When asked about landmarks in Alpharetta, GA, two places immediately come to mind: North Point and Avalon. Unironically, both of these locations are high traffic destinations and serve very similar purposes. One may even be tempted to call Avalon a mall, but there are several reasons which make this assumption incorrect. One big thing that sets Avalon apart from its predecessor is its roots. The whole North Point area was established as a hub for entertainment, emphasizing the need for retail and commercial development. When I first saw Avalon after it was constructed, all I could think about was how it was reminiscent of the post-apocalyptic communities that existed in young adult literature. Everything a person would need was encompassed in less than 100 acres: housing and shopping and even Whole Foods. To me, Avalon was a fun way to spend an afternoon with my friends, window shopping from all the upscale storefronts and dropping way too much money to watch a movie in overstuffed leather recliners. This seems to be the new trend in development. Fancy, five star shopping centers with plenty to do other than shop.
As someone looking to pursue a career in the field of city planning, I propose this essential question:
How can up and coming planners like me design and develop mixed use communities without having to restructure existing living spaces or facilitate gentrification?
To answer my essential question, I need to consider three other questions:
As someone looking to pursue a career in the field of city planning, I propose this essential question:
How can up and coming planners like me design and develop mixed use communities without having to restructure existing living spaces or facilitate gentrification?
To answer my essential question, I need to consider three other questions:
- What exactly is mixed use development?
- What is gentrification?
- How are these two things affecting communities like mine?
Avalon is just one of several conglomerate-esque developments popping up everywhere in the twenty-first century. These Meccas of urban planning have been christened mixed use developments. They house, obviously, a mix of uses where patrons can live, work, play all in one convenient spot. To the contemporary planner, mixed use developments are an incredible boon. They are an efficient way to maximize development in a smaller, vehicle driven market. Mixed use developments are consistently being introduced in cities and urban centers desperate for revitalization. Being so trendy and chic and desirable has a cost, however. Mixed use developments have of late brought unwanted spikes in the cost of housing and retail in certain middle-income areas. Such places lay the groundwork for a new type of gentrification, one that affects areas more affluent than ever before.
Having grown up in metro Atlanta, I have always been cognizant of the concept of gentrification. Traditional definitions of the process include developers taking poorer neighborhoods and revitalizing them as an investment to attract a more affluent population. With Atlanta being one of the most influential urban centers in the Southeast, there tends to be a wide range of socioeconomic standing reflected in its population. There were communities of poorer people which had lived in certain neighborhoods in Atlanta for years upon years, former inhabitants of shiny new communities in East Atlanta Village or Atlantic Station.
I never considered gentrification as something that could affect a community like mine, since it is already middle class and relatively safe. Lately, people in my community have been talking a lot about the need to quell the rapid development that is happening. People are concerned about one of two things: either densely packed and cheaply constructed homes that bring down the overall housing market, or densely pack and expensively constructed homes that increase the cost of housing. Unfortunately, mixed use developments, being so shiny and new, are the main perpetrators of the latter issue. Since housing in these communities tends to be highly sought after and extremely limited, developers can charge high prices for tiny accomodations, driving up the cost of surrounding housing tenfold.
I never considered gentrification as something that could affect a community like mine, since it is already middle class and relatively safe. Lately, people in my community have been talking a lot about the need to quell the rapid development that is happening. People are concerned about one of two things: either densely packed and cheaply constructed homes that bring down the overall housing market, or densely pack and expensively constructed homes that increase the cost of housing. Unfortunately, mixed use developments, being so shiny and new, are the main perpetrators of the latter issue. Since housing in these communities tends to be highly sought after and extremely limited, developers can charge high prices for tiny accomodations, driving up the cost of surrounding housing tenfold.
At the start of my research, I was unsure of what exactly my essential question entailed. I wrote my initial essential question as “How can up and coming planners like me design and develop walkable communities without having to restructure existing living spaces or facilitate gentrification?” Over the course of the year, my question has not really changed. However, the initial question included the wording of “walkable communities” rather than mixed use developments. While walkability is a big concern in contemporary planning, it entails a broad range of different development types. As I became more involved in my mentorship, I decided my research could be best conducted if I focused exclusively on mixed use developments.
