The infill/greenfield dilemma
Greenfield/sprawl developments are easy for the private sector to do, but not economically, socially and environmentally beneficial. Meanwhile, infill/urban/redevelopment projects are difficult, but highly beneficial economically, socially and environmentally.
Greenfields/sprawl vs. infill/urban/redevelopment impacts, as it relates to the creatively entrepreneurial CoolTown audience:
Economic: Workers are increasingly bolting office parks to work for companies (and themselves) in cities and town centers to avoid the commute. It also costs municipalities more to sustain such a disperse infrastructure.
Social: People in suburban/sprawling neighborhoods feel isolated with little sense of community. They are scientifically proven to be less in shape, overweight, and many find themselves in cars for an inordinate amount of time. Aggravated assault/rape/murder rates are lower in urban cities per capita, like in NYC and San Francisco than in more suburban cities like Atlanta and L.A.
Environmental: It takes a lot more land to build a greenfield neighborhood than for an infill/urban one. It also requires much more vehicular usage to get around in one.
So, why is it easier to build greenfields/sprawl?
Leave a Reply