The link information below provides a persistent link to the article you've requested.

Persistent link to this record: Following the link below will bring you to the start of the article or citation.
Cut and Paste: To place article links in an external web document, simply copy and paste the HTML below, starting with "<A HREF"
To continue, in Internet Explorer, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar above. Be sure to save as a plain text file (.txt) or a 'Web Page, HTML only' file (.html). In Netscape, select FILE then SAVE AS from your browser's toolbar
above.

Record: 1
Title: Mixed-use Development: ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking?
Authors: Rowley, Alan
Source: Planning Practice & Research; Feb96, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p85-98, 14p, 2 Diagrams
Document Type: Article
Subject Terms: *MIXED-use developments
*CITIES & towns -- Growth
NAICS/Industry Codes237210 Land Subdivision
Abstract: Discusses the value of mixed land use and development in the creation and maintenance of attractive, livable and sustainable urban environments. Concept; Potential in revitalizing cities and creating sustainable living
patterns; Promotion of urban quality; Attainability.
Full Text Word Count: 6800
ISSN: 02697459
DOI: 10.1080/02697459650036477
Accession Number: 9604011786
Persistent link to this http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ms.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9604011786&site=ehost-live
record (Permalink):
Cut and Paste: <A href="http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ms.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9604011786&site=ehost-live">Mixed-use Development: ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful
thinking?</A>
Database: Academic Search Complete
Notes: This title is not held locally

Section: Review Article

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT: AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT, SIMPLISTIC ANALYSIS AND WISHFUL THINKING?
Introduction
The mixing of urban uses--of living, moving, working--is possible and, increasingly, necessary. This new concept takes as its model the old, traditional life of the European City, stressing density, multiple use, social and cultural diversity.
(Commission of the European Communities, 1990, p. 43)

Too much emphasis has been placed on zoning and segregation of land uses. It derives from the determined neatness of planners and it has nothing to do with the proper growth of a community. (Rt. Hon John Gummer MP, Secretary of
State for the Environment, 1994, p. 9)

Mixed land use and development is being officially promoted as essential to the creation and maintenance of attractive, liveable and sustainable urban environments. Equally, many commentators blame 'planning' for the separation of uses
that characterises the modern city with the implication that a modest change in public policy is all that is required to avoid the problem in future. Such simple-mindedness, particularly from central government, is worrying and clearly
understanding of the issues involved remains limited. The concept of mixed use development is ambiguous. The design and management of some mixed-use schemes mean they offer few of the benefits associated with traditional mixed-use
areas. It is probably easier to conserve existing mixed-use areas than it is to create new developments let alone to significantly restructure parts of modem cities. Mixed-use development should not be seen as an automatic panacea: for
example, it cannot be divorced from cultural priorities and lifestyles.

In short, whilst the potential of mixed-use development in revitalising cities and creating sustainable living patterns has been highlighted, it sometimes seems that nostalgia and propaganda are overtaking research and analysis. This review
article addresses three questions in the context of conditions in Britain, in an attempt to clarify some of the issues: ( 1) what is mixed-use development?; ( 2) how does mixed-use development promote urban quality?; and ( 3) is mixed-use
development achievable?

There can be no sure answers to these questions. The paper is based on a desk study of a range of academic and professional writings about urban design and sustainable development; lifestyles and changing work-patterns; the
development process and the achievements of city builders; and mixed-use development specifically. The paper particularly focuses on the issues and obstacles to achieving mixed-use developments in different settings and situations and it
concludes by reflecting on some of the implications for planning. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Britain's property profession, has funded the extension of this research to include three case studies of existing mixed-use
developments in contrasting situations. The paper was prepared in advance of the case study research which is due to be completed in January 1996.

What is Mixed-use Development?

Mixed-use development is an ambiguous, multi-faceted concept but essentially it is an aspect of the internal texture of settlements (Figure 1)[ 1]. The texture of a settlement is a major determinant of its character and quality and its key features
are grain, density and permeability--derived from the layout of roads, streets and paths. The 'compact city' favoured by the European Commission would have, by definition, a very different internal texture from that of the typical 'modern city'
(CoEC, 1990; European Commission, 1994).

The grain of a settlement refers to the way in which its components--people, activities, land uses, buildings and spaces--are mixed together. Historic towns usually possess a fine or close grain whilst modem cities are criticised for their coarse
grain. Sharpness is another, though less significant, characteristic of grain. Sharp-grained textures have abrupt breaks between one homogeneous area and another; if the transition is gradual, it is said to be blurred (Lynch, 1981, p. 265). In
practice, all three textural features are closely interrelated and they greatly influence the performance of mixed-use development.