I used several sources on my quest for knowledge, as I wanted to make sure I had diverse and well supported information to present. The first source I used was a peer review academic journal, as I decided I needed to begin my search with some well studied statistics and analysis. As the year went by, I picked up The Geography of Nowhere by James Kunstler, which really opened my eyes to contemporary issues. One big thing Kunstler discussed was suburban sprawl, which I decided to delve into deeper. I asked myself several questions: Why are we as a nation so dependent on cars? What is being done by current planners to aid the need for walkability? What are the pros and cons of mixed use development? One of the main points that Kunstler made in his book was that “the two elements of the suburban pattern that cause the greatest problems are the extreme separation of uses and the vast distances between thing” (Kunstler, J. 1993). Twenty years before the mixed use craze, Kunstler was calling for change in the way we plan our cities.
The turning point in my research followed an interview with the Zoning Administrator for the city, Brian Borden. Not only did he provide me with key information about a career in city planning, he also explained the impact of mixed use developments from a contemporary planning perspective. Here is an excerpt from that interview:
I used several sources on my quest for knowledge, as I wanted to make sure I had diverse and well supported information to present. The first source I used was a peer review academic journal, as I decided I needed to begin my search with some well studied statistics and analysis. As the year went by, I picked up The Geography of Nowhere by James Kunstler, which really opened my eyes to contemporary issues. One big thing Kunstler discussed was suburban sprawl, which I decided to delve into deeper. I asked myself several questions: Why are we as a nation so dependent on cars? What is being done by current planners to aid the need for walkability? What are the pros and cons of mixed use development? One of the main points that Kunstler made in his book was that “the two elements of the suburban pattern that cause the greatest problems are the extreme separation of uses and the vast distances between thing” (Kunstler, J. 1993). Twenty years before the mixed use craze, Kunstler was calling for change in the way we plan our cities.
The turning point in my research followed an interview with the Zoning Administrator for the city, Brian Borden. Not only did he provide me with key information about a career in city planning, he also explained the impact of mixed use developments from a contemporary planning perspective. Here is an excerpt from that interview:
Q: Do you know of anything in place currently to help lessen the effect of gentrification?
A: "Not much. It's unfortunate how the City of Atlanta and the state is all set up, because there is not a strong mechanism to keep people in their homes. In DeKalb County you have a senior homestead exemption. If they are a senior citizen, they get a nice tax break on their home. But it makes it near impossible for someone [low income] to find a home in those areas. If someone moves out, they're not getting replaced by someone who doesn't make a lot of money. They're getting replaced by someone who makes more."
Q: With regards to mixed use developments and the future of planning, do you think think this will be a proper response to the issues posed by gentrification?
A: I think where you will see the best example with something like that would be the Atlanta Beltline. What they've done is they've set aside funds to help cover the cost of a home, and then they work with the developer to subsidize developments to get units at workforce housing prices. It's a drop in the bucket. Things like this won't serve everybody.The last time I talked to anybody about [the Beltline] they had opened up applications for housing, and it took them two years to work through all of them. As for other places, it's not going to be a one size fits all solution, and it will take city council or someone involved with the government to push that forward."
Click here to read the rest of this interview on my blog.
In the second semester, I shifted my focus from subjective inquiry back to objective research as I had with the initial housing study. I had all of the ideas and theories about the effects of mixed use planning on gentrification, now all I needed to do was support that information with facts. I drew from several other peer review journals, but the biggest source of information I had was the City of Alpharetta itself. I collected data from a series of demographic and rental studies, as well as the final North Point LCI plan.
For the longest time, development was market driven. Prior to World War 2, America was in the tail-end of a major industrial revolution. The masses were sick of living in cramped quarters a hundred feet up in the air. The return of male soldiers from the war meant the establishment of thousands of new families all over the United States and the need to house all of these young couples in the wake of a baby boom. The populace drove the introduction of Levittowns, neatly partitioned, cookie-cutter homes in planned neighborhoods several miles outside of city limits. This trend of de-urbanization was fueled by the rise of the American automobile industry, and soon almost every household in American had a car. According to James Kunstler, the automobile surge created “two separate classes of citizens: those who can fully use their everyday environment, and those who cannot” (Kunstler, J. 1993). Children, the elderly, and even those who could not afford a car were left at a severe disadvantage to their mobile counterparts.
