighted.  If property values have fallen far enough but some residual demand still remains, redevelopment can simply be fixing up dilapidated structures or in-filling vacant sites without changing the previous uses.  In most cases, however, redevelopment is more financially feasible (and hence more likely) if density is allowed to increase (at least doubling or tripling).  This has the added advantage of not only restoring but actually exceeding the original tax value of the neighborhood.

Mixed use is important to this equation because it gives property owners, residents and developers the ability to make rapid land use adjustments as opportunities arise or fade away.  Governments (and neighborhood leaders) are notoriously bad at being able to predict the exact land use mix that an area needs to be financially vibrant, and the process of getting a land use designation changed is generally so onerous that people just don’t try.  A well designed mixed-use designation can allow the experimenting and adaptation that a creative place requires.

Thoughts?  As always, share your thoughts and ideas by leaving a comment below or sending me an email at doug@midwesturbanism.com.  Want to be notified whenever I add a new posting?  Send me an email with your name and email address.

Notes:

1. An Analysis of Methods for Calculating Floor Area Ratios; Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC;  Floor Area Link

2. Richard Florida, “The Rise of the Creative Class,” 2002; and an essay on the Rise of the Creative Class - Revisited; at Essay Link

3. Charles Marohn, “Strong Towns: A Bottom Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity,” 2019; and the Strong Towns website at www.strongtowns.org.

Post #1: Midwestern Urbanism: What’s the point?

I believe that every blog should exist for a reason and have a distinctive focus that relates to that reason. In this first blog posting on the Midwest Urbanism site, I will explain that reason and the focus that future blog postings will follow and provide a general outline of the kinds of topics that you (the reader) can expect to see. I will also give you an overview of my background in case you are wondering why you should take my opinions seriously. Unfortunately, all of this means that this initial blog may be somewhat lengthy and dull -- I promise future posts will be more succinct and (hopefully) more lively.


Why does this blog exist?

It is my contention that cities are under growing pressure to change. Of course, cities are always changing -- demographics are shifting, old structures are deteriorating, and new structures are being built. But for the past 50 or 60 years, cities have been changing in a way that has been remarkably consistent across the country, and to a somewhat lesser extent, around the world. For lack of a better term, I’m going to refer to this current path of city development as “auto focused suburbanization.” And yes, there are some exceptions to this development pattern, but it has been so ubiquitous that many people assume that this pattern is somehow the natural order of things or that it exists because it is the most rational form of development as determined by the free market system that dominates western culture.

Balderdash. Throughout history, cities have always evolved to meet the needs of the society at that time -- economic needs, social needs, environmental needs and technological needs. The problem is that this evolution takes place so slowly that it is virtually invisible to the members of any given generation. It is only visible in hindsight when you examine a long span of history. But at some point, the economic, social, environmental or technological reasons for a particular urban form change, which in turn leads to the development of a new urban form. What I am going to argue is that we are at an inflection point in history. Our current form -- auto focused suburbanization -- is based on the societal needs of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. We have extended it another 40 years, well past its useful life. Times have changed and our cities need to change as well.

This blog exists because I intend to be an advocate for a new urban form. Throughout history, cities have been pushed to change by forces beyond their control and that change has often been traumatic and disruptive. There are always influential citizens who argue against change, often because they have a vested interest in the status quo, but also because change is hard. Eventually the forces of change win out and the urban form adjusts, but the pace of that change and the quality of that adjustment may determine urban “winners” and “losers” for that particular era. In addition, change often happens through a process of trial and error, with the “error” part of that process being particularly painful. As an advocate, I hope to provide support that will smooth the path for change, minimize equity issues, and provide ideas that I hope will reduce the “error” quotient associated with that change.

What I will not advocate for is a blind return to some fondly remembered past urban form. While we certainly can learn from the past, I believe that we need to define a new urban form that is different from anything that existed in the past.


My Focus

There is quite a lot being written about our urban form and the need for change. Much of it is focused on the larger metropolitan areas on the east and west coasts. As you might have guessed from the name, I intend to focus on mid-sized, Midwestern cities. I think that the ideas generated for New York City, Washington D.C., San Francisco or Los Angeles are often not directly applicable to Kansas City, Des Moines or Indianapolis. So I hope to write about ideas that I think are applicable in a Midwestern setting of 500,000 or 2 million, and let others worry about the coastal “mega-cities” of 5 million or 10 million or 20 million.

This focus is driven by the fact that the midwest is what I know and love. I was raised in Lincoln, Nebraska and have lived for the past 40+ years in the Kansas City area. And although I have traveled to cities all across the county, I have never seriously considered moving outside of the midwest.

