Laitos, J G and Abel, T M (2013) Sites suitable for mixed use development in Britain and America. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 5(2), pp. 137-155. ISSN 17561469
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of the four most likely urban spaces for mixed use development - brownfields (contaminated lands); greenfields (open, undeveloped areas); greyfields (closed or dying shopping centers and empty parking lots); and redfields (underperforming, foreclosed commercial real estate). Design/methodology/approach: Literature about and studies of mixed use development projects in America and Britain were reviewed, and so too were specific examples of the four candidate urban spaces. The authors then analyzed which spaces succeeded as mixite and which failed. Findings: Brownfields are often not successfully transformed into usable mixite; nor are greenfields. The cost and regulatory complication of removing pollution from brownfields is too often prohibitive, and greenfields are too far away from urban core areas. By contrast, greyfields and redfields appear to be far more suitable spaces for mixed use development projects. Originality/value: Most government policies urging redevelopment projects in America and Great Britain prefer brownfields as the space deemed most suitable for mixite. Contrary to this view, it appears that unpolluted spaces, such as redfields and greyfields, that do not need extensive environmental remediation, are typically better candidates for mixite.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | brownfields; greenfields; greyfields; land; mixite; redevelopment; redfields; UK; USA |
| Index terms: | urban space, methodology, suitability, redevelopment, government policy, land, contaminated land, pollution, commercial real estate, shopping centre |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, design criteria, environmental health, urban design and public space, research methods, public policy, real estate economics, environmental issues, construction type |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Governance, Sustainability, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here