Heavy reliance on vehicles in the past decades has led American society to demand reform in the way cities are planned. A 2013 study shows that “by maximizing the number of dwelling units or buildable area of a footprint, distances between destination points are reduced” (Sullivan, E. & Yen, J. 2013). Building at a higher density guarantees the establishment of a walkable environment. One major proponent of this is neighborhoods introducing “mixed-use, mixed-income, multi-modal development with a ordable housing set-asides, big box and local retail, and open public spaces” (Howell, K. 2016). In some areas, such as Columbia Heights, Washington D.C., this method works well because the population present is very diverse. However, plans like this have adverse effects in an area that is relatively level socioeconomically. In affluent areas, people tend to favor more expensive venues and retail, driving the overall cost of the development upward. This then drives cost of living to increase substantially in the respective area.
One way to combat the inflation proposed by mixed use developments is to limit the amount of rental properties available in a given area. According to a 2016 rental study, “Alpharetta households with incomes of $50,000 or less are predominantly renters” (Bleakly 2016). Rental heavy workforce housing in target areas allows for the dissociation of expensive housing from more affluent developments. Baseline monthly rent for a single bedroom apartment, less than 750 square feet, in Avalon is roughly $1,500. Conversely, apartments only a few miles away in the North Point area start at around $1,200 a month. An emphasis on affordability and walkability, as well as workforce needs drives such low rent in that particular area.
In conclusion, there is no one-stop shop to combat gentrification. Current policy at the federal and state levels only has so much control over housing, which makes it difficult for communities in need to take advantage of publicly available financial resources and projects (Read, D. & Sanderford, D. 2017). More and more it is becoming the developer’s responsibility to provide a product that is desirable yet affordable. Establishing mixed use and walkable communities in a reasonable price-range takes significant time and effort, however. The North Point LCI remains Alpharetta’s plan for a more workforce oriented mixed use development, but the entire process has taken well over ten years since its inception (Kimley Horn 2018). There will also be no guarantee that a development remains true to its target demographic. As time changes, so does the population of a particular area. In ten years, perhaps, Alpharetta may be inhabited entirely by those who can afford to pour money into lavish spectacles such as Avalon. For the time being, future planners like myself need to be aware of this new wave gentrification and work towards finding a more permanent solution.
Heavy reliance on vehicles in the past decades has led American society to demand reform in the way cities are planned. A 2013 study shows that “by maximizing the number of dwelling units or buildable area of a footprint, distances between destination points are reduced” (Sullivan, E. & Yen, J. 2013). Building at a higher density guarantees the establishment of a walkable environment. One major proponent of this is neighborhoods introducing “mixed-use, mixed-income, multi-modal development with a ordable housing set-asides, big box and local retail, and open public spaces” (Howell, K. 2016). In some areas, such as Columbia Heights, Washington D.C., this method works well because the population present is very diverse. However, plans like this have adverse effects in an area that is relatively level socioeconomically. In affluent areas, people tend to favor more expensive venues and retail, driving the overall cost of the development upward. This then drives cost of living to increase substantially in the respective area.
One way to combat the inflation proposed by mixed use developments is to limit the amount of rental properties available in a given area. According to a 2016 rental study, “Alpharetta households with incomes of $50,000 or less are predominantly renters” (Bleakly 2016). Rental heavy workforce housing in target areas allows for the dissociation of expensive housing from more affluent developments. Baseline monthly rent for a single bedroom apartment, less than 750 square feet, in Avalon is roughly $1,500. Conversely, apartments only a few miles away in the North Point area start at around $1,200 a month. An emphasis on affordability and walkability, as well as workforce needs drives such low rent in that particular area.
In conclusion, there is no one-stop shop to combat gentrification. Current policy at the federal and state levels only has so much control over housing, which makes it difficult for communities in need to take advantage of publicly available financial resources and projects (Read, D. & Sanderford, D. 2017). More and more it is becoming the developer’s responsibility to provide a product that is desirable yet affordable. Establishing mixed use and walkable communities in a reasonable price-range takes significant time and effort, however. The North Point LCI remains Alpharetta’s plan for a more workforce oriented mixed use development, but the entire process has taken well over ten years since its inception (Kimley Horn 2018). There will also be no guarantee that a development remains true to its target demographic. As time changes, so does the population of a particular area. In ten years, perhaps, Alpharetta may be inhabited entirely by those who can afford to pour money into lavish spectacles such as Avalon. For the time being, future planners like myself need to be aware of this new wave gentrification and work towards finding a more permanent solution.
This page has been archived as of August 1, 2018