Sule, Very perceptive. I live in a Midwest city (no, not Chicago) and we have neo-urbanists who extol the benefits of mixed-use projects as the answer to many issues. However, the one thing that I keep coming back to relates to Jane Jacob's book-The Death and Life of Great American Cities-and that is that the process needs to be organic. Think about the great urban spaces (the genesis of the current mixed-use development cycle) and, in my opinion, they all evolved organically. The current manufactured urban nodes rarely work. Cities are messy and one of the great experiences of an organic mixed-use venue is at the edges. This by definition will never occur in a master planned mixed-use project. My thoughts.

Several of my co-workers live in Downtown Dadeland, a mini-city in the suburbs of Miami that grew around a mall and a metro-rail station. To me, a city person, if you want city living, live in the city. But these folks love that they have the convenience of all of the retail, the security of high-rise living (we all travel frequently and leave our homes un-tended), and the proximity to work in our suburban office site. They also enjoy what I have always enjoyed in Miami Beach...a pedestrian lifestyle when not at work, as everything is in walking or bicycle distance.

While many like the "new" projects, things age and maintenance, especially for a high rise costs plenty. I see the success for these types of projects being heavily reliant on retaining and attract the right mix of retail tenants. A dark anchor in a shopping center hurts the in-line shops; I can imagine it must be a negative on the HOA, translating to condo values. Last thought about design relative to a residence...do such "planned" projects zap the creative spark?

Mixed use developments, whether "organically" created as in NYC with street level retail and apartments/townhouses above or entrepreneurially created as wtih the vertical city of the John Hancock Tower in Chicago provide a quality lifestyle while reducing their carbon footpriint as people typically have shorter commutes to both work and shopping and may even have access to entertainment venues as well....While it is not for everyone, we can only hope that there continues to be strong demand for this real estate product. The key is in making sure each use is designed to address specific concerns, like noise and safety while maximizing the synergy of the various uses.

To get organic growth of this kind requires a rethinking of current zoning laws. One of the primary issues is that zoning simply doesn't allow these developments to form organically, so the only "mixed-use" developments we get are the kind the author abhors. Look at the West Village as a typical example of a mixed-use development that does work, does not have excessive crowding, noise, or any of the other drawbacks the author mentions. Density and mixed-use does work, it just needs to be permitted in areas outside of New York City.

There is no question that to eliminate the daily commute and have all your consumption, physical and entertainment needs at your finger tips regardless of weather conditions is great for the working days of the week. Not answered in this survey is what percentage of the mixed use residents have week end, vacation, and/or seasonal homes elsewhere in more countrified areas?

Sule, These are you views and I accept them as valid. You prefer the suburban lifestyle. Twenty years ago, I lived in midtown Manhattan, corner 48 Street and Second Avenue, for ten years and liked it just fine. I walked to work and rented cars as needed. Today, it costs 4-figures per month to park a car. This is the urban lifestyle. Today, I live in Montclair, NJ, one-quarter mile to shopping, restaurants, post office, movie theater, train service to Manhattan, and until budget cuts, the public library. This suits well and I wouldn't want to live in a suburb. I call it town living. Valid, valid, valid. All three are different and valid.

I would be interested in learning how these projects effect the people who live in and grow up in them. There has always been some concern that density itself fosters
callousness, cynicism, a lack of empathy, and to some extent that leads to the necessity for a highly structured environment for children, and eventuallty to higher crime and a deteioration of "community". I grew up in suburbia and enjoyed a great deal of freedom and unstructured playtime, we had open fields, playgrounds, sports fields and woods to roam in. I think I had the entire neighborhood imprinted in my mind and in a great deal of detail! We made up our own games and activities. I wonder what happens to kids growing up in such a structured environment where there is so little freedom. Anyone??

Sule, I agree, there certainly are pitfalls for poorly located projects that turn their backs to the surrounding community. As an Urban Planner I often come across these projects and can't help but make the distinction between "real" mixed-use projects located centrally in urban areas within proximity to transportation and public infrastructure, and those projects that are located outside of an urban area often in ex-urban areas based mostly on suburbia's rising property values. The later is instigated by land margins rather than the actual availability of anything that resembles mixed nodes and therefore fails the pedestrians they intend to serve. Without adjacent public spaces (museums, parks, libraries, etc.) the critical pedestrian traffic falls off a cliff 500 feet from the project. The result is an island with a captive audience that will tire of the restaurants, retailers, fads, and eventually, the project.

How interesting this subject is up for discussion - mixed-use was the original building model for cities from the early ages mostly for convenience, fortification, lack of transportation, closeness to work, etc.
Today it serves a great purpose for the urban dweller who wants no lawn, no garbage, no maintenance, turnkey living, in a active lifestyle urban setting. Not everyone wants this, but people who do thrive here.
It is also an effective way to share a wonderful amenity such as location, views of river, mountains, beachfront, historic or dramatic skylines.
Transportation eroded this building type (particularly the automobile) allowing residences and work to become more spread out. Services necessarily became more spread out and less efficient as they followed the new planning models. Part of today's financial pressure on cities, town, counties today is the cost of inefficiency in providing services.
Canada has it right with regional zoning - density in the urban core and rural character outside the core - i.e. no suburbs.
And creativity(?) asks another comment - what could be more creative and exciting that Time/Warner Center in NYC.
Guess I must be pro urban core active living!

Preplanned Mixed use never works because it is too designed to be expensive and if the rent does not kill it the annual property taxes will kill it. The ONLY mixed use that works over the long-term is grown ORGANICALLY over time and is rooted in having NO ZONING restrictions. If a space works as an apartment, let someone live there, if demand for retail means a store can make profit then allow them to operate in that space. Cool, funky, artsy.

To each their own.