Information gleaned from utility records provide a rough estimate of the number of vacant buildings in El Paso. The most recent research was done in 2009. Approximately 5,500 buildings were vacant, 1,800 of those were commercial.
There is no reason to think that the trend has been reversed. Take a look at two maps of the central core. (Click to enlarge images.)
The first map is a comparison of population in 1990 and 2000 in the Central Core of El Paso. The second is comparison between 2000 and 2010 for the same area. So, between 1990 and 2000 there was a population loss of 11,876. Between 2000 and 2010 there was a loss of 8,144 persons. Astonishingly we are losing about 1,000 people per year out of the city core, leaving houses and apartments vacant in the process.
So, it is a source of jubilation and relief when we see that the overall goal of land use patterns in the Comprehensive Plan Re-write, Plan El Paso, encourages "infill development within the existing City over peripheral expansion to conserve environmental resources, spur economic investment, repair social fabric, reduce the cost of providing infrastructure and services, and reclaim abandoned areas."
The new Plan is also encouraging in that it lays out how to develop for future population needs without having to build in "green" areas: remote, natural, agricultural lands.
Thanks for that comparison. It seems infill redevelopment is more costly than new development (and more of a pain, since one must really take time to plan, given all the infrastructure).
ReplyDeleteBut one must also consider the cost of unnecessarily losing the tangible and intangible qualities of natural areas, and new development over infill never does.
While plenty of money is made on infill, there must be a balance of affordablility / quality of life for all, and profits. In Abq, that is rarely so...infill areas are mostly for well-to-do transplants from the coasts, and especially downtown, their lofts are not always being bought, some remaining empty for years (many infill developement areas are created without regards to any landscaped areas to connect urban residents and nature). Others like me cannot afford most such places.
This seems to be an issue of good design (and what it provides), not just infill (and assuming it will cause good design).
After 20 years living and working in this region, I'm amazed that the places clearly envied by residents and the powers-that-be are never looked at for *why* they succeed vs. why those in our region rarely do.