Right now the MBA types are thinking “Venture Capital” while the old soldiers have reached back and pulled up “Viet Cong.” But my context is urban planning and VC means “Village Concept.”
This is the subject of my second column on the just-completed update of Fairhope’s Comprehensive Plan. Last time the topic was Connectivity, the concept of bringing neighborhoods together – with one another and with commercial centers. Now we are going to look at what having connectivity enables. A physically connected community provides the environment for establishing multiple mixed-use neighborhoods throughout the city – village centers.
This is the Village Concept. With the help of consultant Glen LeRoy, this approach to urban design was customized to Fairhope’s situation and made part of the Comprehensive Plan approved in 2000. In taking this innovative approach, the city’s leaders and concerned citizens felt this was the best way to “Keep Fairhope, Fairhope” as the city grew.
At that time Fairhope was experiencing a surge in residential building. Subdivisions were going in all around the city. Many were Planned Unit Developments controlled by property owners. Most were built as cul-de-sacs with no through streets, guaranteeing future traffic problems with as many 700 homeowners having to enter and exit at a single point. And virtually all zoning in these new developments was residential.
Occasionally businesses were allowed on the periphery, but every effort was made to separate them from the residential areas. Access to these businesses usually was restricted to entry from principal thoroughfares, not from neighborhood streets, forcing more cars onto the through streets. Traffic was projected to increase substantially – along with travel time, congestion and accidents.
Implementation of the Village Concept was seen as a way to reduce traffic on major roads by building small commercial centers within a cluster of contiguous residential neighborhoods. This would allow travel to and from these destinations without having to add to the traffic on major thoroughfares. Further, it would provide opportunities for out-of-automobile trips (low speed electric vehicles, bicycles or even on foot) within the village area. Slower speeds, but shorter distances and the opportunity to enjoy the greenbelts, bike and walking trails and community open space that are elements of the plan.
Although the recent update of the city’s Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed commitment to the Village Concept, no village centers have been created in the seven years since its original adoption. How come, if this is such a hot concept, nobody wants to actually build one?
One reason, cited by consultant Glen LeRoy and confirmed in public comments at planning commission and city council meetings, is that the village centers (as well as the enabling “connectivity”) are not popular. Most homeowners, and virtually all of the homeowner associations that govern many of the new developments, want no changes in or around their communities. Exclusivity, isolation, restricted access provided, and homogeneity in house size and price (maybe even in residents) often were what caused homeowners to pick a specific development. That’s what they bought into and that’s what they want around them – in perpetuity.
The idea of creating a mixed-use neighborhood, of which they are to be part – with through streets and a commercial center – doesn’t fit their concept. The feature of connectivity is not seen as a convenience, but as a risk of bad outcomes. Neighborhoods will blend as people travel through – not just to – them. Traffic is likely to increase on their street and perhaps worse, “outsiders” will be attracted. Public open space will open their neighborhood to the public. Countering their concerns by citing the successes of very desirable, upscale Village Concept communities like “Celebration” has no effect.
All this was obvious during the public comments on the proposed mixed-use community of Fly Creek. Five different property owners’ associations (only two of which were actually to be contiguous with the new development) protested its approval. Reasons for blocking a zoning change from commercial to residential (mixed-use), ranged from the silly (the name, “Fly Creek” lacks imagination) to the substantive (ecological concerns over impact on wetlands and the control of runoff).
The most vigorously pursued issues were those of retaining isolation by preventing connectivity and making the new community as much like the existing ones as possible. The Village Concept lost to the associations on connectivity – none except by bike or on foot. The associations also enjoyed a partial victory on mixed-use and public open space – bigger lots with more privately held land were required before the council would approve.
Beyond this emotional reaction to change, there is a more fundamental problem with implementing the Village Concept in Fairhope. It takes some critical mass of population to make creation of a village center economically viable. Fairhope currently has the historic downtown village center and the Greeno Road community center as established commercial hubs. Can the city support the four or five commercial village centers envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan?
I suggest it cannot support even one. But population and income trends both suggest there is a time in the not-too-distant future when market forces will create a demand for more commercial development. The actual commercial centers have to wait for private enterprise to determine what gets built and when it goes up.
So the mission of Greg Mims (City Planner) and Dick Charles (Planning Commission head) should be to identify sites for future village commercial centers and to reserve that land for that specific purpose. The City Council must be resolute in supporting this move in the face of almost assured opposition from developers and adjacent homeowners. If this isn’t done the Village Concept will never amount to more than a passing thought on a piece of paper.
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
