I’ve been reading through the City of Peoria’s new draft Comprehensive Plan and started despairing when I hit page 51:
The density of the population of Peoria in the mid Twentieth Century will not return. The current demand by the majority of the population is for larger residential lots, more space between neighbors, and more open space. Current zoning requirements cause large parking areas to accompany commercial development, further reducing the overall density of the city.
If that statement is true, then we might as well put a sign on every entrance to the city that says, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”
Studies have shown that densities less than 4 to 5 dwelling units per acre are unsustainable — in other words, the expense of providing services exceeds the revenues generated. (E.g., Cost of Sprawl [2005]; Figure 4, “Residential Service Costs,” p. 5) Peoria’s growth cells currently have 2.6 dwelling units per acre according to the city’s recent Growth Cell Strategy Report. If land mass is going to continue to increase faster than population growth, and if density is thus going to continue to decrease, then we’ve barely scratched the surface of our financial difficulties. Having land that costs more to maintain than it produces in revenue is a recipe for structural deficits that will be impossible to eliminate.
Reading on in the proposed Comp Plan:
If the attempt to re-populate many of the least dense areas of the city, some of the oldest neighborhoods in Peoria, is successful, the overall density may increase, or at least offset the increase in land area. Without the successful repopulation of older neighborhoods, the projected trend is for the overall population density to continue to decline in future years.
First of all, the “least dense areas of the city” are not the oldest neighborhoods, but the growth cells and far-flung annexations to the north and west. Secondly, what “attempt to re-populate . . . the oldest neighborhoods in Peoria”? I’m not aware of any serious attempt, although one would be welcomed. Thirdly, why not attempt to also increase density in the newer areas of town? No, not to the same level of density as the West Bluff. But isn’t it reasonable to require at least 4 or 5 dwelling units per acre for new subdivisions — or enough that they can pay for the services they consume?
http://illinipundit.com/2009/06/04/development-costs-study
This was kind of an interesting read. Champaign hired consultants to see which kind of developments were money generators and which were money losers. I am not advocating Peoria hire consultants to do the same research, although lord knows we love consultants. I think we are similar enough to Champaign that from a big picture stand point we similar results.
“But isn’t it reasonable to require at least 4 or 5 dwelling units per acre for new subdivisions — or enough that they can pay for the services they consume?”
Certainly what we need is more regulation from a central government in the city. That’ll fix it!
CJ: I like the designs of new urbanism, but it can’t really be sustainable if it’s not brought about by the willingness of the participants. More rules that hamper the freedom of property owners aren’t going to save the city.
James — Unsustainable growth will bankrupt the city. What would be your solution? Higher and higher taxes? Or drastically cutting services to city residents (e.g., slower fire response times, fewer police officers, less street maintenance, etc.)? I don’t think it’s too much of an imposition to have minimum density requirements for developers so that the city can afford to support their developments.
BeanCounter — Great link!
Or if the city just refused to annex any further developments under the limit. If forced to use septic systems, these development won’t happen.
Why not set property taxes equivalent to that of 4 – 5 dwellings for any new developement? You can either have 1 dwelling per acre or 4 but in both cases the city would get the same amount.
Seriously.
Stop the growth, altogether. Do not annex another acre for the next 20 years.
Next, fire up the bulldozers. There are some places where almost entire blocks are ramshackle houses. Sure there are some nice ones. If that is the case, move the house. My old block on the East Bluff had something like 12-14 houses on it. You could remake that into a nice block with 6-8 homes. Some of the old houses in the neighborhood could be left where they are or moved to new lots with new basements.
One block at a time.
Well… I am of the mind that oil prices will ultimately drive cities to greater density, or they will suffer dearly in a variety of ways. The question I see is whether Peoria will be proactive enough to begin developing that density and the supporting infrastructure before the cost of oil makes it happen. Will Peoria be ahead of the curve or behind the curve? In a global economy, to be behind the curve means you are going to lose.
Right now, I don’t see Peoria doing that.
There is currently little incentive on the part of developers to pursue that density. Higher density will in some fashion need to be market driven. Arguably one could make the case that the market is already there but local developers just don’t want to pursue it. Until that market develops through higher oil prices, it makes sense for the city to provide curbs on low density suburban development.
My sense is that we have about 10 years at most. The model of the suburban home with two cars in the driveway, driving all over for your needs is globally unsustainable if you believe India, China, and others will continue to develop into modern fully developed societies.
Vonster has a good idea…. don’t meet the density don’t get annexed. No density, no services.
