If we are to unlock the keys to private investment in the rejuvenation of brownfield properties, then we must first understand the context that has contributed to their abandonment.

Brownfield sites were not abandoned just because they were contaminated. The contamination rather must be viewed as just another manifestation of the functional obsolescence of sites that once had “what it takes” when they were first developed and lost those attributes over time. With the evolution of new sets of economic realities, it was no longer profitable to continue operating on these sites, or to redevelop them with new facilities.

Traditional settlement patterns in North America have been heavily influenced by transportation infrastructure. In the 16th–18th centuries this meant waterways and in the 19th and early 20th, when the Industrial Revolution transformed the Northeast and Midwest, this meant rail. Industrial sites developed during these periods had to be near one (or both) of these modes. They also had to be served by infrastructure (water, sewer, local roads), which meant they were located within municipal boundaries.

These rules were dramatically altered in the post World War II era when we built the interstate highway system and trucking became the dominant mode of moving finished goods to their markets. Trucks offered dramatically more freedom than water or rail. Not only did the tonnage of goods move from waterways and rail to roads but, more significantly, the more valuable finished goods ended up in trucks.

This did not just “equalize” the location of outlying sites with their urban counterparts, but they skewed them in their favor. Outlying sites with good access to interstates had lower travel times while inner city sites were hindered by viaduct heights, road widths and weight limits that slowed truck access.

As the suburbs grew and took jobs away, the skilled workforce moved out with these jobs, with the benefit of federal (FHA/VA) credit to buy their housing, and government loans and grants to build new water and sewer systems. The new industrial facilities were designed differently—large single story horizontal structures with 12–14 foot ceilings set for palette stacking, and campus-like settings with large parking lots for the workers who now had to drive to work. Manufacturers also became more sophisticated. While they were moving they considered regional changes, and many moved to the non-unionized South, leaving their functionally obsolescent sites behind). The contamination just happened to be left there because that was the way one did business before RCRA, CERCLA and other environmental legislation.

Demographic statistics vividly illustrate the dramatic changes that took place during the postwar period. Cities lost population while their suburbs grew in leaps and bounds.The middle class was moving out to the suburbs, so median central city income declined, as did retail sales in central business districts, even though metropolitan sales figures as a whole were increasing. Many cities were left with a donut-shaped vital area on the urban fringe around their beltways, with low and moderate income areas as the hole in the middle (surrounding the remnants of their central business district).

Manufacturing employment decreased dramatically in the principal Northeast and Midwest cities, as firms cited highway facilities, room for expansion, and extent of unionization as the three most important factors in siting new or expanded manufacturing facilities.

What does this mean for those of us who want to encourage redevelopment of abandoned and underutilized industrial sites in older urban areas? It means that we have to look at the relationship of our site to the surrounding transportation system and neighborhood, see how it rates and what opportunities exist. When asked about a given site we first have to ask if the site can compete with greenfield sites for industrial redevelopment or should we pursue a different “highest and best use?” Does the site have good highway access? Are there any negatives to its relationship to the roadway system (e.g., viaduct heights, turnarounds, weight limits, etc.)? Can these negatives be corrected or are they too difficult and costly to solve? If the transportation attributes are positive then we can begin to look at what is going on around the site. Are there any viable businesses? Are these businesses looking for land to expand on? Would any “partners” of these businesses be looking for land near them? These are potential clients, and if the transportation attributes are very positive, perhaps we can even attract new clients.

If the trucking attributes are intractable then we have to look for uses that do not depend on this type of transportation. For instance, are there any post-industrial (high-tech) uses in which transportation of goods via truck is not an issue, and where an inner city site might be very desirable to their younger, urban work force? Is the site near a waterway that is being considered for regional (linear) open space? Is the site near an abandoned rail line that is being considered for a regional bike path?

Is there a market for residential land use? Has there been any gentrification of inner city neighborhoods? Is there a sub neighborhood that can be defined and marketed? Is there a need for commercial facilities to support recent nearby residential redevelopment?

The city is organic and constantly evolving. Land that was once worthless gains value, and strategic land loses its importance as the way we do business changes. Many cities have experienced a renaissance in the ’90s, giving hope to abandoned properties. City officials realize that they cannot allow blighted land to stand fallow without serious adverse effects on their tax base and vitality. We only have to figure out what makes sense in our evanescent environment.

Eugene Goldfarb is Midwest Environmental Officer with the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The views expressed in this analysis are Mr. Goldfarb’s as an individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.