Bozoulian | Column by Pete Talbot

Missoula’s Hottest Button: Infill

By Pete Talbot, 3-10-06

In Missoula, housing infill has set neighbor against neighbor. To some, infill evokes quaint, European-style cities with shopkeepers living above small, family-owned businesses, and densely developed neighborhoods surround parks or squares or common areas. To others, infill means squalid eyesores – tenements foisted on unsuspecting traditional neighborhoods – and more traffic, undesirable neighbors and noise.

Political fortunes have been won and lost over the infill debate. It is probably the single biggest hot button issue that Missoula has faced in over a decade and municipal candidates often campaign exclusively on the infill issue.

The idea behind infill is that density in the urban core is preferable to sprawl in outlying areas. Also, because infrastructure like roads and sewers is already in place, the tax burden to citizens will be less than when you have to start from scratch in a new subdivision. The need for more fire stations, new schools and increased police protection is also reduced.

That's what the folks in Missoula thought when the city developed its comprehensive plan over a decade ago. The devil is in the details, though. So when a big, boxy apartment building went in the backyard of a small bungalow-style home in the historic university neighborhood, for example, folks got upset. Or when a bunch of homes were shoehorned into a half-acre lot on the Southside, neighbors weren't happy. Or when a boundary line was redrawn to allow for more homes on a Northside lot, some people got nervous.

One of the ironies of development is that some of the most desirable neighborhoods in Missoula, like the university area or the lower Rattlesnake Valley, are also some of the densest neighborhoods in town. If you were to try to zone for those densities in the outlying neighborhoods the hue and cry by surrounding homeowners could be heard in Idaho.

This is where the term “design standards” comes in. Good design standards for Montana cities should really be neighborhood standards. These standards should encourage neighborhood input on scale, style and character. This could, at the very least, mitigate some of the problems associated with infill.

You see, I'm a proponent of infill. What Missoula failed to do was set up any sort of serious design standards to go along with its infill policy.

Now I'm just an armchair planner but here are a few suggestions. When building on a lot behind an existing, historic home, the footprint of the new structure shouldn't exceed the footprint of the existing structure. There should be rules governing setbacks from the street and proximity to neighbors. The design of new homes should mimic, as closely as possible, the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. And in our automobile-obsessed culture, make sure there's enough parking for everyone.

In urban subdivisions, include open space and attractive landscaping. Encourage some small-scale commercial development so that people don't have to drive five miles for a quart of milk, a DVD rental or a slice of pizza. Stay away from cul-de-sacs, and make sure the development is bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Consider alleys so that garages can be placed behind homes. And in place of that ubiquitous street-facing garage, how about a front porch so that neighbors can chat with neighbors as they go about their business on a warm summer evening?

Missoula is still trying to sort out these issues and there's no quick fix on the horizon. So Bozeman – be very, very careful when you start discussing infill as a tool for managing growth. Good luck and keep Missoula posted.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.