It sounds as though the city has given up just as District 150 has. Neither are trying to make decisions that will bring people back into the city and back into the district. The district and the city put all their energy trying to keep people from leaving–but that effort is counterproductive; people will leave since nothing is done to attract new residents to the city and schools.
“I am of the mind that oil prices will ultimately drive cities to greater density”
Oil prices and the decrease in the number of families with children (who are less likely to want yards and low density).
If we are moving into a truly carbon constrainted/ sustainable futre then we can expect to see more muti-family developments, less cars, and more mass transit.
If current building and zoning laws do not support a carbon constrained future then either the zoning laws must chage or we must declare to the world that we are not serious about reducing carbon emmisions.
Hedy is going to try to talk to the mayor about the city giving some sort of benefit to new District 150 teachers who buy a house in Peoria. Not Mapleton. Peoria.
We can talk about preferences for high density or low density till we are blue in the face. The real issue to be contended is the poor reputation and performance of District 150. Like it or not, prospective residents–with or without kids– are encouraged or non-chalantly nudged by realtors, employers, and heresay to not purchase a home in D150 because resale will be difficult and your home will only loose value. Along with this damning allegation is the presumption that EVERY neighborhood south of War Memorial (and lately more commonly south of Northmoor) is a crime-ridden hellhole full of rentals, negligant property owners, and gang violence. With or without density, these ills would be present due to public perception, fear, and ignorance.
The price-point where the cost-of-living away from the perceptions of crime and a poor school district exceed the convenience value of city living has not been met. When the “risk” of buying in a “bad, poor, failing school” neighborhood is reasonable and the cost of transportation increases to an unacceptable level the trade of city living over suburban living will be made by a significant minority and possibly a moderate to major proportion of the regions population. That shift alone will eliminate all the perceived problems of an area through gentrification and displacement.
Density is not the issue. Investment return and fear are the issues.
The comprehensive plan is apparently relying on the past behaviors to justify the future development patterns. At turning points in our economy such as this we cannot rely on the past 40 years of development to guide us in the next 40 years.
In 1900, City building was rapidly occuring. Density was the word and mostly because the means of transportation was pedestrian and transit based and not auto based. Noone in 1900 could have expected that in 30 years an epic depression would occur and furthermore, noone in 1900 could have expected that by the late 1940s automobiles would be the rage and city building would be changed enormously.
In 1950, suburban living was the word and density was passe. For over 40 years personal automobile transport defined how we live. It was easy to travel and location didn’t matter. Contrary to this low-density explosion a renassiance of city-centers took place in the 2000s. At the same time high density and low density was in vogue.
Now, in 2009, how can you confidently say that the next 40 years of developement will be the same as the last 40. You can’t. The plan shouldn’t make that terrible assumption.
I am sorry, I am not following this analysis. If there are 2.6 houses on an acre in Peoria’s growth cell, then collective they are likely worth at least 3/4 of a million dollars and those property owners are paying big taxes. On the southside of Peoria, there are 12 houses on a city block whose collective value is less than $200,000, thus those property owners are paying little in taxes. Peoria’s problem is the type of property that is contained in the density.
You cannot make people want what they don’t want. It seems that many do not necessarily want bigger yards, but instead want larger homes with more convenient amenities than those offered in an older home in Peoria.
What will solve many of these issues is high quality jobs. Without attracting tax paying citizens that will drive the market forces and improve the tax base Peoria will face steady continous decline.
Peoria needs to become the Durham or Austin of the Midwest or some variant otherwise this area will come out on the short end of the global economy.
Peoria and every other city is in competition with each other for tax revenue, jobs, and city and state leaders must face this reality quickly. Cat and others can move factories (jobs, taxes) to other states to remain ahead of the comp, and people can and will choose to move away to more desirable cites.
We don’t want to look like Parma or Detroit in the future but I don’t see the urgency needed to move Peoria forward.
Gasoline at $4 a gallon and more will provide the incentive for people to move back into the city. The city’s role is not to put bibles and guns everywhere, but to provide high quality jobs in the city, cheap or free mass transit so people don’t have to own cars to live and work, reasonable rents, safe streets, etc. Middle class parents working those high paying jobs (and people with middle class incomes soon become middle class) will demand better schools.
