1) A short thread on urbanism in disinvested and economically-challenged places, inspired by a thought-provoking line of inquiry being pursued by @ad_mastro

2) Most popularly-embraced urbanist thinking and discourse around urban design and public policy has little or nothing to say about heavily-disinvested places. It is written mostly by, and for, people who live in economically-successful places.

3) There is no reason that it has to be this way. It certainly *could* have a lot to say about heavily-disinvested places, but it doesn't, because it revolves around the economically-successful front-row places where the most influential writers and media outlets reside.

4) Consequently, most urbanist discourse, and the public policy issues upon which it focuses most heavily, presupposes a level of affluence and community development capacity that is simply not present in most cities and towns - some of them quite large.

5) It focuses on things like gentrification, NIMBY-ism, single-family zoning, rail transit, etc., that, to one degree or the other, are often not live or pressing issues in many places in urban America.

6) I am not saying that these things are not important issues in many places. I am not saying that we shouldn't talk about them or think about them. I am simply saying that they are not very pressing or important to people in many places.

7) Many of these issues are further up the pyramid on Maslow's hierarchy of urban development needs. Many urban places struggle with issues that are closer to the base of the pyramid.

8) I will give two examples of urban policy issues closer to the base of the pyramid that are live issues in much of urban America, particularly here in the Rust Belt, which don't filter up very much into the urbanist policy discourse.

9) The first one involves weak real estate markets. When your real estate market is undervalued and weak, development of nearly any type becomes difficult to nearly-impossible. This is a constant struggle in many urban neighborhoods, and even across entire cities here.

10) In many markets it's really hard to make the financials pencil-out for any type of real estate project, whether it is new construction (rents/lease-rates are too low to turn a profit) or renovation of existing buildings. It is difficult-to-impossible to build a capital stack.

11) "Why don't they build more apartments and retail in that neighborhood?"

There is no profit in it and developers can't built their capital stack.

"Why doesn't someone renovate that historic building?"

There is no profit in it and developers can't build their capital stack.

12) The challenge in these markets does not revolve around the fallout from too much prosperity, too much development, and too much neighborhood change.

The challenge revolves around too little prosperity, too little development, and not enough neighborhood change.

13) A second challenge involves discussions around best-practices in urban design, when it comes to zoning, design standards, and the physical placement of buildings and infrastructure on the urban landscape.

14) I am a proponent of zoning code reform. I am a proponent of more robust urban design standards that create walkable and traditional-looking urban places. I like buildings that are not set back from the sidewalk. I like as little surface parking as possible.

15) But having said that, I am not an academic. I am not a theoretician. I am a practitioner. I am a pragmatist. And I am here to tell you that many of these principles, important as they are, and as much as I believe in them, are even more difficult to implement in weak markets.

16) In many urban places, there is a very real-world trade-off that must be navigated between bad urban design (from an urbanist standpoint) and no development at all. You might think that is not the way that it should be. I agree. But that is often the way that it is.

17) Many of these places are desperate for development of any kind. Many of them have seen nothing but closed stores, vacant buildings, demolished structures, and empty lots, for years and even decades.

18) The fact of the matter is that they often have very little leverage to require "good" urban design principles, because the real estate market is so very weak. I didn't say that they have "no leverage". I said that they often have very little.

19) Many of these places believe and perceive (often correctly) that if they want development, they may have to settle for less than the ideal, from an urban design standpoint. They often feel like they have to take it or leave it.

20) A lot of people will argue that there are plenty of low-cost best practices in urban design that can be codified, and that is true. Weak market cities shouldn't hide behind the fact of their weak market to push for urban design improvements where they can.

21) But there is a very real (and completely justified) fear in these places that if they are too strict with zoning and urban design, the developer will simply build whatever they were going to build in the nearest suburb.

22) An Akron suburb like Hudson (median income $129,000) can get away with forcing a developer to build a McDonald's that would fit in colonial New England. It can get away with making people put windows in their sheds and clad them with siding that matches the house.

23) But in many weak-market cities and neighborhoods, it becomes far more difficult to push for more-stringent design requirements. It's not impossible. But it's difficult, and time-consuming, and fraught with risk. The weaker the market, the harder it is.

24) In many urban neighborhoods, a shoddy-looking house, store, or shop of any kind - set far back from the street, surrounded by a sea of parking, clad in cheap materials, is often greeted with open-arms by residents. Most people would rather see something built, than nothing.

25) In many low-income and working-class places, people are so desperate for housing, jobs, and businesses of almost any kind, that they couldn't care less about setbacks, or fenestration, or parking requirements.

26) People in these places are practical. A less-than-ideally designed house or store that is actually built is superior to a better-designed house or store that will never actually be built.

27) Something as simple as a Chipotle or a Tim Horton's is greeted with open arms. There are no long and tortured debates about chain retail vs. local retail (there is often no retail). That is an academic discussion that upper-middle class people have the luxury of indulging in.

28) I'm not arguing for an "either/or" urbanism (with the "either" and the "or" standing in for strong and weak market places). I'm advocating for a "both/and" urbanism. It's a big country, with a lot of real estate market diversity. We should be thinking about all of it [end].

Coda:

Please do yourself a favor and read @petesaunders3 excellent hot-of-the-presses piece on Rust Belt urbanism. It could not be more timely: https://eig.org/news/rust-belt-urbanism