One avenue, which virtually no city has done as far as I can tell: the City or a partner agency could buy the property from the landowner. Then, it could do a plan with the residents, parcel it up into small parcels and sell it off in a manner much like the historic pattern. The City could incrementally improve the infrastructure as well…
One avenue, which virtually no city has done as far as I can tell: the City or a partner agency could buy the property from the landowner. Then, it could do a plan with the residents, parcel it up into small parcels and sell it off in a manner much like the historic pattern. The City could incrementally improve the infrastructure as well, to show its commitment to the idea. That avoids the big developer issue, and all the associated typical responses. Instead, cities usually just go the RFP route for a developer, which inevitably leads to a large development project.
It can't be built in the original style unless you remove parking minimums and multi-staircase requirements.
And I'm not entirely sure "big developer" is a real issue so much as one that people just made up. I can go to historic parts of London full of townhouses that all look the same and nobody's complaining. Bath, England was built entirely at once.
Yes. The distinction I draw (which many people probably don't) is the difference between a big builder building a lot of buildings at once which are lots owned separately, versus a "mixed-use development" which is managed by a single commercial landlord. Both might have dozens of enterprises or structures, but one is allowed to evolve according to all of those different owners and the other is managed as a single property or enterprise.
One avenue, which virtually no city has done as far as I can tell: the City or a partner agency could buy the property from the landowner. Then, it could do a plan with the residents, parcel it up into small parcels and sell it off in a manner much like the historic pattern. The City could incrementally improve the infrastructure as well, to show its commitment to the idea. That avoids the big developer issue, and all the associated typical responses. Instead, cities usually just go the RFP route for a developer, which inevitably leads to a large development project.
It can't be built in the original style unless you remove parking minimums and multi-staircase requirements.
And I'm not entirely sure "big developer" is a real issue so much as one that people just made up. I can go to historic parts of London full of townhouses that all look the same and nobody's complaining. Bath, England was built entirely at once.
Yes. The distinction I draw (which many people probably don't) is the difference between a big builder building a lot of buildings at once which are lots owned separately, versus a "mixed-use development" which is managed by a single commercial landlord. Both might have dozens of enterprises or structures, but one is allowed to evolve according to all of those different owners and the other is managed as a single property or enterprise.
so remove those requirements, too. Easy enough.