Asking the right question about urban infill (hint: it’s about equity)

This is an improvement (though with an important caveat I'll address at the end).

For one thing, these expensive townhomes on Atlanta’s Edgewood Avenue are replacing a disused property; but the main improvement is the more-compact format in which we’re accommodating an inevitable influx of wealthy people to our neighborhoods.

Rich folks want to live near Atlanta's growth in amenities and jobs. That's something we can't control (unless we stop adding amenities and jobs, which we won't).

What we can control is where they live. 10-15 years ago, this influx largely took the form of oversized infill of detached homes: a small bungalow gets torn down and replaced with a giant single-family McMansion.

What's happening in this photo is a better outcome. The physical footprint of these homes is much smaller than that of luxurious detached homes, saving space and also encouraging walking trips.

The question we should ask is not "why are all these million dollar townhomes being built" -- because, obviously, Atlanta neighborhoods are wonderful and are becoming increasingly attractive to people of all kinds, including the rich.

The right question is: why aren’t we *also* building a larger number of homes for middle income and lower income people in walkable places like this. Saying "let them live in less desirable places that become naturally affordable" isn’t good enough. The walkable revolution has to be equitably accessible by all, or it’s a failure.

Allowing only the rich to take part in the redesign of cities, as we build more pedestrian/bike-friendly places, is not the 'win' that urbanism advocates should want. It’s certainly not what I want. Not if it means that lower-income folks will largely live in places that are hostile to walking, ill-served by safe alternatives to driving, and far from jobs.

We’ve made an improvement for the way we house the wealthy. Now let’s go further and include everyone else.