Commentary: We Need a Return to the Adaptability of Traditional Urban Form

Drawing on his experience in Annapolis, Maryland, Edward Erfurt highlights how older cities make better use of space than suburban developments. In Annapolis, Erfurt writes, “The city evolved organically, filling in nooks and crannies with buildings and spaces that adapted to the existing topography and ownership patterns.”

According to Erfurt, Annapolis is a city full of “irregularly shaped lots and buildings” that are squeezed into nooks and crannies to maximize the use of space. The result is a uniquely charming — and functional — urban landscape.

Suburban development, on the other hand, “is rigid, designed to be ‘complete’ upon construction with little expectation for future growth or change.” It also wastes resources by duplicating infrastructure, such as roads, that go largely underused. For Erfurt, “By building to a "finished state," suburban developments sacrifice the possibility of future expansion and adaptability.”

Erfurt offers some examples of ‘nook and cranny urbanism’ that could make modern cities more adaptable and diverse. These include “Positioning buildings closer to the street or corners of lots,” “Placing utilities strategically along future corridors” to reduce the cost of future development, and “Designing flexible parking layouts” that allow for future redevelopment of parking lots. Changes like these could yield a more “productive and sustainable model” for city planning that actively prepares for future change and growth.