Mixed use occurs in different settings. Putting aside the town- or city-wide level since all towns are mixed at this scale--although insufficiently perhaps--the other four settings are: ( 1) within districts or neighbourhoods; ( 2) within the street and
other public spaces; ( 3) within building or street blocks; and ( 4) within individual buildings. Diversity of activities within streets and public spaces is a special situation. It is a product not simply of the mix of activities within the buildings and
blocks that abut a street but also of the design and public use of the street itself. Since it involves considerations beyond the particular focus of this paper, this setting is largely excluded from further discussion. This said, many of the virtues of
mixed-use development, in whatever setting, only exist to the extent that they affect, and are experienced from, the public realm.

There are essentially four types of location where mixed-use settings are found or may be promoted: ( 1) city or town centres comprising the commercial and civic core of towns and cities; ( 2) inner-city areas and on brownland sites
comprising derelict, vacant or built-up land needing regeneration; ( 3) suburban or edge-of-town locations; and ( 4) greenfield locations where planning policy permits.

Finally, there are three basic approaches to maintaining or promoting mixed-use settings: ( 1) conservation of established mixed-use settings; ( 2) gradual revitalisation and incremental restructuring of existing parts of towns, including infill
development and reuse, conversion and refurbishment; and ( 3) comprehensive development or redevelopment of larger areas and sites.

A particular mixed-use development situation is a product of two or more of these variables and issues and opportunities vary in different mixed-use situations.

Activities and land uses differ in terms of the 'comings and goings' that they generate and hence the degree of vitality that they might stimulate. MacCormac writes of the transactional quality of different uses. Some uses have very little direct
effect on public life, whilst others have considerable potential to stimulate social activity. The sense of human presence and involvement experienced in cities depends partly upon this characteristic, one that is largely ignored by planning's
traditional classifications of land use. The extremes are car parking which has little or no significance to the passer-by, and street markets which offer an intense series of transactions between the seller and the public. Supermarkets conceal
their transactions within the building envelope and are difficult to relate to the street; likewise, large offices contribute little whereas small offices and workshops, with windows and doors at street level, afford transactions in a shop-like way
(MacCormac, 1983, p. 59).

Further dimensions of the concept of mixed-use development relate to how property is held and occupied and by whom. Many commentators stress the need for a mix of both residential and commercial tenure. For housing, this means
properties available for owner occupation, rent and shared ownership. With commercial property, it means properties available on both freehold and leasehold together with a variety of licensing arrangements. Interest in who occupies
premises encompasses concern for the needs of all sections of society and business: provision for special needs such as sheltered accommodation for the elderly; for a mix of people with different levels of income and wealth; and for a mix
of commercial activity, for example convenience as well as speciality retailing within a locality.

Finally, there is an important time dimension to mixing activities and land uses. Mixed-use development is commonly interpreted as involving different uses occupying discrete parts of a building, block or area; as a result people come and go
for differing reasons and on varying time-schedules. But sometimes, a particular building or facility is shared by a variety of activities and users on either a regular or an occasional basis: a morning creche may make way for a Darby and Joan
club in the afternoon to be followed by an aerobics class in the evening. Successfully sharing space in this way demands careful management but the benefits include providing for activities which could not financially support the costs of
accommodation on their own, and the obvious enrichment of social life within a community.

Aside from the present day, there is the life or lease cycle of property. The high costs of new commercial buildings, for example, usually mean that only the most profitable organisations can afford to occupy new accommodation. However,
this initial pattern gradually evolves; processes of sub-letting, assignment and sub-division occur, and a richer mix of activities, population and local lifestyles may develop. Changes of use may occur within a building or block, and space may
be adapted and refurbished to suit the new circumstances and opportunities which include occupation by less profitable activities. This process is not just confined to new developments; witness the fluctuating fortunes of London's Covent
Garden or Dublin's Temple Bar through the centuries.
Jane Jacobs is a trenchant and frequently quoted advocate of the virtues of mixed-use development. She defined four 'indispensable' conditions for generating 'exuberant diversity' in a city's streets and districts, asserting that all four were
necessary to create street diversity and that if any one was missing the potential vitality would be undermined. Her preconditions are:

The district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These must ensure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and are in the place
for different purposes, but who are able to use many facilities in common.
Most blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent.
The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield that they produce. This mingling must be fairly close-grained.
There must be a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there. This includes dense concentration in the case of people who are there because of residence. (Jacobs, 1964, pp. 162-163)
Jacobs's analysis and conclusions were rooted in observations of city life and economics in late 1950s America and since then much has changed. It is now even harder to maintain, let alone reproduce the kind of diversity, vitality and general
sense of community she so admired.