But it is also driven by the belief that midwestern cities are an undervalued resource in this country. Omaha or Oklahoma City may not have gorgeous weather and scenic beaches of San Diego or the educational resources and high-tech buzz of Boston, but they have more to offer than many people realize and they don’t have many of the problems that threaten to make life in many large cities almost intolerable for all but the very affluent.


The Case for Change

Any advocate for change runs the risk of being written off as a hysterical prophet of doom, wildly exaggerating a few minor trends into apocalyptic forecasts. I am aware of that possibility. But when I look at what is happening across our country and around the world, I think it cannot be characterized as a “minor trend.” In fact, I think there are numerous, interrelated trends all pushing our society -- and the resulting physical form of our cities -- in generally the same direction. It is these trends and the associated impact on our cities that I hope to explore in upcoming posts. Below is a brief synopsis of a few of the primary issues that I think are particularly significant:

Demographic Change For a variety of reasons, household characteristics have changed substantially from 40 or 50 years ago when the suburban boom was at its peak. This is not a short-term trend or a temporary phenomenon, it is real and long-lasting. We are older, we are having fewer children, we are more likely to live alone, and our social relationships have changed. We need to shape our cities with this “new normal” in mind, not some idealized “Leave It To Beaver” family from the past.

Generational Shifts It is always dangerous to generalize about an entire generation of people -- there is simply too much diversity within a generation to make most statements very useful. But I think there have been shifts in the underlying values and priorities between the Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and now Gen Z that are changing, and will continue to change, our society and ultimately our cities. Our current urban form was largely the product of the Baby Boomer generation but as that generation moves out of positions of power and into retirement, the void is going to be filled by younger people with a different point of view.

Dysfunctional Transportation The automobile has given us an unprecedented amount of personal freedom and flexibility. The cost, however, has been enormous, although much of that cost is hidden from view. How exactly do you put a price on the 40,000 lives that are lost annually to traffic accidents? Or what psychological price are we paying for a transportation system that is so frustrating that “road rage” has become a normal part of big city life? As useful as the car has been, it is time that we define a new way forward for personal transportation that blends new and old technologies into multiple transportation options rather than a one-solution-fits-all approach.

Personal Economic Stress  We live in a capitalist society where there are economic winners and losers, but one of the strengths of this county has always been the belief that hard work will lead to a better economic position and at least a reasonably comfortable life. Much of our urban growth, in fact, has been fueled by the rising middle class of the post war years and a pretty convincing argument can be made that objectively American households are better off than ever before. When it comes to personal feelings of economic well-being, however, perception is reality, and I believe there is a growing perception that the economic deck is stacked against the middle class. This perception will inevitably have an impact on urban form and on the operational decisions that cities make.

Governmental Economic Stress  I doubt there has ever been a time when city leaders felt they had all the financial resources that they needed, but today’s leaders are facing increasingly difficult choices between growing needs and stagnant or even dwindling resources. As a case in point, few cities maintain their physical infrastructure -- streets, water lines, sewer lines and public buildings -- to the degree that they should. Consequently, those physical assets are literally crumbling under their feet during a time of growing anti-tax sentiment and declining trust in government leadership. In many states, this distrust has led to state laws which restrict the degree to which local governments can raise local property and sales taxes regardless of how clear the need might be. Thus, many cities are being squeezed between rising costs and a very limited ability to raise revenue.

Environmental Concerns Regardless of your personal beliefs on the issue of climate change, I think there is a growing perception (particularly among millennials and Gen Z) that this is a defining issue for the future that will have ripple effects across our society. Again, perception is reality so it isn’t really about assigning blame or quantifying future impacts, cities are going to have to take concrete steps to reduce their collective carbon footprint or face a growing backlash from their citizenry. The challenge, I think, will be to shape the response in a truly meaningful way. The real issue is not about mandating another inch or two of insulation in new buildings or installing more charging stations for electric vehicles, but rather about building an urban form that gives people the ability to make comprehensive changes in their lifestyle without huge sacrifices in personal comfort, safety and convenience.


Again, I will be going into greater detail on all of these topics (and more) in the future.


About Me

I have worked as a professional planner, in both the public and private sectors, for over 40 years and I have been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners for over 35 years. During that time, I have been involved in long-range planning, special projects planning, current planning, code writing, code enforcement, and planning technology (GIS and permitting systems).

For much of my professional career, I was employed by the City of Overland Park, Kansas -- a suburban community of nearly 200,000 people in the Kansas City metro area. My most recent job title was Manager of Strategic Planning; a position which gave me time to do some big-picture thinking and to research the trends which I discussed above. I recently retired, thus giving me the time to write this blog, but I plan to stay active in the planning profession.

I would appreciate feedback from anyone reading my posts. Please leave a comment below or you can reach me at doug@midwesturbanism.com. Feel free to agree or disagree with what I write, offer suggestions, ask questions, or suggest places that you think I should visit or topics that I should address.