David Brooks wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times regarding today’s trends in how people that once lived in the suburbs are changing their expectations of what the suburbs should be. The article in its entirety is rather interesting for a number of reasons. He talks about the emerging town centers that we see growing around the country and the revitalization of downtown as people move from the suburbs back to the city.
Atlanta is no exception to that. People have been moving back ITP for awhile now. Gwinnett County is seeing a number of its cities develop or redevelop town centers.
Leading the way is Lawrenceville and Emory Morsberger’s efforts to rebuild and revitalize the county seat. Suwanee, which continues to gain national recognition for its livability, has built, and continues to build, what is likely metro Atlanta most ambitious development of a downtown and park system. Other cities in Gwinnett, like Norcross, Sugar Hill and Snellville, are also moving in similar directions, some with more success than others.
Mr. Brooks states that he would like to see the stimulus money that Barack Obama wants to spend on infrastructure spent in helping to build these downtowns rather than projects that are ready to go, just for the sake of getting money into the system.
Barack Obama has said that he would start an infrastructure project that will dwarf Dwight Eisenhower’s highway program. If, indeed, we are going to have a once-in-a-half-century infrastructure investment, it would be great if the program would build on today’s emerging patterns. It would be great if Obama’s spending, instead of just dissolving into the maw of construction, would actually encourage the clustering and leave a legacy that would be visible and beloved 50 years from now.
I think Mr. Brooks’ idea is a good one – stimulus money going into assisting cities build or revitalize downtowns is a noble goal. However, it would take years of planning in order for it to be done correctly. Mr. Brooks laments that the money will go to perpetuating the current modes of transportation.
But alas, there’s no evidence so far that the Obama infrastructure plan is attached to any larger social vision. In fact, there is a real danger that the plan will retard innovation and entrench the past.
In a stimulus plan, the first job is to get money out the door quickly. That means you avoid anything that might require planning and creativity. You avoid anything that might require careful implementation or novel approaches. The quickest thing to do is simply throw money at things that already exist.
Unfortunately, our infrastructure is so lacking in maintenance that we need huge investment just to get it back to an acceptable level. We are years, perhaps decades, away from truly getting to any sort of renaissance in social land development. As Mr. Brooks points out, prior to the recession, we were making great strides as the market moved in this direction.
There are certainly aspects of President-elect Obama’s plan whose outcomes are rather dubious in nature. Putting computers in classrooms, fixing school buildings, retrofitting government buildings to make them more energy efficient. (Although, I have to say, I’d rather see tax dollars go there than to propping up failing companies.) However, fixing the country’s existing infrastructure and allowing states to move forward on transportation projects that are likely desperately needed should be the first focus. As the war in Iraq winds down and, if we’re smart enough not to dump billions in private companies, Mr. Brooks idea would be a great starting point in perhaps moving us where we were already going, just a little quicker, to more social land development.