How Does Mixed-use Development Promote Urban Quality?

This is a crucial issue in the debate about mixed-uses development: this paper can only sketch the barest outlines and offer a few illustrations. Notions of 'urban quality' vary considerably (Grayson & Young, 1994, pp. ix-xi). There were several
attempts in the 1980s to develop a prescriptive set of principles for guiding and assessing urban designs (Lynch, 1981; Bentley et al., 1985; HRH The Prince of Wales, 1989). Most reflected similar underlying concerns: for the visual,
functional and environmental qualities of places and for the urban experience (Rowley, 1994). Inevitably, these broad considerations overlap and intermingle; they impact on different mixed-use settings in different ways and to different
degrees; and the strength of evidence, as opposed to opinions, about the contribution of mixed development to promoting these contrasting qualities varies considerably.

Places containing a mix of uses tend to have varied buildings and varied architecture and the legibility of districts and of smaller scale environments is promoted. But these qualities can be delightfully achieved by other means whilst the design
of some mixed-use developments has conspicuously failed to deliver visual quality either in isolation or in relation to their surroundings: for example, many mixed-use developments in the USA, and other similar megastructures in Britain and in
continental Europe. Appropriately handled and expressed, mixed uses should help promote 'life between buildings' (Gehl, 1987) but other conditions, such as adequate density, are necessary. Most mixed-use advocates tend to overlook
Jacobs's analysis on this particular issue, opting, for understandable pragmatic reasons, for the kind of 'in between' densities she argued were inconsistent with 'urbanity' because of the economics of generating city diversity[ 2].

The urban experience, as distinct from the suburban or rural experience, is a product of many ingredients including the diversity of people, activities, uses, architecture; the amenities, open spaces and other visual stimuli that cities can offer;
and a rich public life. However, public life itself is far from static but is constantly being reshaped in response to a great many influences (Brill, 1989; Carr et al., 1992). There are negative, as well as positive, aspects of the urban experience
and both impact unevenly, even unjustly, on different groups according to age, race, gender, family circumstances and affluence. Such social-use aspects of urban design have been rather neglected in British urban design practice at the
expense of visual, and possibly in the future, environmental, considerations (Jarvis, 1980). Living 'over the shop' may suit some people, in certain situations and with the right safeguards; others may consider it a quite unsatisfactory
arrangement. Feminists argue that greater integration of uses will, for example, promote greater equality of opportunity and may reduce the real or perceived risk of harassment and assault. The former must, in principle, be so at the
neighbourhood setting; the latter may be true in some settings and under some circumstances. In both instances there are many other factors that may affect the quality of outcome (Franck & Paxon, 1989; Trench et al., 1992; Greed, 1994).

The environmental and ecological dimensions of urban quality are at last receiving attention and a consensus is emerging about the negative impact of several planning and development practices. For example, most agree that the separation
of activities that followed decentralisation needs to be reduced; and that higher densities are likely to reduce energy consumption. Conversely, there is continuing disagreement over the relative sustainability of different forms of urban
development, in particular, the advantages of the 'compact city' as opposed to free-standing settlements (Breheny et al., 1992, 1993). Thus, few people dispute that in citywide and neighbourhood settings, mixed-use development can promote
the objectives of sustainability although some compromises are unavoidable if other correlated textural issues, such as the acceptability of increased densities, are considered. In contrast, the case for mixed uses in the small-scale settings of
buildings and building blocks, on grounds of sustainability alone, is thinly developed and may prove to be very finely balanced when all factors are considered and properly understood.

Is Mixed Use Development Achievable?

Pre-industrial cities are, in many ways, models of conservation and material frugality, demanding far less of the environment in terms of land and energy consumption than modern cities. But they were built to fit a very different set of
requirements even though they have proved remarkably resilient in the face of changing needs and values. Planners cannot hope simply to turn the clock back, and expect to retain widespread popular support and market appeal for new
developments which emulate the kinds of conditions and densities involved.

