As we think about how to re-develop our city for the future, it is important to keep in mind what we want to accomplish. Are we planning for the future using the assumptions of the past? Who will be our residents and what will they expect next year and next decade? Too often, our thoughts are ingrained in that past instead of seeing the needs of our future.
How and where will our residents work and live? A recent survey from the Pew Research Center of the millennial generation (those born in the 1980’s and 1990’s) shows that they want to live in an urban environment. This is an ideal development for cities. But in order to keep and attract that generation to our city, we need to examine what they want that urban environment to encompass.
They are against government intrusion into their lives whether dictating who to marry or how to earn a living. Instead of expecting a “job” by either big government or big business, they are entrepreneurial and expert at selling their own brand. They expect to form loose alliances of associates that come together to complete one task at a time. They don’t want to commute to work or be in an office 9-5.
So as Stuart re-writes the Land Development Regulations or develops Sailfish, we need to take into consideration the residents that will be living in our city. We need to make sure that home occupation is not unduly burdened with antiquated notions concerning parking, for example. During the 19th and 20th centuries, artisans and farmers became office and factory workers travelling to a central destination. It now seems we are returning to an earlier time when there was not a distinct place to live and another to work. The most important thing we can do as a city is not be an impediment to these developments.
We must let the market decide what is needed. Ten years ago, who could have foreseen that millions of people would be able to act as hoteliers by renting out rooms in their homes to strangers through the use of airbnb. It is fruitless to try and stop this and other uses from occurring, and instead we should promulgate sensible and not overbearing rules to encourage the payment of taxes for these new uses.
Cities, such as Stuart, will also need to think about re-purposing their half empty retail centers. It is important that we do not stand in the way of zoning and use changes to allow apartments or offices to be built within the center. We are probably at least 20% overbuilt in the retail category, and because of changing shopping patterns, absorption is not likely.
The best we, as a city, can do is to not get in the way of our own future. That does not mean we allow anyone to do anything. Builders and developers still need regulation. It is up to government to make sure that whatever is built is sustainable so it can contribute to our tax base. Our height limit does not need to be changed in order to accomplish this. In fact, it would be detrimental to our old Florida “brand.” Stuart needs to cultivate the right mix for today and, more importantly, for tomorrow.