The Value of Urban Design

1. The Value of Urban Design The Impact of Suburban Redevelopment on Sense of Community Mariela Alfonzo, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow Metropolitan Institute Virginia Tech, Alexandria , VA

2. Nostalgia for Community • Many lament the “loss” of a sense of community in America • Putnam: Bowling Alone • Kunstler: Geography of Nowhere • New Urbanists • Planning officials • Academic literature • General assumption that community has waned

3. “Building” Community • New Urbanists - “Build it and they will come” • Towards an Architecture of Community • Compact, dense, walkable neighborhoods create sense of community • Assumptions about the built environment and sense of community

4. Selling Community • Developers are “heeding” calls for community • Community as a “brand” • Garnering city support and citizen “buy-in” for new projects

5. Marketing Community • “I want to build something that enhances andcreates community.” • Business Leader, 2005; John Kain, Developer, North Hills Raleigh • “It's going to create a sense of community for the fastest-growing area in the metro area.'' • Rocky Mountain News, 2003; New Aurora, CO Mall

6. Marketing Community • “Miramar Town Center is significant for the entire area…this is a unique opportunity to bring a sense of community to a very linear city…” • South Florida CEO, 2005 • “These ‘smart growth’ or ‘mixed-use’ projects try to build a sense of community by putting more of life's activities at one site while reducing the number of trips on congested roads.” • Star Tribune, MN, 2002

7. Mixing it up…A Recipe for Community? • Redeveloping dying malls • 1 in 5 US malls are under performing • Mixed-use = most popular redevelopment approach • Promising more than a cure for cities’ economic woes • Mixed-use being sold as a way to increase sense of community

8. Is Mixed-use the missing ingredient? • Effectiveness of mixed-use approach is unknown • Social impacts are not understood • Existing approach is formulaic, based on other project types

9. Can’t Afford an Experiment… • Mixed-use Redevelopment is expensive • From $50 to $500 mil per project • Increasing number of failing malls • Est. total redevelopment costs > $11 billion • Public and private funding • Sense of community = selling point • Need to establish design guidelines specific to mall redevelopment

10. Research Question • Do differences in the urban design changes implemented as part of the mixed-use mall redevelopment impact sense of community (SOC) ?

11. Past Research • Suburban revitalization is new phenomenon • Research on revitalization focused on urban communities (downtown, inner city) • Difficult to generalize from urban to suburban • Sense of community literature focused on individual and group level correlates • Age, length of residency, home ownership, “neighborliness,” etc.

12. Past Research, Cont. • Few studies investigate how built environment affects sense of community • Not within the context of revitalization • Provide support for link between urban design and sense of community • Festinger, Appleyard (social interaction) • “Traditional” vs. “modern” neighborhood (Lund, 2002; Plas & Lewis, 1996) • “Gated” vs. “Non-gated” (Wilson-Doenges, 2000) • Land-use mix, apartment layouts (Nasar & Julian, 1995) • Oldenberg (third places)

13. Attachment S e n s e o f Com mu n i t y Attitudes Functional R e d e v e l o p m e n t Emotional Distance Behavioral Factors Retail Walking Site Design Socio-demographics Social Interaction Satisfaction Neighborhood Built Environment Aesthetic Functional Publicness

14. Methodology • Comparative Case Study • 3 redeveloped malls vs. 3 currently non-redeveloped malls • Compared residents living within ½ mile of each site • Urban design of redeveloped malls varied by: • Land-use mix, retail mix, and site layout

15. Research Methods • Survey • Random sample of 850 adults (18 and over) within ½ mile of sites • McMillan & Chavis (1986) SCI • Avg response rate - 17.6%; range (9.1% - 29.4%) • Urban design inventory • Irvine Minnesota Inventory (2006) • Random sample of blocks (30%) within ½ mile of sites • On-site behavioral observations • Focus group interviews with residents • Informal interviews of key players

17. CityCenter Englewood

18. CCE Site Plan

21. Santana Row

22. SR Site Plan

25. North Hills – Raleigh, NC

26. NH Site Plan

29. Design Matters

30. SOC: North Hills > EnglewoodSantana Row = North Hills

31. SOC: Englewood = Santana Row

32. Site Built Environment related to SOC

33. SOC & Redevelopment are Indirectly Related

34. Individual Behaviors related to SOC

35. Attachment related to SOC

36. Satisfaction related to SOC

37. Mediators and Redevelopment

38. Redev --> Mediators --> SOC

39. Key Findings • “Type” of Redevelopment/Site Built Environment related to Sense of Community • North Hills (SOC) > CityCenter Englewood (SOC) • More “positive” Built Environment = Higher Sense of Community • Retail mix and Land use mix may also impact SOC (attachment)

40. Key Findings • Site Built Environment notNeighborhood Built Environment related to Sense of Community • Index vs. Categorical measurements • More than just the presence of Mixed-Use

41. Design Implications • Address Built Environment features related to the mediators of SOC • Indirect relationship between Sense of Community and Redevelopment • Design of Mixed-use site important • More than just Mixed-Use • Retail mix, Land-use mix, Layout, Gathering Places

42. Theoretical Implications (The Big Picture) • Transforming the suburbs • Mixed-Use centers = More than just another trip to the mall • Redefining suburban living • “Urban vitality” or dynamic

43. Thank You!