Planners tend to underestimate the significance of the development process in translating needs, values and visions into bricks and mortar. The processes of city building are initiated and carried out by three main sets of interests: ( 1) profit-
seeking private developers and investors; ( 2) public authorities; and ( 3) 'voluntary' organisations, groups and individuals (Ambrose, 1994 p. 37). The motives of these parties are varied and frequently contradictory, calling for balance and
compromise. As the American urban designer, Jonathan Barnett, observed:

Today's city is not an accident. Its form is usually unintentional, but it is not accidental. It is the product of decisions made for single, separate purposes, whose interrelationships and side effects have not been fully considered. The design of
cities has been determined by engineers, surveyors, lawyers, and investors, each making individual, rational decisions for rational reasons . . . . (Barnett, 1982. p. 9)

The development process in Britain is dominated by the private sector and so the prospects of achieving more mixed-use development depend largely on that sector's--landowners, developers, investors and occupiers--attitudes, priorities and
ways of working; and on the operation of the different markets that affect it--finance and investment, construction, and land and property.[ 3]

The development process is complex and inadequately understood. At a recent count there were some seventeen different models of the process all attempting to explain how it works and the influences upon it (Gore & Nicholson, 1991;
Healey, 1991, 1992; Adams, 1994). The event-sequence model devised by Barrett et al. (1978) is a good example of its kind. The different activities involved in development are presented in the form of a pipeline and are subject to many
external influences (Figure 2). An alternative group of models is concerned with structure and agency in the development process. Of this type, that produced by Healey & Barrett is particularly illuminating. They argue that property
development occurs within a three-part framework comprising: ( 1) the resources for development, derived from both the private and public sectors and the economy generally; ( 2) the politico-juridical rules which limit the construction of
development opportunities; and ( 3) the cultural ideas and values that people hold about what they should build, what they should occupy and what kind of environment they should seek. This three-part framework is continuously influencing, and
being influenced by, the behaviour of all the different agencies involved in the development process--providers, occupiers and regulators (Healey & Barrett, 1990).

Such insights into the structure and operation of the development process suggest some issues and pointers concerning the achievability of mixed-use development.

Does Mixed-use Development Reflect People's Wishes and Lifestyles?

One of the troubles with suburbs is that they are so popular and, generally, city living does not get a good press. Despite the efforts of those celebrating the compact European city, a very great number of people want to move away as soon
as they can afford to do so. As Grayson & Young observe:

Urban life rests on a paradox. People congregate in cities in response to the opportunities they offer and, in doing so, encounter experiences which at the same time repel them. (1994,p. 3)

A preference for city centre living is a minority taste although changing social structure might encourage a modest increase in the number of people who choose to live there, at least for part of their lives: students and other young people for
example. Some commentators are trying to teach us how to see and enjoy the urban experience (Rabin, 1975; Sherlock, 1990; Rogers, 1995) but most people seem to prefer to sample occasionally rather than dwell permanently. In part, this
may be because people realise that it is only a few enclaves of cities which can be celebrated, and they cannot afford to live in these select locations! Most people, particularly those with families, choose a house with a garden; they want
peace and quiet as well as a degree of privacy, some measure of social as well as physical segregation (for example, few would choose to live over a cafe or next to a workshop) and convenient schools and other community facilities. An
increasing number of people may want a sense of being in touch with nature.

All-round affordability, including travel costs, is a key factor affecting people's choices of home environment. For many urban dwellers, the city is currently a location of necessity rather than choice; but others might prefer urban living if only
they could afford the quality they seek. Housing in Britain is a symbol of social status and until recently ownership was seen as a certain investment. It may be that the dominant preference for owner occupation is neither cultural nor inevitable
but is a response to the existing housing stock, the access to it, management practices, and the financial and policy context (Forrest & Murie, quoted in Grayson & Young, 1994, p. 73; also DoE, 1994, p. 47) This view opens up the prospect
of changes that might increase the appeal of some forms of mixed-use development and studies like the 21st Century Homes research, supported by The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, provide an indication of the possible directions of
change (Rudlin & Falk, 1995). However, when it comes to owner occupation, house buyers are notoriously conservative and the probability is that the homes of tomorrow will look much like what is available today. Analysts point to a flattening
out of owner occupation, at its present 68% level in England; however, aspirations of home ownership remain high--at around 80% (DoE, 1995, p. 12).

Social networks are only partially based on the home locality. They are dependent on a high degree of personal mobility, and are likely to remain so. This challenges over-sentimentalised notions of a return to close-knit, face-to-face
communities. Convenience, choice and price are the factors which mainly determine where people do their weekly shop--in supermarkets rather than in corner shops.

