How Should a City Grow?
The antithesis of the Jane Jacobs-esque ideal of small, incremental, organic urban economic and development growth — the planned, micromanaged mega projects — now seem to be required in order to stimulate urban development. “Cities are once again planning with grandiosity,” declared the New York Times Magazine this week. “This year witnessed the return of what you might call big urbanism, with large-scale redevelopment projects sprouting nationwide.”
Tax incentives such as abatements and Tax Increment Financing are doled out left and right to stimulate development and economic growth, with much less emphasis now placed on the once requisite small business entrepreneur, who combined with his or her peers served to build the city. For an example, downtown Kansas City now has two large, managed construction projects approved. One covers nine city blocks, and the other, twelve blocks. These two developments serve as a wholesale replacement of the decay, neglect, and blight that has festered for decades in downtown Kansas City, Missouri. It seems that now, to get anything done and make any progress, a city has to give away its future tax revenue and budget in order to stimulate the “urbanity-in-a-can” mega developments.
I suppose the thinking among city leaders is of the old adage, “public investment begets private investment,” but I still have to wonder if the vaunted small incremental organic growth lauded by Jane Jacobs has become an archaic anachronism in this time of tax incentives and master planned, huge development projects spanning many city blocks all at the same time. Perhaps it is fateful recompense for a city that allowed itself to be nearly destroyed by the automobile.
Tags: Urban Design
Christopher DeWolf says:
I think the fundamental difference between most new mega-projects today is that they are at least informed by Jacobsian respect for small-scale urban fabric. They attempt to integrate themselves within the city and they mimic, in some way, the more traditional aspects of the cityscape. In other words, their approach to urban space is not Modernist, even if the architecture is avant garde.
The big question is the basic reasoning behind megaprojects. Although the most interesting neighbourhoods usually developed parcel-by-parcel, it’s certainly less risky today to sell off a large chunk of land to a single developer who will work with city planners in maintaining certain design standards.
December 17th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Eric Bowers says:
That does make sense.
KC’s first “megaproject,” the Country Club Plaza – was built in the 1920s and indeed holds to the ideals of an integrated cityscape and road network. Then, fast forward to the 1970s after all design ideals had been flushed down the toilet – the next big thing was the Crown Center development – comprised of monolithic buildings, long blocks, and a relatively disconnected streetscape.
Then, fast forward to the 21st Century. The Power and Light District, now under construction downtown, in renderings holds to the older ideals of interconnectedness and conduciveness to walkability.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:56 am