Take a Stroll Down the High-Value Boulevard
by Tony Chavira
Amazing, and in some ways obvious, news: communities that have been designed with an extensive focus on your walking experience happen to also have higher-valued homes! CEOs For Cities published the report this month and it’s a pretty interesting read… here’s an excerpt from the report's summary:
More than just a pleasant amenity, the walkability of cities translates directly into increases in home values. Homes located in more walkable neighborhoods—those with a mix of common daily shopping and social destinations within a short distance—command a price premium over otherwise similar homes in less walkable areas. Houses with the above-average levels of walkability command a premium of about $4,000 to $34,000 over houses with just average levels of walkability in the typical metropolitan areas studied.
Unfortunately, the agenda for developing smart density for constructive walkability has been muddled in a nebulus network of political schema, misinterpretations by developers, and misunderstandings in the communities that need smart density and walkability most. Research results like these really only fuel a fire for smart and creative growth that has been re-lit in the bellies of city planners since they began to really notice the negative impacts of uninhibited sprawl on the economy, the environment and our overall quality of life. Kaid Benfield, on his blog for the National Resource Defense Council, points out a big problem with design as it relates to getting the goals for rich walkability achieved (and view his post to see the image comparisons):
We haven't been as successful in persuading jurisdictions to take a firm stand against suburban sprawl, but to an extent the market is coming around on that one. Sprawl is being devalued in the marketplace; demographics (watch for another post on that topic soon) and energy prices point in the direction of stronger demand for urban environments; central cities are growing again. We've made tremendous progress.
But, my god, is this the best we can do? Look at some examples of what is being built and has been built recently around Metro stations in DC's suburbs (mostly; one is in the city) in the name of transit-oriented development.
Any one of these buildings might be fine, depending on your taste. I don't have anything against high-rises per se, in the right contexts. But taken together, these examples represent a sameness and sterility - always emphasizing building mass over architectural variety and community amenities - that, in my opinion, is soul-deadening.
Anyway, we already know that ugly buildings don't get anything achieved for a community, but when smartly-designed cool-looking buildings will apparently increase the value of your home, what’s the harm in cleaning up a community for both fun and profit? I mean, when the options are “increase in value” versus “soul deadening,” you’d figure that it would be a no-brainer.
Comments
No comments.
