Austin Comprehensive Plan – Growth Map

I read a local politician’s editorial earlier this week who stated that in 2000 no one could have foreseen the [land use and] transportation problems San Antonio now faces. He does not “get it” and probably did not read Mike’s piece. Anyone who has studied the American city since 1977 could have foreseen the [land use and] transportation problems we face today.

“Urban” and “density” have been bad words across the suburban cities of America for many years. Planning has been out of fashion in Texas for as many. Comprehensive planning has been on the back-burner in San Antonio for far too long. Suddenly, with the death-blow to the streetcar, it has been touted that the lack of planning is why we should not build a streetcar! Now, it appears “planning” may become a tool of the auto-oriented, pro-sprawl real estate oligopoly. For this reason, if for no other, citizens should participate in the public planning process. If we participate, then we can (hopefully) trust the public planning process. We need to keep up “the case for urban density.”

….City Council decreed in 1979 that the city should not plan future growth, but should “accommodate” growth, after the fact, wherever the developers wanted to put it — mostly on cheap land far from existing infrastructure. That’s a very expensive and frankly stupid way to run a city, and its repercussions are still being felt today. The current controversy over proposed toll lanes on US 281 is one consequence.

One reason why “the overwhelming majority of us live in the suburbs” is that San Antonio’s “establishment” — comprising almost exclusively suburban interests — would not allow the majority any other option. Only in the past decade or so has the urban core gained a countervailing concentration of economic and political power sufficient to make the center thrive once again. There is still much work to be done. Only when that process is far advanced will “choice” in housing be a full reality, rather than an empty slogan.

Austin Comprehensive Plan – Growth Map Legend

Luxury apartments under construction in Brooklyn Bridge Park in New York. Michael Appleton for The New York Times

Apartment units make up the lions’ share of the recent increased activity in the housing industry. Though this article does not go into much of the back-story on why this trend is taking place, many of the comments it has drawn are from those who seem to understand. Single-family home building is on the decline compared to multi-family housing for many reasons, most of which are under the umbrella of sustainability. Energy and material conservation, compact urban development supporting public transit, social and economic benefits of urban lifestyles, and preserving agricultural land and the earth’s ecology come to mind. Apartment construction does not contribute as much, per unit, to the economy, so potentially slower (more steady?) growth of the economy may be a result.

Add it all up, and traditional, suburban stand-alone houses — and the construction of them — appear poised to play a smaller role in the economy, and Americans’ living situations, for some time to come

A version of this article appears in print on May 17, 2014, on page B2 of the New York edition with the headline: Housing Is Recovering. Single-Family Homes Aren’t.

2014 view of Broadway Corridor model presented to City of San Antonio in the year 2000 by Alexander Carragonne and Carolyn Safar Peterson

Below, and in the article linked in the right hand column, architect Sir Terry Farrell is calling for planning debates over physical 3D models. I find it reassuring that in this digital age there is still a continuing need for physical models over which people can share and discuss the built environment. Recently, the Westside Development Corporation inquired with AIA San Antonio and at UTSA’s College of Architecture about developing a budget for a physical model of San Antonio’s Westside. A couple of us from AIASA offered to show them an urban-scaled model of part of San Antonio. It was my first visit to see this well-crafted solid hardwood model of the Broadway Corridor, from downtown to Brackenridge Park. Currently, it is housed by the City of San Antonio Downtown Operations offices, but is not readily viewable by the public. At the scale of 1″ = 100′, architectural forms can be modeled and there can be a great understanding of urban space and scale and relationships among streets, parks and buildings.

While I now use primarily computer modeling in my practice, there is a time and place when only a physical model will suffice. Physical models are particularly beneficial for bringing people together to evaluate urban scale redevelopment proposals. Digital or computer modeling can be used to create physical models, yet the process is still skilled-labor intensive and involves relatively expensive equipment. Stockholm has invested in one! I hope Westside Development Corporation decides to move forward with their plans for physical modeling. We need more public rooms where we can look at our cities together and collaborate on progress.

The architect Sir Terry Farrell has called for architecture to be taught in schools, the listing of buildings to be decided by popular support, and the introduction in every town of “urban rooms” where planning can be debated over 3D models.

Launching his review of architecture and the built environment, commissioned last year by the culture minister Ed Vaizey, Farrell said the 200-page document should “be a catalyst for change and the start of a big conversation about our built environment, making it a major public issue like health and food”.

At the core of the report is a call for a fundamental shift in UK planning culture. “Planning, in the true sense of the word, is simply not done in this country,” Farrell said. “In many other places, such as New York , the height, bulk and use of a building is all determined in advance in detailed spatial plans, but here everything is on the table, with every possibility debated every single time. You could buy a plot of land, get lucky, and have a Shard built in your back garden. The tallest building in Europe was never on anyone’s plan, yet it stands there today.”

His guidance, detailed in 60 recommendations produced after extensive consultation over 12 months, focuses on a holistic approach, or what he terms Place (an acronym of planning, landscape, architecture, conservation and engineering).”Our weakness has come from the separation of heritage and transport, design and infrastructure, in separate silos,” he said. “Design reviews should be replaced by Place reviews, ensuring all aspects are given equal consideration in a joined-up approach.”