There are an increasing number of papers and studies concerned with the impact of information and communications technology on buildings, places, lifestyles and the future of work generally (Gershuny et al., 1987; Hillman, 1990, 1993). A
more educated population faced with increasing travelling costs may become unwilling to accept commuting. Some may demand more flexibility in terms of how and where they work; there is an increasing need to combine parenting with
working for instance. Conversely, businesses are demanding more of their employees to enable them to respond to fast-changing markets. It is right to attempt to provide opportunities for people to work close to home but it would be very
naive to imagine that the majority will find or choose employment locally. Hillman concluded:

Working from home is . . . not new and the continuation of work traditionally based in the home [is] unlikely to cause much change in the urban . . . fabric. The potential stems from the changing structure of much of business, including new
forms of subcontracting, and the wish to achieve savings in property overheads . . . . Telecottages and inner city electronic village halls may play a small part but commercially oriented telecentres could be more important in providing work
places nearer the home. (1993,p. 2)

Indeed, Gillespie argues that present trends will work against the concept of the compact city (Hillman, 1993, p. 41).

Is Mixed-use Development Responsive to Nonresidential Occupiers' Concerns?

Corporate organisations of all kinds and for all manner of purposes have undergone significant changes in the past decade and the process is continuing. The success of organisations rests on how they manage their resources. Traditionally
these were seen as capital, people, technology and information. Increasingly, property --land, buildings and work environments--is emerging as a critical fifth resource (Joroff et al., 1993). How such enterprises view property will affect the
prospects for mixed-use development. Trends in office design, occupation and development provide an illustration of this. One study highlights the wish for more locational freedom and more natural environments, and predicts that many staff
will choose to live and work in non-urban locations (Duffy et al., 1993). Some commentators now even use the term 'the virtual office' (Joroff et al., 1993).

Trends like these are not consistent with the notion of the compact European city. Instead they point to reduced demand for office space in town centres as commerce ebbs away, although possibly with more people utilising the space over
time; to an appreciation of vitality and diversity within such centres but not at the expense of concern for control, security, accessibility, image and costs of use--which in practice usually means reservations about mixing uses within a single
building but its acceptance within a building block or as part of a properly managed development project; and to continuing pressures for decentralisation and dispersal and for secure, relatively low-density development.

Historically, town centres have accommodated the majority of corporate organisations and, as a result, have afforded the greatest mix functions including shopping and business; civic administration; the arts, culture and entertainment;
education and health. They have also been a place of residence and a general meeting place. This traditional role and diversity of the centre has been progressively undermined, particularly over the past 20 years, by a number of pressures
and trends.[ 4] Now the future vitality and viability of the town centre itself is a matter of public concern and priority (URBED, 1994). With goodwill, the right policies and significant effort and investment, many town centres may be able stem
their relative decline and maintain, possibly even enhance, their diversity. But given the propensities of most corporate organisations, including the increased awareness of the 'use value' of the property that they occupy, there is little prospect
of creating a genuine and vibrant mixture of activities and uses elsewhere. In some existing mixed-use situations, both within and outside town centres, planners experience considerable difficulty in resisting market pressures to convert local
convenience shopping to more specialist, 'up-market', retailing; on other occasions, it is hard to maintain the balance between commercial and residential.

Does Mixed-use Development Match Developers' and Investors' Requirements?

Developers and investors desire maximum value, at minimum risk and at maximum convenience to themselves. Traditionally, developers and investors have been preoccupied with the 'exchange value' of development. The complexities and
risks of property development have led developers and the property market generally to become increasingly specialised. This is not simply as between residential and commercial but within the commercial sector. Different companies
specialise in business or retail parks; and in shops or offices. Property advisers also specialise. Similarly, the investment market is divided into sub-markets, and investors not only take a view on the proportion of funds to be invested in
property but also on the percentage relative to different sectors. All these trends work against mixed-use development.

Property developers are criticised for their tendency to 'short-termism' and 'single-mindedness' (Rogers, 1995). However, existing mixed-use property is perceived to have a number of significant drawbacks as an investment. These include: (
1) the sites are often in secondary locations or worse; ( 2) the schemes are too small; ( 3) they are tenanted by small businesses who are not regarded as good covenants; ( 4) multiple tenancies involve higher management costs; ( 5)
mixed-use buildings are regarded as less flexible than single-use ones; (6) residential space imposes constraints on what can be done at a future date which, in turn, inhibits the capital growth of the investment; and (7) there is no proven
development mechanism providing a track record for this type of development (Bennett, 1978).

