Northfield.org editor Anne Bretts confronted me on the ISSUES list regarding my extremely undiplomatic comment about certain new residential developments around town. Someday I’ll have to demonstrate that I can actually be tactful, but that doesn’t make for very interesting reading, and if we didn’t have interesting reading, readership would fall off, sponsors would lose interest, and we couldn’t continue to build Northfield.org into the terrific resource it’s become. So really, Anne, I’m helping! And I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position.

Most of the examples in your post have to do with architectural design features, and that’s not really a big concern of mine (except in the historic district). I personally don’t like the building trend for big-ass garages right in front of the house, but as you say, that’s personal taste. My real concern is with urban design and urban planning, which have to do with how buildings relate to each other and how they relate to the street, how they fit in with existing buildings, and most importantly, how they relate to the people who live there.

Northfield simply has not done a very good job of self-determination when it comes to directing or shaping (a/k/a planning) the growth of the community. Growth is a good thing, and I’m in no way opposed to it. I also don’t object to new construction. But as you’ve probably noticed, I have a big issue with what many of the developers are building in Northfield. As a group they are, shall we say, not the most creative and imaginative bunch, and contrary to their claims, they really aren’t interested in providing choice, either residential or commercial. They predetermine the choices available based on their understanding of what “the market” wants, which basically means, whatever they were able to sell on their last project up in Maplewood or wherever. There are developers and builders who are exceptions, but unfortunately there aren’t enough of them around here. (As an aside - one of my suggestions to the EDA is to look regionally and nationally for cutting-edge creative developers as a target industry for Northfield.)

This is where planning comes in. Some people think that planning itself is bad, because it’s “the government” telling people what they can or can’t do with their own property. But when it comes down to a local level, where the idea of government by the people for the people actually has a chance to work, planning is more akin to organization, like arranging your furniture or landscaping your yard – just on a slightly larger scale.

So the questions being asked shouldn’t be simplistic ones like “Should we build new houses?” or “Do we want a multiplex movie theater?” The real questions are along the lines of,

How much land do we have available for new development? Where is it?

What is the ideal balance between residential and non-residential development, what are the tax and cost implications of each, and how should that impact land use planning?

Where is the best place for new developments of varying types?

How should these things relate to and connect with the existing community?

To sum up, I’m not anti-growth. Growth, like change, is inevitable. Nor am I trying to keep Northfield in some idealized time in the past. But how things grow is a concern to me, and I’d much prefer the measured, incremental growth exhibited by a child than the growth demonstrated by a cancer cell. Which is part of the reason why I’d like to see our ordinances dictate a little more about how things are done here, so that we can plan and grow in healthy, effective, efficient and sustainable ways for the benefit of both current and future residents.