PCAgenda_92Jun22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

24 Planning May 1992 ournalists have been telling us for some time now that rural and small-town America is a disappearing phenomenon- except for a few special landscapes and stage-set main streets. But after 15 years of research and writing about rural America, I have concluded that reports of its de- mise are much exaggerated. Rather than disappearing, large portions of our non- metropolitanareas have evolved into some- thing new-what I call "countryfied cities." How can you tell when you come to a countryfied city? A sure sign is a combi- nation of: suburban-style houses along country roads; commercial corridors lined with stores, fast-food places, even busi- ness and professional offices; free-stand- ing factories and warehouses near a new highway interchange; and, in some areas, recreational and retirement complexes of varying size and ambition. The important point is that the countryfied city presents a critical mass of low-density urbanism over an extended rural field. Burnet County in east central Texas, for instance, is nearly 1,000 square miles in size, yet some 85 percent of the popula- tion is concentrated around Marble Falls and the recreation and retirement com- ~lexes along the Colorado River to the west. I found similar low-density concen- trations of population in the five other places I used as examples in my research on countryfied cities: Westmoreland County in southwestern Pennsylvania; Randolph County in east central Indiana; Emmet and Charlevoix counties in north- west Michigan; and Putnam County in north central Tennessee. To a large extent, the countryfied cities have replaced the old towns and small cities as residential and commercial cen- ters. In an auto-impelled age, the spread- out development is more practical, better suited to the way rural and small-town people live today. Rather than being fueled exclusively by agribusiness, as were the rural towns of yesteryear, the new settle- ments are the products of the powerful economic and demographic forces that have changed rural America since World War II: decentralization of manufactur- ing and warehousing made possible by the interstate highway system; the grow- ing number of retirees and people eager to invest in second homes; the outward creep of metropolitan office development; and the expansion of college and univer- sity systems. For some planners, this hybrid form of development-part country, part city-is something that their education and previ- ous experience has not prepared them for. They must quickly become familiar South of Chicago, in rural Will County, isolated residential development is cropping up in the midst of farmland. The author argues chat this pattern is being repeated all across the nation. The Land In-Between Neither city nor country, our burgeoning nonmetro areas need some serious rethinking. By J. C. Doherty with things like the latest in septic tank technology, the intricacies of conserva- tion districts, and Farmers Home Admin- istration community facilities programs. Modest proposals The county, regional, and state-level plan- ners Iinterviewed in six eastern and midwestern states spoke frequently of the need for regional programs designed specifically to deal with growth in mixed rural-urban areas. In fact, regional government is as rare outside the beltways of the nation as it is within them. In the seven counties I ex- amined are 30 small cities, 51 boroughs and villages, 63 townships, and 20 New England-style towns. Their governments function within their borders, of course, but their borders no longer contain all or even most of the preferred locations for business, industry, and housing. In my opinion, the identifiable country- fiedcity needs a government with powers to adopt regional plans, regulate land and development, and write capital budgets.. If a city of 3,000 can do all this, why can't a countryfied city of 30,000? Everyone knowledgeable about govern- ment knows the answer. The local gov- ernments involved would have to give up a big chunk of their sovereignty, if not go out of business. This is not going to happen. But there are other possibilities. The state legislature can enact laws and adopt policies that encourage planning and land regulation in the types of areas we are talking about. Two examples: The Penn- sylvania legislature in 1987 passed a law encouraging small cities and boroughs "no longer considered economically vi- able" to consolidate with healthier ones. And in 1988 the Vermont legislature passed Act 200, which reinvigorated regional plan- ning among the towns in that state. A starting point would be the creation of a standing commission on growth, whose role would be to report on trends such as the development of these new urban forms. An example is Vermont's Costle Commission, whose 1987 "guidelines for growth" report led to the passage of Act 200. Such blue-