With new developments, it is not that mixed-use schemes necessarily fail to show a return (although they may, in which case financial incentives from government may be crucial in bridging the gap); rather that they do not show the best return.
Like existing mixed-use property, several factors are said to work against new mixed developments. These include: ( 1) concern, particularly within larger-scale developments, about the impact of and additional costs for separate stairs and
lifts, for example, for housing over shops; ( 2) fire regulations have become even more stringent; ( 3) major companies want buildings which enhance their image and are concerned that some tenants might work against this; ( 4) leases tend to
be of different lengths as between residential and business occupiers; refurbishment or renewal may be necessary after different time periods; ( 5) with buildings let to tenants with different quality covenants, the poorer quality covenant
depresses the value of the better; and (6) institutions and other investors like a 'clean and tidy deal' which means that they do not want to invest in schemes which may be less attractive to future purchasers (Hillman, 1992; Sim, 1994). In short,
mixed-use properties are perceived by investors to be less attractive than single-use ones and, as a result, attract a higher yield and realise a lower exchange value. The fact the market for mixed-use property is smaller than for single-use
investments only reinforces the discounting that such developments attract. Investors can usually pick and choose from a selection of alternative, more or less complex and apparently risky projects. Within limits, they can even choose not to
invest in property at all. Confronted by such reservations about mixed-use development, it is easy to understand why planning authorities and others have to work so hard both to conserve existing areas of mixed-use buildings and to promote
new mixed developments; this is so even in city centres where land and rental values are highest and the urbanistic advantages of diversity and integration are most obvious.

It is possible that this generally negative approach by developers and investors towards mixed-use development is a peculiarly British phenomenon and is a reflection of a number of distinct features of the financial and property markets and
of the development industry, including the dominant role of speculative commercial development; the restrictive practices of the banks, building societies and institutional investors; property tenure conventions; and ignorance, unfamiliarity or
sheer prejudice! Certainly mixed-use development is more widely accepted in North America.[ 5] This said, many mixed-use developments in North America have been on a monolithic and monumental scale and are certainly a far cry from the
models found in traditional European cities. Such schemes have given rise to considerable criticism from some commentators. Blatman writes of the:

. . . controlled, enclosed developments . . . [and the] . . . sterile and sanitised environments devoid of the energy and vitality of the real city that they try to imitate. (1983,p. 45)

In places, there have been community protests against MXD developments (Feagin & Parker, 1990, p. 123).

Some Conclusions and Implications for Planning

Mixed-use development can promote urban quality, making settlements more attractive, liveable, memorable and sustainable; but we need to be clear about the kind of settings and situations in which such objectives are best realised. Equally,
mixed-use development is not an automatic panacea and there are obstacles to promoting and maintaining more integrated environments.

Planners and urban designers are included to make ill-founded assumptions about some key aspects of their work including ( 1) the links between the physical environment and the social and economic processes, and ( 2) their influence over
the resources devoted to city building. Models of the development process highlight the extent to which people and factors outside planners' immediate sphere of influence condition what is built and its quality. If the vision of mixed-use
developments and communities is to become a reality, the necessary resources have to be so directed both through market processes and public fiscal policy--incentives, subsidies and taxes. This will only happen if the framework of cultural
ideas and values, within which development operates, has fundamentally changed. Planning policy is only one piece of the jigsaw.

As matters now stand, it is possibly simpler to conserve existing mixed-use settings than to create new ones. Equally, if problems such as land acquisition and contamination can be overcome, it may ultimately be easier to develop new
mixed-use neighbourhoods on inner-city brownland sites than in suburban and greenfield locations; prospective occupiers will probably be more willing to accept the conditions, including higher densities, needed to begin to create and sustain
diversity and vitality close to the centre rather than on the edge of towns and cities; and where there is demand, some developers and investors will follow. So far, however, there is little that distinguishes most new 'urban villages' on recycled
inner-city sites from their suburban counterparts judged in terms of housing forms, densities and diversity of uses. In short, if people are to voluntarily accept mixed-use development as a norm rather than as an exception, they will need to be
educated and converted; not just developers and investors, but users, occupiers and purchasers. In a market economy, this means that mixed-use development must be made more desirable, affordable and profitable than the available
alternatives. If, in any particular setting or situation, this is not the case, then mixed-use development will not happen. Moreover, since new building adds only about 2% to the stock of accommodation each year, change will only occur very
gradually.

