Old New Towns? Newfields New Town

[Daytonpix]

(broadband recommended!!!)

Brookwood was the "working title", Newfields the official name.

I posted this story at another board, and thought you all might be interested as you all are urban planners, and this is about a local application of a national effort to plan new towns.

I sort of found out about this place by accident. I always wondered why there is a state park made up of abandoned woodlots and farmland out west of Trotwood, a western suburb of Dayton, which seems like an odd place to have a state park, or why Dayton bothered to annex a bunch of open undeveloped farmland to the west of the city. It turns out these feature of Dayton suburbia are related, part of the story of Newfields, Dayton's lost and forgotten New Town....



Set the wayback machine to the 1960s. Nationally there was quite a critique of urban sprawl back then as being ugly, wasteful, and maybe not the best way to develop suburbia. An alternative was the planned new community. Examples abounded in Europe of New Towns, and three private developments where underway in the US; Irvine Ranch, Columbia MD, and Reston, VA. These inspired one of Dayton's big developers, Don Huber (the brother of the developer of Huber Heights, which is sort of a Midwestern version of Levittown, but as brick ranches), to consider a new town for Dayton. Huber's comment on Huber Heights was that "we where just building shelter". Huber was perhaps was more socially conscious than the typical developer as he had partnered with city officials and leaders within the local black community to develop Madden Hills, sort of a suburban urban renewal project.

Columbia MD and Reston VA was of particular interest. Huber used to fly local officials to give them tours of these places. Lake Anne Village, the original part of Reston, in particular was perhaps a model for what Huber had in mind for Dayton:






The 1960s was the era of civic strife, but also the era of great hope and belief things could be changed for the better. The New Frontier and Great Society social programs where products of this sentiment, and the New Towns movement could be seen as part of the Great Society era of social programs to fix urban problems. The lobbying for New Towns came via various sources, resulting in two legislative initiatives in the 1960s...Title X in 1965 and Title IV in 1968. Flaws in this legislation, interest group opposition, and lack of interest by developers resulted in nothing getting built.

Yet interest in New Communities continued. In 1968 the National Committee on Urban Growth Policy (NCUGP) was formed, engaged in studies, and issued a report in book form, The New City (still available in the libraries), as an advocacy tool. NCUGP efforts lead to renewed legislative action culminating in Title VII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, with the New Communities program to be administered by HUD.

16 new communities where approved under the authority of Title VII, with Newfields being the only one in Ohio, and one of four in the Midwest (the others where Park Forest South in Illinois, Jonathan (partly approved under the earlier Title IV) in Minnesota, and Cedar-Riverside, a "New Town In Town", in Minneapolis (the other New Town in Town was Roosevelt Island in NYC).

Title VII was one of the great failures in US urban policy, and the new communities movement is almost forgotten today.


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Don Huber began planning for his new town in late 1970, originally looking for a site near south suburban Bellbrook as the growth trend in Dayton was south. Land costs and distance from Dayton led to a change in location to the slower growing northwest area, with the Trotwood/Madison Township selected as a location, particularly as it was on the alignment of the proposed Wolf Creek Expressway and the western leg of the I-675 beltway...with the bulk of the town to be between Trotwood and Brookville, with a 'panhandle' extending along the expressway route to Dayton...



Huber began to acquire land from farmers and begin planning in 1971. 1971-1972 was, apparently, the big planning period and also the time when the Environmental Impact Statement and HUD application was prepared. Consultants where hired, a general manager hired, staff hired or reassigned from Huber's development organization. There was also an A95 review by state and local government, with the city of Dayton playing an important role. Grassroots input from community activist groups in Dayton and locals in Trotwood was also solicited via a "Joint Citizens New Communities Planning Council".

One of the interesting concepts or innovations of this plan was more in the process and governance side. Newfields was to be developed via a "dual developer", a private sector developer (Huber and perhaps others) and a public sector non-profit developer (for amenities and community facilities) called the Newfields New Community Authority (NNCA) This was a public authority created by legislation in Columbus.

