PRINT THIS STORY:

CHANGE TEXT SIZE:

Antisprawl pioneer Moe speaks out

Richard Moe recalls when Southdale Shopping Center -- recognized as the first regional mall in the United States -- opened in his home state of Minnesota in 1956. In the 40-plus years since, Moe has become a leading voice in opposition to such suburban developments, which he believes robs traditional communities of their business and character and contribute to "sprawl." Since 1993, he has served as president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C., the nation's largest nonprofit preservation organization.

Richard Moe

A native of Duluth, Minn., Moe graduated from Williams College in 1959 and launched a public service career that led to administrative positions in city and state government, and the chairmanship of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. In 1972, he became an administrative assistant to Sen. Walter F. Mondale (D-Minn.). Five years later, he was named chief of staff to Vice President Mondale, and was a member of the Carter White House senior staff. He has written books on urban decay and Civil War history.

In March, Shopping Centers Today senior editor Jon Springer spoke with Moe about the growing concern over "sprawl," and about ways that the retailing and development industries and antisprawl groups can find common ground.

SCT: Can you begin by defining "sprawl" and discuss the National Trust's efforts to combat it?

RM: There is not a generally accepted definition of sprawl, but I think what most people mean by the term is a poorly planned, very low-density, automobile-oriented development that spreads out from edges of communities large and small. It can take the form of strip malls, residential subdivisions or other forms. It can also be defined by how it affects us in our daily lives -- the loss of open space and lost time in traffic.

The Trust sees sprawl as a threat to the historic structure in older communities, so it's on our agenda. We have basically been trying to bring attention to the issue, so that people understand ways to deal with it. Happily, that's happened pretty rapidly in recent months. I'm told that 29 governors mentioned sprawl in their inauguration or state-of-the-state addresses. It's clearly on the agenda of state and federal government.

We're working with other groups to found a smart-growth coalition, basically to see what we can do to bring attention to the issue and have some policy options.

What causes sprawl in your opinion, and what responsibility do shopping center developers have in creating it?

The urban disinvestment that has spurred growth of development in outlying areas is caused by many factors, including crime, bad schools, poor public services -- things that are very basic. But there's a push-pull effect with sprawl. Those factors I just mentioned are the push factors. But once there's more development in outlying areas, that becomes the pull, with more jobs created outside core cities than inside them.

The role of shopping centers is an interesting one. Clearly there has been an effect, because they were first built in the immediate postwar era to serve people moving to the suburbs. When shopping centers were first opened, they had a dramatic effect on core businesses in small- and medium-sized towns, by taking business away from them. This gave rise to the National Trust's Main Street program, which started in the late '70s as a direct response to shopping centers. What we tried to do was work with local businesses to find niche markets and make downtowns attractive places to shop and socialize, so they wouldn't have to compete head-to-head with shopping malls and discount stores. We've been in 1,400 cities, and it's been an enormously successful program.

The issue of growth management was on some 200 ballots across the country last November. What's behind it?

Those initiatives were very grassroots driven, responding to different issues in the various communities. Clearly, there is a growing concern in virtually every part of America about growth issues, whether it relates to traffic congestion, or visual blight in commercial developments, or the increased dependence on the automobile. People are also concerned about the loss of open space and farmland. That concern is continuing to grow and will grow.

Cynics say a lot of the clamor about sprawl is coming from the same people who created it -- people who have moved to the suburbs and now want to shut the door behind them when they found traffic and congestion was there too.

I think there's some truth to that. I think there are people who left cities in search of the American dream and didn't find it there, or find it disappearing on them.

Is there a 'not in my backyard' attitude contributing?

There may be, but I think it goes beyond that. What happens here is that when people see congestion, blight and loss of open space, they want to keep on moving out further, and you can do that just so many times.

It's like, you can run, but you can't hide. We are not advocating no growth. Of course, we must grow. The question is whether we'll grow sensibly.

What are your thoughts on Vice President Al Gore's "Livability Agenda"?

I applaud the Vice President and what he's trying to do, because for the first time, he's brought national attention to this issue. There is a federal role in reducing sprawl but a limited one. But Federal policy in the past has contributed to sprawl, particularly the interstate highway system.