Personally, I doubt whether this degree of consensus can be achieved in Britain. If I am right, then we must treasure mixed-use diversity wherever we find it; we must seek to strengthen and extend the influence of such areas; and we must grab
any opportunities to create exemplars of mixed-use developments, to test and to educate. This includes encouraging any enlightened patrons who are willing to take the necessary long-term view and who are able to write off a proportion of
the value of their land in pursuit of a personal vision; even then, it remains to be seen whether an authentic and worthwhile mixture of uses results. In the meantime, I worry that precisely because of the ambiguity of the term mixed-use
development, it will rapidly degenerate into just another marketing slogan for a product that is a very pale imitation of the genuine article: this process has already started.

Notes
1. I wish to acknowledge Joe Doak's valuable contribution to the design of this model.

2. Jacobs concluded that the threshold for vitality started at 100 dwellings per acre (251)dwlgs/ha). She thought that as a general rule this was too low, citing Greenwich Village where densities range from 125-200 dwellings per acre (312500
dwlgs/ha). She described a density of 100 persons per acre (250 persons/ha) as an 'in between' density and asserted that: 'Urbanity and "in between" densities like this can be combined only theoretically; they are incompatible because of
the economics of generating city diversity' (Jacobs, 1964, p. 221-225).

3. There are four forms of development: (1) profit-seeking development--as investment; (2) profit-seeking development--for sale; (3) non-profit-seeking development--statutory; and (4) non-profit-seeking development--voluntary.
Development for investment purposes is mainly concerned with the production of commercial buildings: offices, shops, industrial and warehouse premises and leisure-related properties. The development of residential property for rent is
rare. In contrast, profit-directed development for sale is predominantly for residential purposes with some 70% of homes in the UK now being owner occupied. Housing was also the predominant emphasis of non-profit-seeking development
in fulfilment of some statutory responsibility, but the Thatcher years changed this; this sector includes education-, health- and culture-related developments. Housing for rent, new and refurbished, is the main preoccupation of the voluntary
sector: the agencies involved are neither public nor private but they are highly reliant on both sectors, not least in funding their developments (Ambrose, 1994). In 1989, immediately before the recession, 80% of all new construction orders
by cost, excluding infrastructure, were in the private sector and were for profit-related developments: the equivalent proportion in 1993 was 68% (Central Statistical Office (1993) Monthly, Digest of Statistics, (588, December). This fall
reflects the inevitable reduction in the level of private development activity rather than a more fundamental change of policy.

4. These include the dispersal of population and employment; increased car use and the move towards the 'self-service' economy, most notably in convenience retailing; more relaxed planning policies; and changing patterns in property
investment and development, in part as a response to the demands of occupiers. In retailing, for instance, the number of shops has nearly halved since 1950 although the amount of floor space has increased by 30% in 20 years. Retailing
is now dominated by a few dozen multiple traders and the leading supermarket operators are now developing to compete for market share rather than to meet unsatisfied need. Against this background, it will be hard to sustain the present
level of local shopping provision yet alone increase it.

5. This is evidenced by the number of schemes that have been completed over the past 20 years. Here, there is a much more interest in the synergy that a mix of uses--retailing, offices, residential, leisure, recreation and extensive car
parking--within a scheme can stimulate, to the overall financial benefit of the entire project. The Urban Land Institute lists the advantages of what they define as MXD (in practice, a special type of our mixed-use development) as including:
(1) higher densities; more rapid realisation of site potential; (2) a means of product differentiation; a means of sharing the costs of infrastructure; (3) superior performance in terms of rents and values as compared with single-use
developments; (4) the economies of scale; and, (5) a means of achieving greater long-term appreciation in land and property values both within the project itself and in the surrounding area although whether the latter will prove to be true
given the problems of ageing, inflexibility and built-in obsolescence remains to be seen (Schwanke, 1987, Feagin & Parker, 1990, p. 123).

References
Adams, D. (1994) Urban Planning and the Development Process (London, UCL Press).

Ambrose, P. (1994) Urban Process and Power (London, Routledge).

Barnett, J. (1982) An Introduction to Urban Design (New York, Harper & Row).

Barrett, S., Stewart, J. & Underwood, J. (1978) The Land Market and the Development Process, Occasional Paper 2, School of Advanced Urban Studies (Bristol, University of Bristol).

Bennett, M. (1978) Mixed use development in the inner city, Estates Gazette, 245, 18 March, pp. 920-923.

Bentley, I. (1990) Urban design 3, ecological urban design, Architects Journal (24 October), pp. 6971.
Bentley, I., Alcock, A. et al. (1985) Responsive Environments (London, Architectural Press).

