"One of the best ways to arrest urban sprawl is to develop brownfields and make them productive pieces of land, where people can find work and employment. By one estimate, for every one acre of redeveloped brownfields, we save 4.5 acres of open space."

- President George W. Bush, January 11, 2002

As suburbanization has led to new development further out from the urban core, former industrial sites have been abandoned as the original company either moves elsewhere or fails a result of global competition, technological change, or simply outdated equipment. These vacant or underused industrial lands, often contaminated with toxic chemicals, are known as “brownfields.” Brownfields bring down surrounding property values, exacerbating a cycle of decay in the urban core. However, a redeveloped brownfield can increase investment in an area, and brownfields are playing an ever-larger role in redevelopment efforts in the urban core. The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) finds that reusing brownfields has two major advantages over greenfield development – the reuse of abandoned or dangerous land, and the same growth but with less new traffic.

Brownfields offer a more efficient way of redeveloping an area. Brownfields often have prime locations in the urban area, since they were often situated next to a natural transportation corridor such as a river or a railroad line. A redeveloped brownfield is central to most people, businesses, and already-built infrastructure, making it a more efficient location both in terms of transportation, but also in terms of less government outlay of infrastructure.

A redeveloped brownfield can increase urban density. The corresponding decrease in urban sprawl slows traffic growth and takes advantage of existing infrastructure, saving public infrastructure costs. For example, a study by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a brownfield redevelopment project in San Diego, California showed that the brownfield site would require an estimated $1 million in new public infrastructure, while the same project in a greenfield site would require between $5 and $8 million in new public infrastructure. This is a sizable cost savings to the public, and is a prime example of how brownfield redevelopment can be much more cost-effective and efficient than greenfield development.
Brownfields can also be redeveloped for transportation purposes themselves – meaning a road or other transportation system can be built on top of it. The brownfield’s central location and proximity to other modes of transportation make it a prime site for either a multi-modal hub, or for simply reusing the abandoned or toxic land for transportation. Building a road or other transportation improvement can help reduce clean-up costs by containing the polluted area within the new transportation system. An example of this is the Marine Gateway district in Portland, Oregon, where a large number of brownfields were redeveloped and a new road was built on old industrial land. The new road gave improved access to the old industrial area, and coupled with the clean up it increased land values in the industrial area. The road also stimulated further brownfield clean up and redevelopment along with improving the links between the Interstate (I-5), the port, and the rail lines. The road used new techniques for trapping the toxins of the old brownfield upon which it was built, saving money by limiting the need for further environmental clean-up by containing the dangerous materials within it.

A redeveloped brownfield also offers an opportunity for environmental justice, whereby poorer communities or communities with people of color do not have to bear the burden of the environmental damage caused by abandoned industrial sites. By redeveloping underused or contaminated land, a metro area can improve a poorer, older neighborhood. The redevelopment decreases the health risks to the residents, and provides a better land use, whether that land use be new economic growth and the corresponding new jobs, or simply providing a park for the residents to enjoy.
One policy that can be drawn from brownfield reuse is to realize that private firms are unable or unwilling to take on the risks of environmental clean up. By taking an active role in the clean-up, government can mitigate these fears and provide for a more efficient urban form. Another option to promote brownfield redevelopment is to limit the liability of companies willing to undertake a proper clean up of a brownfield site. This minimizes the risk of the company, making it more likely to move to the site to take advantage of the site’s benefits as discussed above.

Government funding is already provided to help with clean up costs, but further funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) and the EPA would be of great benefit. TEA-21 has already provided some incentives by paying for the remediation of contamination that lies in the path of a transportation project or on the site of a former transportation project. The EPA already helps, although it is more concerned with the more heavily contaminated Superfund areas than with less contaminated although still hazardous brownfield sites. Many local governments use TIF to pay for brownfield redevelopment. In Minnesota, state legislators created Hazardous Substance Sub-districts, which work in the same as TIF, but reduce the tax base down to zero in the area to further increase the available funds. Increasing the funds from local or metropolitan governments would help a great deal in paying for brownfield redevelopment.
Another policy change would be to regionalize or expand the size of burden of cleaning up sites, since an entire metropolitan region benefits with fewer infrastructure costs and lessened traffic growth. The entire metropolitan region should be responsible since former industrial sites are what created the current vitality of the metropolitan area. A metropolitan or regional approach would have sizeable benefits to inner-ring suburbs, since the inner-ring suburbs have relatively few sources of clean-up funds when compared to inner cities, which can rely on some federal sources.

Strong growth management policies would also help support brownfield redevelopment, since it would limit greenfield development and sprawl, and increase brownfield reuse, bringing the benefits described above.
Despite the superior location amenities offered by most brownfields, firms will not redevelop brownfields on their own because the cost and risks are too high. Brownfields need to be made more attractive to firms. Providing legislation limiting the liability of firms that redevelop brownfields from future litigation and providing funds for the clean up efforts are current policies that can lure or pull firms into developing brownfields. Other policy measures should be taken to make brownfield sites as attractive, if not more attractive than greenfield sites. These push factors, such as growth management policies, are putting a cap on outward growth, forcing firms to take advantage of brownfield and other underutilized sites within the region. Cities need to think less about competing with each other and start concentrating on the region as a whole. Cities should realize that redeveloping brownfields is a much more beneficial policy for the entire region than continuing to develop greenfield sites on the fringe. Brownfields take advantage of existing infrastructure and generate less congestion on a region’s highways. Although it does cost public funds to clean up a brownfield, lesser infrastructure costs and slowing down the increase in congestion make up for most if not all of those costs.

Questions:

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of brownfield redevelopment?
2. Should the cost of brownfield clean up be regionalized?
3. What are some possible policy ideas to encourage brownfield redevelopment?
4. What are some of the problems with funding brownfield clean up in inner ring suburbs?