Physical planning for Newfields underwent a number of iterations. The basic concept, though, was to apply the "ecological planning" principles articulated by Ian McHarg in his 1969 book "Design with Nature". Various natural constraints such as soils, depth to bedrock, wetlands, steep slopes, etc, where overlayed to determine suitable areas of development of the land.



(McHarg was actually hired to design one of the Title VII new communities, The Woodlands, north of Houston. This was also the only financially successful Title VII community.)

Hubers first planning consultant was Llewellyn-Jones, who developed this master plan for the first HUD application (there where two applications). This plan included a large lake (by damming Wolf Creek) as centerpiece for the new town center, which also included a community college.






and a detail of Phase I, which was to be closest to Trotwood.



The proposals for the Wolf Creek expressway corridor was to include first, two frontage roads (similar to the way they build freeways in San Antonio) with an open space belt between.



..with the actual expressway being below grade and buffered from the surroundings by landscaping. Also note the proposed rapid transit line, which was a long term concept to connect the town center with Dayton. The new communities under Title VII where mostly auto-oriented, as this was before the era of "new urbanism" and "transit oriented development".




More cross sections of roads for the new community



The Wolf Creek Expressway eventually died due to opposition from community activists associated with Dayton's Model Cities program, as it would have disrupted and demolished poor neighborhoods in West Dayton just to provide a "driveway to the suburbs". ODOT then revised its west Montgomery County transportation planning...



I 675 became more important as a driver for planning in Newfields





Some of the planning graphics associated with the second HUD application. Note that this was not a continuous area of development as there was a number of in-holdings as well as "life estates" (where farmers sold, but could continue to farm until they died, at which the property would revert to the developer).







A color coded map. By this time the Llewellyn Jones concept had been modified to remove the large central lake, which was replaced by the forested Wolf Creek valley, and smaller neighborhood lakes substituted. This was at the recommendation of the staff ecologist. The town center was envisioned as a high-density area, perhaps even incorporating high rises. The idea was apparently a sort of a planned, garden city version of Clayton, Missouri (or other edge cities). Another concept was that the neighborhood centers would be seen as "convenience centers" rather than "villages". Industrial development was to be located along the railroad (now a bike path) and in the panhandle area.



Another version of the development plan, showing how the land would be zoned by function. The community college was retained in this plan (perhaps a branch of Sinclair?). The town center as an office and high density cluster shows up here too. I guess the affect driving by on (unbuilt) I-675 would have been driving by the office complexes in Dublin in Columbus, perhaps...but a more orderly& greener Dublin.






The nice feature, though, is the retention of greenways and generous open space, and the clustering of schools with the neighborhood convenience centers. There was about 20 farmsteads on the property (barns and farmhouses), which where going to be retained as focal points within the various residential developments.

The land use breakdown is thus:

54% residential
20% open space
10% industrial
3% commercial
2% "community authority" (community centers, etc)
8% roads
3% reserved space.

The town center would have this distribution:

Retail 35%
Freestanding Commercial 25% (hotels?)
Office 10%
Reserved 6%
Smaller commercial 4% (like gas stations)

The density was about 4 units per acre.

There was also an "urban design plan", but done in a novel way. The shortlist for urban design consultants was Harry Weese from Chicago, The Architects Collaborative (TAC) from Boston, and Helmuth Obtata Kassenbaum (HOK) from St Louis. HOKs initial presentation was rejected, and they came back with a process-oriented concept of an "Urban design think tank..the "New Town Environmental Planning Group (NTEP)...made up of experts in various fields. The NTEP would lay down general guidelines, but then work directly with the joint citizens group mentioned unthread via charettes to come up with detailed plans for the various villages and neighborhoods. Very much a participatory planning concept! Although they didn’t land the urban design contract, TAC was hired to design the first neighborhood or convenience center.