Here’s a terrific story in today’s New York Times about great houses in undesirable locations. In some ways this applies to Peoria. Except for the high prices, which makes inner city houses in Peoria seem like great bargains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/garden/18houses.html?pagewanted=1
Frustrated — South Peoria isn’t the best example to use, since it’s a blighted area and clearly needs help. Perhaps a better comparison would be to a stable East Bluff or West Bluff neighborhood, where you might have 6-8 dwelling units per acre.
Also, you’re assuming in your example that the cost of providing services is the same regardless of how an acre is developed. In reality, it costs more to provide services to newer subdivisions than to older parts of town. Distance from the sewer treatment plant, for instance, adds extra cost. Cul-de-sac streets add cost for snow removal. Public transportation is not practical in low-density areas both from a time and capital expense standpoint. There are environmental costs. The Transportation Research Board has published a pretty comprehensive study of the costs of sprawl that’s available for free download.
I’m not suggesting that higher density is the panacea for Peoria’s problems. Obviously, other issues need to be addressed, as the commenters here have stated. However, density is one of the problems facing Peoria and contributing to its financial crises.
Would the “attempt to repopulate older neighborhoods” have anything to do with the placement of the new Section 8 recipients who will leaving Taft?
Here is an interesting article about the razing of Flint, Michigan, entitled US Cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive:
http://emergepeoria.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in.html
“Gasoline at $4 a gallon ”
Oh it’s going to be much higher than that. There will be a great many people who simply cannot afford to drive.
Mike, there aren’t going to be any “high quality jobs” left in this country. We have spent our way into the poorhouse and exported most of the jobs. Trying to buy anything that isn’t made in China (which now holds the mortgage to the country), never mind something made in USA, is a real challenge. Blame whoever you want, but the days of plenty are over. Call me whatever names you want, but eventually you will have to face reality. The country is effectively bankrupt.
Sorry, y’ll, but it’s going to go “bankrupter”. I’m trying to stop the county from going to where the city is. Watch our county pensions start kicking into high gear in about 4-5 more years. Also, remember the county will soon (this year) own the museum and the coming new $37+ BeWood, all financed but MAYBE $3 million. Self-sustaining? I think not. I’m still waiting for the “operating statement” showing projected revenues and expenses.
Don’t think just because the county can’t raise more sales taxes, the aren’t able to raise property taxes.
People overlooked the property tax angle when the voted for the “only $17 per head” facility sales tax.
I hope some county elected of hired county person comes on this site or my site and denies these FACTS.
Mouse, you are full of processed flavored pork parts shaped into a tubular mass. Do some research. There are plenty of good quality jobs available if you have sufficient training and education. We have exported jobs that no longer add value to the product or process. Why pay someone $35.00 per hour to assemble a vehicle when you can get the same work done for less somewhere else? If you were running a business you would have to do the same thing to remain competitive.
The American gravy train is over, mainly because 3 billion new people (China and India) are now providing many of the services and jobs for less. It called the Global economy and get used to it because its here to stay.
For a real world example, the lab I work at MUST go and get Indian and Chinese post docs because their are not enough Americans qualified to do the work, or they don’t want to choose this for a career. However, there is a huge surplus of doctorates in hard sciences in those countries. It is a supply and demand issue.
Also, some parts of the US are doing great such as Texas, Nebraska and cities with a high concentration of knowledge workers. Additionally, manufacturing jobs are relocating to states like Mississippi and South Carolina. We all must realize this and plan accordingly.
Read “The World is Flat” and “Three Billion New Capitalists” for more information. Get over “Buy USA” because that type of thinking does not work in a global economy.
From Kiplingers:
Best Cities: It’s All About Jobs
Stable employment and new career opportunities give these cities an edge.
Take a spin through our 2009 Best Cities to see which places have the right stuff in these tough times.
No. 1: Huntsville, Alabama
No. 2: Albuquerque, New Mexico
No. 3: Washington D.C.
No. 4: Charlottesville, Virginia
No. 5: Athens, Georgia
No. 6: Olympia, Washington
No. 7: Madison, Wisconsin
No. 8: Austin, Texas
No. 9: Flagstaff, Arizona
No. 10: Raleigh, North Carolina
http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2009/07/best-cities-2009-where-the-jobs-are.html
Mike said: “Mouse, you are full of processed flavored pork parts shaped into a tubular mass. ”
Not to pass judgment on who is and who isn’t right between Mike and Mouse, but you’ve gotta admit that is a great line.
Its all about the schools. You talk about density and taxes or jobs etc. But all of those things follow the schools. Peoria will not rejuvenate with out a good school system.
Low Density and sprawls are a function of gas prices… when gas prices reflect its true cost, density will increase…