Many Americans are not satisfied with the outcome of growth in their communities. Symptoms of inadequately managed growth are causing an increasing number of citizens groups to react. We all want to live in a quality place. We all tend to react at some threshold when our perceived quality of place is threatened. This threshold trigger could be any number of development actions promoted as economic development and positive growth. Among the many recognized threats to unique quality places are the intrusion of impersonal big box businesses, increased traffic congestion, abandonment of neighborhoods, decrease in locally owned business or general loss of any attributes that make one place special and different from other places.

Our current state of reactions, after fighting the good fight through the public review process, is aimed at introducing new zoning and land use regulations. Many of these new rules promote compact development, restrict retail business size, promote local business, introduce impact fees on unsustainable development, and any of the wide arrays of growth strategies that are aimed at improving quality of place and efficiency of resources. More proactive strategies include comprehensive planning that combine economic and design strategies to focus on building the “value of uniqueness”. It most effectively occurs at smaller units of a community such as a neighborhood, a target redevelopment area, or a traffic corridor. These efforts are more successful if there is also regional coordinating of many smaller initiatives. These proactive strategies are focused on effective dialogue - the basic element of competitive communities.

We are struggling to make progress in reinventing our communities. Fighting back the trend to corporate colony sameness that grows at a rate of acres per minute is a daunting challenge. We have institutionalized this low-density formula growth without a thorough understanding of the costs – economic, social, private and public. Many believe that current growth patterns provide greater benefit than harm. There is much work to provide the objective tools for measuring actual impacts and the policies that produce unsustainable outcomes. Changing the financial reward system of development is a painful paradigm shift that will occur when there is a broad understanding of the benefits of new sustainable alternative real estate products. Our methods of understanding community growth impacts are evolving. There are a number of studies and attempts to create useful analytical tools to help communities understand the impacts of sprawling growth patterns. One of these studies, released in October of 2002 is the Smart Growth America report Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact . This report, based on a three-year research project conducted by professors at Rutgers and Cornell universities, measures several factors in ranking metropolitan areas in the United States based on the impacts of growth patterns. The categories of measurement are: mix of jobs, shops and housing; street network; residential density; and centers of activity. This thoughtful report is a significant step in synthesizing the work of a number of groups and individuals in measuring the physical impacts of growth.

Although determining the appropriate physical outcome measures are an important step in evaluating communities, there is another level of evaluation needed that combined with physical measures will advance the quality and competitiveness of communities. The physical outcomes are the answer to the equation:

Decision + Implementation = Physical Outcome

Understanding the outcomes of decision-making and policies, both public and private sector, that led to undesirable or unsustainable growth patterns is a goal in redirecting community resources for greater long term return on investment. This is more complex and more dynamic than measuring physical results. The General Accounting Office in a 1999 report to congress, Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on “Urban Sprawl” is Unclear investigated federal policies that contribute to sprawl. The following statement from the report reveals the need for more investigation: “Some experts believe—and anecdotal evidence exists to support their belief—that the federal government currently influences “urban sprawl” through spending for specific programs, taxation, and regulation, among other things, but few studies document the extent of the federal influence.”

Uncovering policies that produce undesirable growth outcomes is an important process in determining new policies to produce quality places. The policies that have resulted in our current growth patterns include both public and private policies and regulations. The basic assumptions that led to these policies can be identified, questioned and changed or redefined in terms that fit our current circumstances. Competitive communities that redefine growth strategies to participate in new economy opportunities will discover new strategies that develop unique qualities that positively impact all aspects of community. Many current policies are based on solving a problem that no longer exists and with no understanding of the consequences or new problems that old policy has created. Current community economic development strategies are often based on these old premises that are no longer relevant. The lack of open dialogue does not allow any challenge of these strategies. The result is poor understanding of real priorities, low consensus and apathy. There is an inadequate level of reinventing economic and physical infrastructure models to prepare for future opportunities. What should the future community look like? What are the strategies to get to the future? What are the obstacles?


For example, the current preferences for development project financing are based on several standard real estate products that promote single use low-density projects. These projects contribute to the prototypical built environment that has homogenized American communities and undermined the uniqueness value of communities. Development project financing is also evaluated on a short-term return of five to seven years. This rapid rate of return strategy causes short-term decision making in design and construction to reduce initial cost at the sacrifice of long term operational savings and reduced maintenance. As a result the projects require reinvestment in five to seven years, generally after sale of the property, to remain viable products in the market. This shortsighted view ignores greater returns on investment of longer-term mixed-use properties of higher quality. The longer-term property strategy provides significantly greater return after ten years and has a positive effect on the quality place strategy for competitive communities. A more detailed investigation of this missed opportunity is explored in a Brookings Institute article, Financing Progressive Development, by Christopher B. Leinberger, Arcadia Land Company, May 2001
Understanding that we have institutionalized economic and design strategies for communities that give us what we don’t want is a beginning. Important work has been accomplished in setting the stage for significant change. It is just the beginning. The vision for Competitive Communities is to use the basic element of dialogue to explore strategies for brainpower, innovation and quality place. It is a process strategy to build and cultivate unique communities.