Here is a plan for phase I of Newfields. I’m not sure if it was the product of the first charette or a later planning effort, but it does show how they where envisioning developing this as a mix of density and land use, interwoven with open space.



The color coding shows increased density, from yellow to red...

2.4 units per acre (some clustering)

4.0 units per acre (cluster, patio homes)

9.0 units per acre (town house)

15 units per acre (garden apartments)

25 units per acre (mid-rise apartments)(probably a small tower block?)

..and, of course, industrial park along the railroad (and a DP&L substation, I think)

Clustering refers to the cluster housing concept, which was an innovation from the late 60s/early 70s that reduced lot size and street width, so as to provide more shared open space.



As part of the design package there was a consultant hired to design street furniture (lights, signs, etc) and Ivan Chermayeff of NYC was retained to design a 'graphic identity program', including a name, for the new community. Chermayeff came up with Newfields as the name, and designed the logo, which is shown here with some of his other more famous. The color family would have been browns and greens, and Chermayeff would have had a hand in selecting other place names for the various villages and such, which where to be based on important local historical figures, flora, and fauna.

It is sort of unfortunate that this didn't pan out as Chermayeff has done some very successful graphic identity programs, like the one for Mobil Oil.



One of the innovations that helped sell the application to HUD was the New Community Authority. The NCA was structured so it could be expanded as new areas were developed. The board of directors originally had private developer representation (but not a majority of the board). As the new community became populated it would eventually move to full resident representation. As the NCA had bonding authority and was responsible for some infrastructure development and maintenance it would generate revenue via an "income charge" on the residents, perhaps akin to a local income tax.






Why a NCA? Apparently Huber thought of incorporating but as this was so close to Trotwood Trotwood could have prohibited annexation. And Dayton would not sign-off on the A95 review unless it could annex the new town. And Trotwood and Dayton where already at loggerheads over annexation as Trotwood had outmaneuvered Dayton in the 1960s for the annexation of the Salem Mall. So a compromise had to be brokered.

Trotwood would get to annex phase I, Dayton would get to annex the panhandle and the "town center" area. The part of the new town out in Perry Township was left for future decisions. The sweet part of this deal for Dayton is that it would have an opportunity to annex what could have been a new "edge city" as well as industrial land.



But this was not to be. Newfields was built on very shaky financial and market projections. As early as 1972 some internal financial projections where showing that the economic model was unsound. And assumptions on capture rate of new housing proved to be very rosy. A later study of the entire Title VII program by Boaz, Allen, and Hamilton for HUD pretty much confirms some basic flaws in the program design for the entire program in finance, program management, and developer assumptions. The B, A, & H study contains this sensitivity analyses for Newfields, showing negative cash flow for the duration of the project.



There where also conflicts between the first project manager and Huber, leading to the resignations of the both general manager and NCA manager resigning

Things did happen in Newfields. About $20,000,000 was spent on land acquisition, development, and management/consultant cots.




1973

The New Community Authority was created, a new general manager hired, a revised master plan developed, ground breaking in September, and HUD project agreement in November. Dayton begins to annex the Panhandle. Newfields name and logo by Chermayeff.

1974

Revenue bonds floated for commercial building in the community center, construction of the first lake, recreation center, and housing units. Title VII program suspended by HUD in October, general manager fired and some staff suspended.

1975

Additional layoffs, NCA informs HUD the project is not viable, Newfields defaults on interest payments (picked up by HUD per agreement), Huber closes out his construction company for Newfields. (Don Huber remains in business in Dayton today, though, recently developing land in Beavercreek)

1976

NCA director resigns, HUD finds project not economically viable, accelerates principle and interest payments on bonds

1978

Foreclosure action by HUD and negotiated solution proposed.

What was proposed was that the property be disposed of three ways. Winters Bank (which had loaned money to the defunct NCA) and HUD would self off the panhandle property and split the proceeds. HUD would sell the westernmost part of the property to the State of Ohio, which would convert the vacant land to a state park. HUD would sell the phase I property as three development areas. So, interesting to see here that the State of Ohio ends up holding part of the bag via its agreement to take some empty land off the hands of the Feds.

