I had a
spare afternoon in Nashville two years ago.
As is my preference when I have free time in an unfamiliar city, I looked
around for urbanism.
I stumbled into the Germantown neighborhood, a comfortable enclave of
older brick homes. There was also a
scattering of newer wood-sided homes that blended well with the older
homes. And there were a few modest
commercial storefronts.
Germantown
was a short distance north of downtown, barely more than a mile from B.B.
King’s nightclub. The average Walk Score
for the neighborhood was 68, which implies that many daily chores can be
accomplished on foot.
Overall, it
was pleasant middle-class urban neighborhood, of which we need more.
But there
were warning signs. At the end of the
neighborhood closest to downtown, a multi-story mixed-use building, residential
above and retail below, was under construction.
And there were vacant lots within the neighborhood that had mixed-use
zoning and were for sale.
Overall, it
looked like a neighborhood that was at risk of gentrification, with the
existing businesses pushed to become more upscale and the current residents becoming
marginalized in the neighborhood that was their home.
I’m pleased when
an urban neighborhoods show economic improvement, but improvements that occur
too quickly can risk the fabric that made the neighborhoods desirable in the
first place.
Since my visit,
I had often wondered what was happening in Germantown. At CNU 21, while awaiting a session on
form-based codes, I found myself sitting in front of Rick Bernhardt, the Planning Director for Metropolitan
Nashville. I introduced myself and asked
about Germantown.
Bernhardt reported what I
had expected. The gentrification of
Germantown was well underway. The
neighborhood was changing. The existing restaurants
had begun going more trendy and upscale.
But the risk that most concerned Bernhardt was the pressure on the small
industries that still existed in Germantown.
As he described it,
Germantown had a certain “grittiness” that needed to be preserved. And that grittiness required industry to
retain a foothold in Germantown.
Fifty years ago, Jane Jacobs
warned about “cataclysmic flow of capital”, the rapid influx of money that can
overwhelm good places. It’s a conundrum
for urbanism. How to make better use of
existing urban neighborhoods without burying them in money and newcomers.
A theme that was heard
during CNU 21 was libertarianism. That
building good places doesn’t require extensive planning as much as it requires
common sense and a hands-off approach.
I‘m dubious about the
concept. Even setting aside the concern
that we don’t yet have enough common sense in a land-use decision-making, I
fear that a hands-off approach would open the door to Jacobs’ “cataclysmic
flow”.
It’s hard to restrain
capital. Once a tipping point is reached
on urbanism, or any land-use concept, money tends to flow toward it with unrestrained
velocity. Having CNU 22 in Buffalo, near
Niagara Falls, may be unintentionally apt.
Nor is zoning, whether
use-based or form-based, an effective response.
Zoning is about what, not about how quickly.
I don’t have good solutions
to offer. But it’s a challenge that we
should face so that neighborhoods like Germantown can be simultaneously better
utilized and preserved.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
