THERE IS A DEBATE among local historians regarding when the City of Alexandria was founded. After receiving a land grant from the Spanish in 1785, Alexander Fulton built the first settlement in what is now Alexandria, but the first plans for the City were drawn up 20 years later, in 1805, by Fulton and his business partner Thomas Harris Maddox. However, nearly sixty years later, when Union forces burned Alexandria to the ground, most of the city’s original records were destroyed. This year, Alexandria is celebrating its bicentennial, but many have argued this historic anniversary actually occurred in 2005, two hundred years after Fulton and Maddox laid out plans for the city.
Regardless of what side of this “heated debate” you are on, there is a lesson to be learned about the early history of Alexandria: the City was built in accordance with a detailed original master plan.
Indeed, many American cities were planned with the same foresight as Alexandria had been. But if you were to look at the original master plan and compare it with a map of present-day Alexandria, you’ll probably have some difficulty understanding how and why the city grew and developed the way it did.
Most obviously, when Alexandria was planned in 1805, the automobile had not yet been invented, and rail transport was still an emerging technology, hardly a consideration in the planning process.
The Automobile:
With the advent of the automobile and the proliferation of rail transit, the shape of Alexandria began to change. For a few decades in the beginning of the 20th century, Alexandria was home to an extensive streetcar system, which connected parts of Downtown Alexandria to “West Alexandria.” Like other cities, the development of Alexandria was also affected by our streetcar system; the streetcar spurred development along Bolton Avenue and helped form the character of some of Alexandria’s oldest tradtional neighborhoods, like the Garden District.
By the time the streetcar system was pulled and the rails were donated or sold as scrap metal, ostensibly for World War II, Americans had begun to reconceive of city planning due to advances in the automobile industry. The sudden affordability and ubiquity of the automobile promised opportunities for people to relocate out of the city core and into more spacious and affordable suburban areas.
The residential development of the next sixty years (1940-2000) was constructed around the automobile. Little attention was given to pedestrian or bicycle traffic, and again, like many places throughout the country, Alexandria sought to develop its economy by attracting large-scale highway and Interstate projects. Arguably, these projects have shaped and influenced the development of Alexandria more than any other single factor, including the Red River.
No one denies the necessity of these projects. They were a symptom of the national development paradigm at the time, and in many cases, they have achieved tremendous success, linking Alexandria to all corners of the State and securing its role as the “crossroads” or “heart” of Louisiana.
At the same time, however, the nation and the state’s massive investments in highway infrastructure had some unintended consequences. Just as no one could have predicted the advent of the automobile when Alexander Fulton and Thomas Harris Maddox drew out the city’s original master plan, no one could have predicted that the construction of infrastructure to accommodate the automobile would result in dramatic shifts in development, many of which we are still attempting to understand.
Put simply, this infrastructure resulted in an incredible expansion of the Alexandria city limits, nearly tripling the geographical size of Alexandria. While this may sound like good news to some, there is a problem. Alexandria may have tripled in size, but our population remained stagnant. (This is a point Mayor Roy likes to bring up often). It may seem hard to believe, but unfortunately, it’s true; our city limits and our city service area kept expanding, and our population remained the same.
Moreover, because “sprawl” residential developments, by their very nature, were designed around the automobile, it became increasingly difficult to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Instead of relying on a comprehensive and efficient streetcar system, as we once had, the City now relies on a fleet of buses to serve its public transportation needs.
As discussed in a previous article, the construction of Interstate 49 also had dramatic effects on the value and the viability of Alexandria’s Downtown and inner core. Some have argued that the construction of I-49 resulted in the destruction of 90% of Downtown Alexandria’s historical properties, and it is readily apparent that I-49 also caused staggering drops in property value in a handful of Alexandria’s historic, inner-core neighborhoods.