On the map...the Ohio state park in green, HUD/Winters sales and split in gray, and the remaining development areas in red.



The three development areas close-up...



some scenes from Newfields



And Development Area II close-up. This was the only part of Newfields to be constructed, and then it was only a partial construction...



39 single family homes

1 duplex

12 condominiums & townhouse units

12 apartment units

...and a commercial building, community center, and swimming pool.

Development Area 2 today



Close up



And some color coding showing how the cluster concept permitted quite a bit of open space, and the use of preexisting fence lines and woodlots as landscape features. The pathway to the community center from the cluster housing was a nice idea too (and note the mix of multi & single family going on here. The new communities movement envisioned these new towns to have a mix of age, racial, and income groups as a social policy component of the planning.



An outline of one of the streets in the cluster, showing how it was designed to have off-street parking pull-offs at various locations as it was narrow by design...



A visit to Newfields, which is now called Sycamore something-or-other, is a visit to a road not traveled in suburban development. Lets take a look at what could have been:

The commercial building. This apparently had a branch bank at one time and some Huber offices, but is now used by MotoPhoto





The back of the building fronts a plaza and lawn overlooking the lake



The community center. This would have been one of the facilities built & managed by the New Community Authority. The pool next door is filled in.





Given the size of the parking I think they perhaps had more in mind for this community center than what was built



Lets follow the paved footpath to one of the housing clusters....




looking across the lake...apartments slightly visible in the woods...





looking back toward the "village center"....



multifamily townhouses facing the path







path skirting the housing cluster....



shared open space and treeline forest beyond







path entering the housing cluster



path winding between backyards in the cluster



Some pix of the housing cluster...from afar it blends into the landscape....





Inside the cluster and one of the modernist homes found here.





More of the original Newfields housing....the "Sea Ranch Style" from California was popular here..



Intermittent creek through a communal greenway separating housing areas which could have been landscaped better in this case...




Snout garage imported from California. In this development the orientation was to the open space at the back of lots



The Dayton Double housing type makes its appearance



Multifamily townhouses again.....





Apartments set back in the woods behind a wide lawn.



And some illustrations of the generous open space in this development. Its difficult to say whether this was going to be that open under the original Newfields plan, or that all this open space was left as there just wasn’t a market for the land.

Branch of Wolf Creek as a natural greenway.



Road into Development Area Two from the north





The road sometimes widens to provide a median, and there is a bike path on the shoulder. Note the berm and landscaping on the right as a buffer for the housing areas







One of the old farmsteads that was to be preserved. This one has been developed into a business.





The bulk of Newfields is now Sycamore State Park, which was dedicated November 1979, marking the end of the Newfields story.



Some scenes in the state park..one of the surviving old barns:



This area of Sycamore would have been the Newfields Town Center...



Most of it is just woods and dead fields, bisected by country roads..





@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There are other developments in the area that are sort of precursors to Newfields: Greenhills & Mariemont in Cincinnati and Greenmont Village in suburban Kettering. They where not as large as Newfields, but where innovative for their times as models of a planned suburbia.

Newfields was in the wrong place for Dayton as growth was heading south. The Title VII program it was part of was also fatally flawed for various reasons.

Yet the vision here is really appealing to me..in some ways more appealing than New Urbanism we hear about today.

A flexible planning concept which incorporated community control and participation, a non-nostalgic approach to planning that was driven by ecological and environmental constraints, an interest in and preservation of the cultural landscape (preserving old farmsteads and elements of the rural landscape), use of greenways, pedestrian/bike paths, and generous open space to link and separate communities and villages as well as for recreation, convenience centers...schools and shopping…within walking distance, a high-density community center with possible transit links to the larger metro area, socioeconomic diversity and integration, and the pleasant character of what was built does demonstrate that this was perhaps a good idea in design and intention, even if the development economics where not sound.