Urban Revitalization:
What's Working and What's Not

Urban planner, researcher, and author William Fulton has experienced two urban phenomena: the thinning metropolises of upstate New York in his early years, and the fast-growing metropolitan regions of the West, where he currently lives and works. Drawing upon these personal experiences, Fulton, now a Ventura, California, city council member, shares his insights on our changing urban environments.

PBS&J: The past decade has seen development practices shift from an almost exclusive focus on the suburbanization of greenfields on city peripheries to reinvestment in community cores. What do you believe are the overarching reasons for this?

Fulton: Every U.S. metro area is experiencing some urban reinvestment, but it is disproportionately so in the West and in metros like Washington, D.C., and Miami in the East. One big reason is the scarcity of land. Western metro areas are bumping up against water, mountains, or federally owned land. South Florida is pinned between the ocean and the Everglades. This is forcing denser development on the fringes and redevelopment in the central cities and surrounding older suburbs. Then there’s traffic congestion. As it takes longer to go to places, people are valuing proximity more. Finally, the country is in a lifestyle shift. Most people don’t live the nuclear family, suburban lifestyle, so many more are willing to trade smaller living spaces for a more central location.

PBS&J: What are the key elements of a successful urban infill development project?

Fulton: Primarily you need homebuyers. Obviously design is important—having a walkable neighborhood with amenities. But the cost of urban infill development is pretty high in most places, and the critical element for success is a market that’s willing to pay for expensive urban condos. That takes either a small concentration of wealthy people—as in D.C. or Los Angeles—or a large number of lower-wage earners who create demand for this kind of housing—as in Las Vegas. Another way of putting it: You can’t have a successful development in an area with a stagnant or declining population and not much wealth.

PBS&J: Why do some infill projects fail?

Fulton: Oftentimes, it’s neighborhood opposition. The people who already live in the neighborhood don’t want change. Sometimes the project design doesn’t integrate into the fabric of the community; you have a fortress sitting in the middle of a neighborhood. Or you might have a case where existing rents are low, but land cost is high, and developers won’t build unless they’re subsidized.

PBS&J: Can infill projects be financed by the private sector or are public incentives necessary? In the latter, what are the sources of revenue?

Fulton: Projects can be privately financed if the housing is developed for affluent buyers or renters, as was done on the west side of L.A. and in San Francisco. In more modest areas, governments can subsidize through a variety of techniques, including tax-increment financing—a common particular technique that keeps the increased taxes in the redeveloped area rather than sending it into the general treasury. Another way to create more money is to increase densities, which sometimes works, or to simply cut the parking required. Parking is enormously expensive, and the less the developer has to provide, the more likely the project will be profitable. Cities usually have to choose: increase density, cut parking, or subsidize.

PBS&J: Will growing anti-Kelo* sentiment, as reflected in numerous upcoming California state ballots, inhibit future revitalization projects?

Fulton: It certainly makes it trickier. To replace the eminent domain prerogative, cities will need to either focus on land owned by government or large institutions, or find the needle in the haystack. That is, find the most promising properties for infill development and then motivate often reluctant landowners to sell or participate in the development.

PBS&J: Are mixed-use and higher density development—hallmarks of big urban centers—viable in the smaller or suburban communities of, say, Orange County, California, and southern Florida?

Fulton: These two places are suburban in scale and character, but are very expensive and very crowded. They typify suburban areas that have become urban. Orange County, for example, has 10 or 15 residential projects that are 30 stories high. Such places have no problem carrying the economics of higher density. In other small cities, successful development will depend on demand. In a place where the average annual income is $60,000 and the cost of a house $750,000, there will be a demand for condos because people can’t afford houses.

PBS&J: New Urbanist communities, which feature compact development, mixed use, “walkability,” and multiple transportation modes, are offered as smart-growth solutions to greenfields development. Yet critics say these are still the suburbs, though with “prettier” housing and more open space. Are such developments true complements to urban infill projects?

Fulton: Yes, I think so, because in most parts of the country, land is available, and the bias of the industry is to go to raw land because, generally, it’s simpler to do. It’s a false choice to say things must be urban or suburban; they’re both. Given the choice between suburban sprawl or New Urbanism, the latter is going to provide more amenities, reduce internal traffic, and appeal to the lifestyle people today say they want.

PBS&J: Redevelopment in cities has been very successful. Can this appeal to families, or is a downtown lifestyle geared to people without children?

Fulton: We have a bifurcated market. Clearly, most upscale developments appeal to the childless. But at the same time, because of immigration and other family patterns, there’s now an enormous market of families with fairly modest means. In Los Angeles, for example, young Latino families don’t want to move 30 to 40 miles away from their family and church. As a result, there’s a lot of condo development and many small-lot, single-family houses in established urban locations. This development is ethnically and demographically driven, and there are similar pockets all over the country.

* Refers to the U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London, decided June 23, 2005. Click here to view the case.