The idealized neighborhood of the “Leave It To Beaver” era was one composed primarily of single-family houses creating a safe haven in which residents could live, play, and enjoy the necessities and niceties of life. Although that scene still dots the landscapes in some parts of Texas, in many other areas, neighborhoods are quite different, particularly those in the inner city.
A significant portion of the wide-open environment that formed the centerpiece of the Texas mystique during the 19th century and much of the 20th century has morphed from countryside settings to urbanized landscapes. Since World War II, Texans have been leaving the farm and heading for the city.
For the first time in Texas history, the 1950 census reported that more Texans lived in urban areas than in the country. Today, 8 out of every 10 people reside in metropolitan statistical areas. These metros represent 58 of the state’s 254 counties.
In recent years, numerous cities in the Lone Star State which have faced expanding populations—the product of migration as well as natural increase—have moved outward, creating what is sometimes called “urban sprawl.” This march to the suburbs near the edge of the city has been devastating to scores of downtown areas and inner-city neighborhoods.
Many economic development leaders have recognized the value of reclaiming these vacated or underused properties and buildings. As a result, they are striving to create new mixed-use environments for these neighborhoods that will preserve open spaces, restore the integrity of the infrastructure, and provide options for family residences. Redeveloping various blighted and abandoned areas and designing new structures reflecting the architectural character of the neighborhood is vital to the process of restoring the economic and social fabric of the areas.
Redesigning these areas in a manner offering open spaces and a mix of activities within walking distances is a smart idea. Engaging current residents in the planning and development of dwellings as well as recreational, civic, and business activities is also extremely wise. Changes such as these will enable inner-city neighborhoods to become more livable and help revitalize downtown cores, thus establishing an ongoing process to create and promote socio-economic equity.
To achieve such objectives, some cities may have to change or relax local regulations that do not support infill and redevelopment. Incentives might even become necessary. Developers and entrepreneurs may have to forego traditional concepts regarding marketability and embrace new approaches. Residents of the affected neighborhoods may also have to re-evaluate the value of commercial operations within their midst and understand the advantages and disadvantages such facilities could be to their routines and lifestyles.
To facilitate rehabilitation in inner-city neighborhoods, some financial institutions may even have to rethink or redraft policies regarding ways to assist property owners in these areas. Redevelopment and restoration of urban areas requires a variety of public and private partnerships and involves visionary and daring community and industry leaders. The results of such relationships could prove well worth the effort, however, and could foster diverse and thriving local economies that could enhance a city’s tax base.
I applaud those communities currently engaged in such processes and encourage others to consider initiatives that could change hundreds of lives for the better while also proving highly beneficial to an area’s economic growth and development.