A Tale of Two Design Philosophies

Many skeptics of Smart Growth and pedestrian-oriented development policies assume that such policies are inherently anti-growth. In fact, this is not true. If Smart Growth (emphasis on the word “Growth”) policies were meant to discourage development and “progress”, then we would see in these areas noticeable decreases in standard suburban features, such as parking lots. While it is true, in the case of parking lots, that many New Urban and traditionally-designed towns and cities have less need for parking spaces due to more efficient public transportation (thus smaller parking lots), most commercial, office, and civic buildings in these areas still offer parking lots to their patrons. The key difference between traditional urban and standard suburban designs is not the absence of any particular feature but, instead, its rearrangement.

West Bethlehem provides a striking example of this difference in design philosophy (see the video here). The beer store on one side of the street is set to the back of its lot, forcing a large slab of black-top parking to greet its visitors. What is wrong with this arrangement? Primarily, it fails the equitability test. With the parking lot facing Broad Street, drivers have a clear advantage when patronizing the business. Pedestrians must compete with cars entering and leaving the parking lot, a competition that we, the walkers, are likely to lose. Is the positive connection between driving and alcohol really the message we want to be sending?

On the other side of the street, however, the former Bank of America building (which, if you ask me, would be perfect for a much-needed Westside restaurant) was built in a completely opposite fashion. The building, which would likely be placed in the middle or to the back of a suburban lot, is placed right up against Broad Street, relegating the parking lot to the back. Drivers can still just as easily patronize the business, but pedestrians can just as easily do so as well without competing for space. This design levels the playing field and encourages alternative transportation.

I’m sure some of you will be thinking, “If pedestrian-oriented designs are so effective, why did Bank of America shut down the branch?” I’m not exactly sure why B of A left this location, but the pedestrian-oriented PNC Bank down the street is doing just fine. Perhaps it has to do with toxic loans: While B of A received $45 billion in bailouts, PNC actually took over a troubled bank.