As an antidote to unplanned growth, smart growth takes many forms. One key aspect is the rehabilitation of existing commercial and residential structures in urban areas rather than the construction of brand-new buildings on virgin land in the outer suburbs. Here are some of the ways building reuse can revitalize established communities.

Affordable Housing Rehabilitation
The combination of suburban sprawl and urban neglect amounts to bad news for working families in their quest for decent, affordable housing. Disinvestment in cities causes the urban housing stock to deteriorate, while much of new construction is situated in distant suburbs. The solution is the rehabilitation of vacant or blighted urban structures, especially in areas with existing infrastructure such as transit lines, public schools, sewer and water lines, parks, etc.

In fact, many cities have begun to experience some recovery in the past 20 years. Following the pattern in New York's SoHo district, underutilized industrial buildings in some cities are being transformed into loft apartments, often as part of mixed-use developments. Portions of cities depleted by the flight to the suburbs have been rediscovered by new residents willing to restore old houses and recapture their historic charm.

The problem with this process, often disparaged as gentrification, is that it frequently involves the displacement of low-income households in favor of affluent ones. This tendency is so pronounced that living in a city is sometimes seen as a privilege, available only to those who can afford overpriced trophy houses and apartments in newly fashionable "historic districts."

Housing rehabilitation and conversion must be inclusionary to provide housing accessible to working families. That means that private sector development projects must have set asides for low-income and moderate income families. Another tool are non-profits such as Community Development Corporations. According to the National Congress for Community Economic Development, CDCs in the U.S. have produced 247,000 private sector jobs and 550,000 units of affordable housing since their emergence in the late 1960s. For more information on affordable housing initiatives, see Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and the National Low-Income Housing Coalition.

Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary Zoning is a deliberate attempt to include people of different income levels in developments that otherwise would probably include only market-rate housing. A typical goal is to reserve 15 to 20 percent of the units in a project for low- and moderate-income households.

As an incentive, developers may receive fee waivers, expedited building permits, density bonuses, or favorable zoning variances in exchange for agreeing to the set-aside. Some versions of IZ may be mandatory; others may be voluntary. Some may require that the developer directly build new affordable housing units, while others may allow the developer to contribute to an affordable housing fund instead.

Inclusionary zoning enables low-income people who might otherwise be economically segregated to live in areas with more economic diversity. IZ does not directly address the structural causes of urban poverty and sprawl, but it does improve the quality of life for some families. See the website of PolicyLink for more information on IZ and its use in cities such as Cambridge, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

Infill Development
Infill is the development of vacant or abandoned land in an area that is otherwise built out. This provides a number of advantages. First, it concentrates development in areas where infrastructure such as public transit and sewer and water already exist, rather than in undeveloped "greenfields." In this way, traffic and air pollution may be reduced, and lower-income residents are given access to a wider range of jobs.

Second, infill development improves surrounding communities by eliminating vacant lots and abandoned buildings, which may be crime and public health hazards.

Third, infill development provides a greater range of housing types. Whereas suburban development tends to create single-family homes, infill development can result in a variety of housing types, thereby increasing the appeal of neighborhoods. Larger projects often combine mixed commercial and residential uses, thus bringing new jobs as well.

Unfortunately, infill development tends to be more expensive for developers because of factors like site cleanup, zoning permits, small-scale building, and costs associated with addressing community members' concerns. In the long run, however, infill is cost-effective for taxpayers. Building and maintaining new roads, sewers, fire stations and schools for sprawling areas costs far more, not to mention the other social costs of sprawl: air pollution, loss of open space, and inequality. For more information on infill development, see PolicyLink and The Greenbelt Alliance.

Brownfields
Some infill projects involve brownfields, which are defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as "abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination." Brownfields, which are disproportionately located in lower-income communities, are usually abandoned manufacturing sites. Brownfields are the opposite of greenfields, or, tracts of land that were previously undeveloped open space such as farmland.

When developers decontaminate, safety-test, and then redevelop the land for a new purpose like housing or retail, the community benefits in several ways. Brownfield redevelopment increases the health of a neighborhood by removing any contamination. It also enhances livability, promotes economic growth and creates jobs in the clean-up process, through the rebuilding and in the permanent new jobs at any businesses in the new development.

For more information on how brownfield redevelopment applies smart growth principles, see the material on the websites of PolicyLink and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Building Code Reform
Among the barriers to creating affordable housing through rehab are the costs associated with meeting building codes. A growing number of states are reforming their codes to facilitate rehab by recognizing that older structures should not be expected to meet the same standards as new buildings. Good Jobs First has produced a report called Breaking the Codes that describes this movement.