Habitat of the motorist

September 22, 2006

Historic downtowns in the United States did not cease to function as commercial centers because there was insufficient room for commercial growth.

Prior to the automobile, businesses would construct taller buildings in the downtown and expand parcel-by-parcel into adjacent residential areas rather than dispersing blocks or miles away. Why? Proximity to other businesses was essential so that patrons would not have far to walk. But once automobile use surpassed a critical threshold, it catalyzed a chain of events that followed the same script in nearly every village and small city in the United States.

A one-story slab-on-grade “anchor” store (usually but not always a supermarket) would be built on a large parcel at the edge of town, often just beyond taxing authority of the city or village. Unlike the downtown, this new site would offer seemingly limitless off-street parking capacity – sometimes more than ALL the on-street stalls in the nearest downtown commercial district. To minimize costs, the building would be constructed as cheaply as possible, without sidewalks, landscaping, or other downtown amenities.

Driving customers would “naturally” flock to this newest, most modern store. Soon thereafter, the downtown anchor store would close. One by one, the five & dime, hardware store, and other basic goods merchants would close or flee downtown as well. Meanwhile the remaining downtown specialty and service businesses were hit with a double whammy: (1) far fewer people were coming downtown, and (2) parking had suddenly become “inconvenient”.

Why inconvenient? People who formerly walked or bicycled downtown, and people who formerly drove downtown but parked in one place, had adopted the lifestyle of driving between EVERY ONE of their destinations. Ultimately, many residents in or near the imploding downtown were “forced” to drive to suburban and exurban locales for their day-to-day needs as well. Thus the motorist did destroy not merely the historic downtown, but also the habitat of the pedestrian.

In summary, the #1 reason our downtowns failed as commercial centers was because downtown density was too high for motorists. Drivers demand broad highways and streets, turn lanes, access roads, and plenty of free off-street parking. A pre-automobile downtown would have to be completely razed to compete with the highway commercial strip.

We must not be confused by the kind of “revitalization” one now sees in many of our historic downtowns – they do not change the practical fundamentals. Having an espresso shop, fern bar, and “upscale” gift shop within a block or two of each other is not the same as being able to bank, visit the barber or beauty salon, go to the doctor, eat lunch, and buy shoes, clothing, groceries, baked goods, pharmaceuticals, hardware, furniture, and school supplies without walking more than two or three blocks. In 1965 this was possible in my hometown of 1,200.

Bifurcation is at work here. The preferred habitat of the motorist is intrinsically a terrible habitat for the pedestrian, while the viable habitat of the pedestrian is, relative to suburban norms, a highly inconvenient habitat for the motorist. Places truly congenial for both are a spatial impossibility. In most small and medium-sized communities in the United States, attempts to create something “in-between” almost always fail to generate and support significant non-motorist activity. Consequently, the dissatisfied motorist dominates by default, or he completely abandons the locale for more convenient parking elsewhere.


Hans Noeldner is a Trustee of the Village of Oregon, Wisconsin.

DISCLAIMER: The views herein do not necessarily represent those of the Board of Trustees in the Village of Oregon, Wisconsin.


Tags: Buildings, Transportation, Urban Design