Report a Comment

David: I think maybe I'm not explaining my point adequately. I'm not saying Fairfax should "emulate" the Park and Shop. I'm just citing it as historical evidence that strip malls serve a function, and have, for some time. I'm also saying that these forms aren't -necessarily- incompatible with developing urbanism, especially if the alterantive is to leave a drain on city coffers that could provide a source for revenue needed to provide civic ameneties conducive to urbanism.

There is a comprehensive Fairfax Boulevard plan that was developed after a series of charettes that lays out a long-term vision for greater urbanism through the city. But in the meantime, the City's tax base also needs development to reach many of the goals in the plan.

Bianchi: I'm confused by your comment but maybe we're in agreement. Taking the incremental step of improving accessibility around new strip developments--perhaps with the new tax revenue generated from the new development--is precisely the good first step I was thinking of. My initial comment was to contrast the post's critique with the point that planting a pedestrian-oriented development first that depends on pedestrians making suicidal sprints across Route 50 is impractical and feeds criticisms of new urbanism; permitting a development compatible with current infrastructure and then improving infrastructure around it seems to me a logical strategy overlooked by the post and some comments.

by Alex on Jun 26, 2008 3:26 pm • link • report