Over the last several decades many existing older commercial areas have fallen into decline as new greenfield commercial developments are rezoned farther out in the city and county. While this greenfield development provides new commercial opportunity and tax base growth, it typically has a secondary impact on older commercial areas as uses vacate those areas. In some cases, new commercial areas can also draw business away from our small municipality downtowns which are undergoing revitalization. What is the right mix of new commercial and revitalized commercial for our community?
Give us your thoughts -- click "comments" below:
17 comments:
We are struggling to create a lively downtown. As long as there are new strip centers near new high-end subdivisions, we will continue to struggle to create a lively downtown. Portland, Oregon is a model for creating a lively community while protecting rural values.
An e-mailed response:
We need to have opportunities for both, but revitalized commercial should be actively encouraged.
Retail centers have been overbuilt relative to the growth in retail sales. We need incentives for infill and brownfield development. Development costs should reflect the actual cost to extend infrastructure and utilities to greenfield development as a disincentive.
80/20 = redevelopment/greenfield development
Work with the consumer to value redevelopment, promote redevelopment to business owners looking for new facilities.
Streamline approval process for redevelopment of older commercial sites.
So utopian tax incentives for developers & strict zoning!
Continue to support amenity development downtown…it sure is more fun to go there than 15 years ago. Always wanted: basic amenities i.e. grocery store being #1
There is too much paved surface & impervious rooftop. I would like to see more redevelopment & less new development. "Recycling" of buildings. Remove unnecessary pavement.
Not sure about cost?
Find a market for salvage?
Offer tax credits for moving into an already existing commercial site or impose a tax/penalty for moving into a greenfield site without an obvious need for a new building.
There should be an equal mix of new commercial & revitalized commercial development. However, there should be a stronger push to revitalize empty buildings. Offering tax credits for revitalization will increase this development. This will help build up the city center, rather than sprawl outward to residential & farm land.
Charge developers for all new utilities run to greenfield sites - don't need to charge in already developed areas
Prefer revitalized commercial before new. The only way to keep all uses from growing (sprawling) outward is to keep amenities centralized.
We need more public investment in fixing and upgrading the infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, lighting) for existing urban commercial areas, especially in lower-income areas.
Integrate them, or couple them. Mixed use development.
Attracting area specific anchor tenants (i.e. Trader Joe's etc.) will ensure the success of older/redeveloped older commercial sites.
Charge impact fees for all greenfield development. Provide incentives, grants, discounts for redevelopment. Identify development corridors and nodes and adjust zoning designations to encourage redevelopment. Require high densities on green sites.
Why not offer tax incentives for existing commercial spaces that are only few floors in height to allow for extra living space above (if there is enough glass incorporated in new façade to enhance a pedestrian friendly streetscape.)
What are greenfield sites? Places where forests are leveled? Don't do that. We need our forests for air purification, temp control, wildlife habitat and beauty.
Have financial dis-incentives for greenfield development.
Commercial and industrial sites should be blended well into the community so that workers can walk to work and they do not look austere... We should not keep placing these in rural areas or future growth areas as has been done in Union Cross.
Post a Comment