Today, the most valuable residential land in the Alexandria City Limits is either in the newly-developed Lakes District or in the upscale subdivisions of Landmark and Tennyson Oaks, all of whom are located several miles away from the city’s inner core and all of whom can be considered “sprawl” subdivisions. Although the Lakes District is still prohibitively expensive for most working-class families, the developers have thankfully included many of the elements of traditional neighborhoods, elements we now consider to be a part of the recently-popular Planned Urban Development model. Planned Urban Developments, like the Lakes District, encourage mixed-use opportunities (there are commercial buildings, an apartment complex, a condominium complex, and a newly-announced library), walkability, and open green space. Recent studies indicate that this is the type of neighborhood in which most people prefer to live, which probably explains, at least in part, the massive construction boom in the Lakes District. Some have even looked at this development and proclaimed the birth of a new “Downtown.”
Although the Lakes District is not a new Downtown, it does demonstrate the attractiveness and the successes of Planned Urban Developments. Unfortunately, however, the Lakes is still a few miles away from Alexandria’s inner core and the site of our original development.
Recently, I had a conversation with a town manager from a small yet incredibly succcessful planned community in Florida. Coincidentally, this man happened to be very familiar with Alexandria. He spent a few years in Fort Polk, and he took his future wife on their first date at the now-defunct Cotton Gin. His advice was simple and to the point. He said that when the very first people settled in Alexandria, they did not chose Alexandria because of its airport (obviously) or its highway system (obviously). They chose Alexandria for one reason: the Red River. In order to figure out how to plan for Alexandria’s future, he said, we should return to the place from which we began, the river. It’s a logical argument, and something we often forget.
And this brings us back to our city’s inner core. Some people like to argue that the private sector should be the driving force behind any development. If the private sector has decided to abandoned certain areas of town, then we must accept this as the will of the people (and the amorphous market). But this is not an apt argument.
Much like Alexander Fulton had done two hundred years ago, cities should plan for their development. Unfettered private development, occurring wherever one deems it appropriate, may enrich a handful of people, but it can be ultimately detrimental to the community at large. Sprawl developments, many of which are upscale and cater exclusively to the upper-middle class, force a city to rethink and even reposition fire stations, police stations, bus routes, and much more. They require taxpayers to shoulder the burden of increasing city services. And this could be appropriate if these developments resulted in an increased tax base. (But again, our population has remained stagnant while we keep pushing toward the outer-reaches of our city limits). Studies have indicated that cities actually lose money when they invest in sprawl. The tax base simply cannot cover the costs of this type of infrastructure.
Paradigm Shift:
As I have for nearly a year now, I believe we must be willing to fundamentally change our perspective on the way in which Alexandria should develop. This change is critical if we are to remain regionally and nationally competitive, and it is essential if we are to “futureproof” Alexandria against the out-of-control effects of uninhibited sprawl that have already plagued numerous American cities, both large and small.
This does not mean we should ban all new “sprawl” developments; that would be absurd. But it will require some of us to stop being defeatist and begin being bold about our city’s inner core. Why?
Because our inner core neighborhoods were designed correctly; they grew up around a streetcar system. They encouraged children to ride their bicycles or walk to school. They provided a mix of uses within walking distance.
It is worth noting that the concept of zoning first gained popularity as a way of protecting the value of the single family home. The idea was that if cities zoned vast swatches of land as “residential,” they could sustain value by ensuring “less valuable” commercial buildings were blocks or miles away. Of course, we now know, based on evidence collected across the United States and elsewhere, that new planned developments have encouraged a mix of uses in a walkable setting because this environment actually increases value and creates the type of neighborhood in which people want to live. Now, this does not mean cities should allow an adult video store next to a school and a residential neighborhood; uses can be restricted.
By restricting those uses and allowing residents themselves to determine the make-up and design of their neighborhoods, we ensure more walkable and livable traditional neighborhoods, which is the foundation of a healthy community (and even more importantly, a community that is attractive to people from all across America).
Truly, this paradigm shift is not simply about changing the way people live in their community; it also presents economic development opportunitiess, because people want to live in these neighborhoods.
So, again, why the inner core?
Because the hallmark of livable communities is their proximity to key institutions and resources, and because, let’s face it, the backbone is already in place.
CenLamar 