The absence is what strikes you the first time you stroll through Tempe, Arizona’s Culdesac. No driveways. There are no garages. There are no endless parking lots. There are only modest stores at street level, mid-rise apartments constructed around courtyards, narrow, shaded streets, and the peaceful buzz of a neighborhood built with the presumption that its people would not own automobiles.
Near the entryway is a coffee shop where, on most mornings, you may find someone who moved there from a suburban Phoenix single-family house and is a little taken aback by how different everyday life has become. The cost of gas is no longer a concern for them. Parking is no longer a concern for them. If you give it enough thought, the change is more significant than the architecture would imply.
| American Suburb Retrofit Movement — Key Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Movement | Post-car suburban retrofit and densification |
| Common Industry Term | “Surban” development |
| Notable Example #1 | Pike & Rose, Rockville, MD |
| Notable Example #2 | Ballantyne Reimagined, Charlotte, NC |
| Notable Example #3 | Culdesac, Tempe, Arizona |
| Pioneering Concept | Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) |
| Key Architectural Tool | Form-based codes |
| Common Zoning Reform | Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) |
| Walkable Infrastructure | Complete Streets, protected bike lanes |
| Reference Resource | Strong Towns |
| Federal Policy Anchor | U.S. DOT Reconnecting Communities Program |
| Environmental Benefit | Reduced impervious surface, lower carbon emissions |
| Equity Outcome | Improved access for non-drivers, children, seniors |
| Adoption Geography | Mid-Atlantic, Sun Belt, Pacific Northwest |
| Underlying Driver | Aging mall infrastructure, housing affordability pressure |
The most dramatic example of a movement that has been subtly changing American suburbs for more than ten years is Culdesac. In Rockville, Maryland, Pike & Rose converted a section of suburban Maryland that had previously resembled every other commercial corridor in the United States into a walkable mixed-use area with residential buildings perched above ground-floor shops.
In Charlotte, Ballantyne Reimagined created a new village center where surface parking once predominated, added twenty miles of walking and bicycling routes, and transformed a former golf course into a public green area. In order to progressively transform car-centric strip development into denser, mixed-use streets, San Jose has revised its commercial corridor zoning under form-based standards. Not everyone has embraced these initiatives. In any case, they are all occurring.
The suburban retrofit movement, as urbanists have begun to refer to it, is situated at a unique nexus of ideology and pragmatism. The practical argument is simple: around one-third of the more than 100,000 retail centers constructed in the US in the late 20th century are currently experiencing financial difficulties.
One of the biggest underutilized real estate inventories in the nation is found beneath those malls, which are typically eight to twenty acres of paved ground in strategically placed suburbs. It is no longer truly an ideological decision to do something constructive with such land, particularly in urban areas where housing supply has drastically lagged behind demand. It’s an arithmetic problem.
The case for ideology is more contentious. Single-family homes, two-car garages, expansive lawns, the division of residential and commercial uses, and the underlying presumption that the vehicle would be the primary means of personal transportation were all part of the post-war American ideal upon which suburbs were initially constructed. For many generations, such aim was successful.
Additionally, it resulted in significant environmental expenses, practically impossible housing for non-drivers, and a sort of forced segregation for the young, the elderly, and those with lower incomes. The original suburban paradigm was always going to age poorly, according to the retrofit movement, which makes this claim gently in some areas and forcefully in others. Your location and the amount of time you’ve spent sitting in traffic this year will determine whether or not that argument succeeds.
The demographic mix is part of the story as you go into Pike & Rose on a Saturday afternoon. Young families are pushing strollers from a coffee shop to an indoor climbing gym. older Montgomery County people who moved out of single-family dwellings.
Twentysomethings who would have relocated to Washington, D.C. proper ten years ago, but because their area has the density and walkability they associate with city living, they are now quite happy living in Rockville. Observing the foot activity gives the impression that the suburb is now a location where people live rather than just a place they commute from. It’s hardly a graceful transition. Zoning disputes and a lot of construction noise are involved. However, it is taking place.
In subtle ways that don’t usually make news, the federal policy environment has been supportive. The bipartisan infrastructure legislation gave rise to the Reconnecting Communities Program, which has provided funding for retrofits intended to repair some of the urban harm caused by freeway building in the middle of the 20th century.
Accessory dwelling units are now much simpler to construct in residential zones that were formerly restricted to single-family use thanks to state-level zoning amendments in California, Oregon, and Washington. Form-based regulations, which govern a building’s physical attributes rather than its intended uses, have extended from a few forward-thinking communities to mainstream planning departments in the Midwest and South.
It’s difficult to ignore how the cultural discourse around American suburbs has changed. Twenty years ago, the argument between suburbs and cities had significant moral weight, with each side criticizing the other of making a poor decision. The discussion in 2026 is more useful and, in some respects, more fascinating. Living in a suburb is not the question. It’s the type of suburb where people will reside, whether it’s the walkable sort that is gradually absorbing demand or the car-dependent variety that is gradually losing it.
Speaking with the planners and developers behind this effort gives me the impression that the next twenty years of suburban development in America will resemble a gradual, piece-by-piece reconstruction rather than a dramatic reinvention. It is actually unclear if such pace will be sufficient to fulfill housing affordability and climate goals. The retrofits are authentic. The clock is authentic, too.