Blatman, R. (1983) The misuse of mixed use centers, Real Estate Review (Summer), pp. 93-96.

Breheny, M. et al. (1992) The compact city, Built Environment, 18( 4).

Breheny, M, Gent, T. & Lock, D. (1993) Alternative Development Patterns: new settlements (London, HMSO).

Brill, M. (1989) Transformations, nostalgia, and illusion in public life and public space, in: I. Altman & E. Zube, Public Places and Spaces (New York, Plenum Press).

Carr, S., Francis, M. et al. (1992) Public Space (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Commission of the European Communities (1990) Green Paper on the Urban Environment (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).

Department of the Environment (1994) Housing Attitudes Survey (London, HMSO).

Department of the Environment (1995) Our Future Homes: opportunity, choice and responsibility (London, HMSO).

Duffy, F., Laing, A. & Crisp, V. (1993) The Responsible Workplace: the redesign of work and offices (London, Butterworth/Estates Gazette).

European Commission (1994) City and Environment (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).

Feagin, J. & Parker, R. (1990) Building American Cities: the urban real estate game (New Jersey, Prentice-Hall).

Franck, K. & Paxon, K. (1989) Women and urban public space, in: I. Altman and E. Zube, Public Places and Spaces (New York, Plenum Press).

Gehl, J. (1987) Life Between Buildings: using public space (New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold).

Gershuny, J. et al. (1987) Reinventing the place of work: three lectures, Royal Society of Arts Journal, cxxxv (5371) pp. 492-525.

Gore, T. & Nicholson, D. (1991) Models of the land-development process: a critical review, Environment and Planning A, 23, pp. 705-730.

Grayson, L. & Young, K. (1994) Quality of Life in Cities: an overview and guide to the literature (London, British Library).

Greed, C. (1994) Women and Planning: creating gendered realities (London, Routledge).

Gummer, Rt. Hon J. (1994) More quality in town and country, Environment News Release (London, DOE).

Healey, P. (1991) Models of the development process: a review, Journal of Property Research, 8, pp. 219-238.

Healey, P. (1992) An institutional model of the development process. Journal of Property Research, 9, pp. 33-44.

Healey, P. & Barrett, S. (1990) Structure and agency in land and property development processes: some ideas for research, Urban Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1 pp. 89-104.

Hillman, J. (1990) Revolution or Evolution: the impact of information and communications technology on buildings and places (London, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors).

Hillman, J. (1992) Integrated land use, in: Living Cities (London, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors).

Hillman, J. (1993) Telelifestyles and the Flexicity: a European study (Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions).

HRH The Prince of Wales (1989) A Vision of Britain: a personal view (London, Doubleday).

Jacobs, J. (1964) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Harmondsworth, Penguin).

Jarvis, R. (1980) Urban environments as visual art or social setting, Town Planning Review, 151 (January), pp. 50-66.

Joroff, M., Louargand, M. et al. (1993) Strategic Management of the Fifth Resource: corporate real estate (USA, Industrial Development Research Foundation).

Lynch, K. (1981) A Theory of Good City Form (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).

MacCormac, R. (1983) Urban reform: MacCormac's manifesto, Architects Journal (15 June), pp. 5977.

Rabin, J. (1975) Soft City (Glasgow, Collins). Rogers, Sir R. (1995) Reith Lecture 1, BBC Radio 4, Sunday 12 February.

Rowley, A. (1994) Definitions of urban design, Planning Practice and Research, 9,( 3) pp. 179197.

Rudlin, D. & Falk, N. (1995) Building to Last (London, URBED).

Schwanke, D. et al. (1987) Mixed Use Development Handbook, 2nd edn (Washington, DC, Urban Land Institute).

Sherlock, H. (1990) Cities are Good for Us: the case for high densities, friendly streets, local shops and public transport (London, Transport 2000).

Sim, P. (1994) Mixed use development, paper presented to the Joint Planning Law Conference, Oxford, 17 September.

Trench, S. et al. (1992) Safer cities for women: perceived risks and planning measures, Town Planning Review, 63 ( 3), pp. 279-296.

URBED (1994) Vital and Viable Town Centres: meeting the challenge (London, HMSO).

~~~~~~~~
By ALAN ROWLEY

Alan Rowley, Dept of Land Management, University' of Reading, PO Box 219, Reading RG6 2A W, UK. Tel: + 44 (0)1734 318171. Fax: + 44 (0)1734 318172. Email: a.r. rowley@reading. ac. uk

Copyright of Planning Practice & Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.