Norfolk naval base
Norfolk naval base

by James A. Bacon

My dad was a naval officer and, as consequence, I spent a good part of my youth in Norfolk. Although we lived off base, we regularly drove to the naval station to frequent the commissary, the doctor, the movie theater and the barber shop (25 cents bought you any kind of hair cut you wanted, as long as it was a buzz). No doubt the physical layout has changed in the half century since, but I do recall that it was a place where the only way to get about was in a car. The buildings were long and flat, surrounded by parking lots. The distances between destinations were considerable, and the streetscapes were sterile and univiting. I don’t remember doing much walking or seeing other people walking. No one rode bicycles either. The enlisted men’s housing was segregated from everything else — mixed use development was a foreign concept. There may have been base buses on the base but I never rode them.

The physical layout of Naval Base Norfolk was, in many ways, a mirror of 1960s society, paralleling the low-density, segregated land-use pattern of development prevalent in the nation’s sprawling suburbs. It has been years since I have visited the naval base, but a look at Google Maps suggests that little has changed.

But time moves on and, according to the D.C. Streets Blog, legislation moving through Congress would bring smart growth sensibilities to the nation’s military bases. An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, writes Tanya Snyder, would require bases “to consider compact, infill development that preserves land and considers life-cycle costs in their master planning. The plans should also consider growth boundaries, expand transit options, and create connections to off-base transit systems.”

While one of the motives is to foster environmental sustainability by reducing the carbon footprint, another is to reduce costs, which probably explains why the bill won approval of a Republican-dominated House of Representatives.

Take a look at the Norfolk base. Vast expanses are consumed by horizontal buildings and acres of parking lots. The residential compounds are physically separated from the ships, working areas and base amenities. It is easy to visualize a design in which military housing shifts to multi-story dwellings in much closer proximity to the ships and facilities. Closer proximity allows more people to walk, which eliminates the need for so much parking…  which allows more multi-story housing to be built nearby. With the exception of the airfield, the base could be reduced to perhaps half its size.

A smaller footprint for the naval base would allow one of the following: (1) the Navy could consolidate other facilities to Norfolk or (2) the Navy could sell excess land for private-sector development. The location in the very heart of Hampton Roads is prime, and the land possibly could command a premium price.

Given the budgetary constraints of the federal government, the military must cut expenses. The brain-dead way is to cut the number of ships, aircraft and ground units. The better though more difficult way is to make more efficient use of existing assets. In theory, applying smart growth principles to military bases should rank high on the list of priorities. City officials in Hampton Roads should look at this as a golden opportunity to advance economic development in the region.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

9 responses to “Smart Growth Comes to the Military”

  1. hmmmph… I was a military brat also and I spend much of my adult working life on a Naval Base and I remember a variety of housing from the large homes for the officers to the more modest digs for enlisted married and single and various configurations of barracks and BOQs, etc – and most of them within walking distance of the commissary . library, school, gym bowling alley, etc.

    when I lived a bike would easy take you anywhere on base .. in fact, where I worked, we had government-provided bikes out front for folks that wanted to bike to meetings in other buildings.

    Maybe some bases are different from others … but here, take a look :

    http://goo.gl/maps/bfDUQ

  2. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    Yeah, let’s pack them all into high rises so the terrorists can get more with one device or the Chinese can do the job with one cruise missile.

    No, I’m fine with the layouts all spread out. I also grew up on military bases (we are all children of the American imperial century) and had both experiences, walkable communities and a whole lot of driving. But in my case we’re talking about some bases in Southern California so the Automobile was king in the 50s and 60s.

  3. ajfroggie Avatar

    As a still-active-duty servicemember (coincidentally in Norfolk), I disagree with Breckinridge’s viewpoint. If the Chinese lob just one cruise missile over, it’s going to be the type where you’d have to be spread out over a few hundred miles or more in order to avoid the impacts. Furthermore, “packing them all into high rises” is both A) more efficient and more economical (i.e. costs less in the long run), and B) puts more eyes on the street, which contrary to popular belief is an effective way to both reduce crime and reduce terrorism (citing examples in both New York and the Boston Marathon where crowdsourcing led to the discovery of bombs before they went off in the former, and led to the suspect in the latter).

    At the minimum, DoD needs to work with local authorities to make it easier to walk/bike/transit not just to the bases, but around/inside the bases. This would reduce the need for acres-upon-acres of parking, as noted in both James’ article and the StreetsblogDC article. Especially when the big decks are back, I can often bike to the office in the same amount (or occasionally less) time than it takes to drive, but it’s horribly dangerous to bike to/from the Norfolk base. This is something the city and the Navy need to work together on if they’re serious about reducing traffic.

  4. Hey Froggie! glad to see you commenting here!

    they need a bike advocate!

  5. High rise buildings? Yeah, Ok, Sure.

    So do you plan on closing down the airbases? Then you don’t need the carriers. Without carriers you don’t need the rest of the fleet either. Without a fleet you don’t need Smart Growth.

    As an added bonus you can tear down those long flat buildings. Good luck with that demolition project, it may take awhile and will end up costing more than what smart growth would have saved. A couple years ago I watched them tear down my old barracks at Oceana. It was there long before I showed up in 69. Took them over three months to clean up a two story building that was built like a bunker.

  6. I think it’s safe to say the military marches to a different drummer when it comes to “Smart Growth” although in my limited experience, the bases I was on tended to group things like commissary, library, theatre, etc close to the residential and located the “business end” of the military away from residential.

    but in terms of saving money.. for an enterprise that spends, for instance, 13 billion dollars on one aircraft carrier – and not counting all the aircraft on it or the operational costs to include thousands of sailors… cutting costs by making the bases Smart Growth models.. seems not the first place to start cutting since trying to do that would actually increase costs.

    The military actually squeezes it’s pennies on base housing.. at least on the bases I’ve been on. Much of it is old.. decades old housing that has been maintained. They paint, replace roofs, fix plumbing, etc… but the form factor of many looks like houses that were built back in the 40s, 50, 60s, and (except of officer housing) .. 4, 6, 8du …

  7. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    It’s frightening how vulnerable we likely are to attack. This smart growth solution to military would appear to magnify the problem. One hopes for a secret back up plan. Given recent experience I am not counting on it.

  8. […] How Could Smart Growth Affect Norfolk Naval Base? (Bacon’s Rebellion) […]

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    My childhood experience was camp lejeune. I.think the pattern was to be in the boonies and be spread out to minimize impsct of enemy attack

Leave a Reply