How so?

The interstate highway system was designed in part to bring people into cities, but it's had the reverse effect. It's emptied out the cities and cut huge swaths through many downtowns. And because of the federal government's role in financing highways, it's always been easy to build them, and it's always been the only answer. And when you build more highways, they automatically attract commercial development. Build it and they will come -- that's how it's been. The federal government has been too focused on the automobile and highways, and a major contributor to sprawl.

Are the Vice President's goals realistic? Can they pass Congress?

I hope so. The Vice President is taking the policy debate in the right direction, in terms of preserving open space, and I would hope the administration would put more emphasis on revitalizing existing communities than they did. That's the flip side. If we can make our existing communities more attractive, and keep people in those communities, we can reduce the demand for sprawl and stop the hemorrhaging that's still happening in cities.

There seems to be no shortage of ideas on how to revive downtowns, but what can be done about the sprawl that's already here?

That's a good question, and nobody has a good answer. I don't think it will be around long, because it wasn't built to last -- either the commercial or residential developments that have gone up overnight over the last decade.

One thing I'd like to see more of is the conversion of shopping malls to more traditional downtown types of development. Make it a more traditional development where people can walk and shop in a more attractive setting than a traditional mall, which people increasingly see as less attractive and bland in some ways. I gather there's somewhat of a trend from traditional malls to more traditional downtowns, and I understand some of the upscale retailers are seeking out those kinds of sites at the expense of traditional malls.

A number of developers have been successful recently with faux Main-Street shopping centers.

I think that sort of thing should be encouraged. But the lesson we've learned is that you can't just recreate things physically, you have to make it work as a real main street, and that means mixed uses. You need residential above street-level retail -- people living there as well as shopping there -- a real community. The problem with a lot of shopping malls is that they are single uses. They're not going to be used around the clock and they're not communities. You won't find a sense of community in a strip mall. If you can reconfigure it as a place where people are living there, shopping there and socializing there, I think you can create a sense of community that will improve the quality of life.

The ICSC has a program called Alliance, which puts retail developers in touch with city officials. Do you feel shopping center developers can play a role in the revitalization of downtowns?

I think there's more creativity being brought to this area than ever before. I would encourage shopping center developers to work with communities to design the kinds of projects that contribute to the vision and spirit of community, instead of just plopping down a box in a cornfield. I think they can be creative about becoming a good addition to a community.

In what ways do you find the goals of your organization have been made more difficult by retailers and developers?

I think there are a lot of creative developers who are doing tremendous work under the umbrella of what's called the new urbanism -- creating dense development with residential and commercial, based on the old principles. What I have the greatest difficulty with is the huge discount store. It becomes an enormous force to spur collateral development and impact communities in major ways. For the most part, these stores are not designed to assist communities in developing its own vision or plan. They're designed to sell.

It's not only the developer's fault. In many cases, the communities do not see that they have alternatives. The bottom line is that a community should be what it wants to be. But often, they don't go through the process and don't have alternatives. [For example,] a developer comes in with a use proposal with the promise of more jobs, additional tax revenue and low prices. Increasingly, communities are recognizing they have options. They can help shape these facilities in ways that don't cost jobs elsewhere, or require so many public services that they offset tax revenues. It's a complex question, but there are answers.

How have the big retailers reacted to your requests that their buildings fit better into the communities they are entering? Has there been much progress on that issue?

Very little. We tried to engage Wal-Mart in this conversation several years ago and we got the predictable response that since economies of scale were involved, we have to stick to this formulaic design and can't do anything under 200,000 square feet. Now having saturated that market, they've announced a plan to develop much smaller stores that could fit into existing communities, which is what we asked of them a few years back. They're very good at retailing, so I'm sure they can make it work. But they're in effect saying that we can't do this, because it's not economical.

How can these different interests -- retailers, developers and organizations like yours -- work together?

I would hope we can. We're certainly eager to work with developers or anybody to develop plans that work for the community. We want retailers to be successful, but we also want communities to be healthy. And those things aren't mutually exclusive. But the main work has to be done on a community-by-community basis.