25,000 Homes, One Big Choice: Infill or Sprawl? This Is a Test of Leadership | Opinion
- Bugra Demirel
- Jun 2
- 4 min read
As Tallahassee continues to evolve, our community stands at a crossroads. On one hand, housing affordability is slipping. On the other, Florida — along with our region — is experiencing growth, driving up demand and pushing housing prices even higher. At the latest City and County Commission meetings, officials debated proposed amendments to our Comprehensive Plan — a long-term blueprint that guides how and where growth happens across the city and county. These amendments aren’t just technical adjustments; they’re foundational choices that will define the shape of Tallahassee for decades to come.
According to current state and local growth trends, our region will need to accommodate 25,000 new homes over the next 25 years to meet the demand.. That’s not a distant hypothetical — it’s an unavoidable reality. The question is simple, yet profound: Where do we want to put these homes?
There are only two options: urban sprawl or urban infill.
Urban sprawl means expanding outward — keep taking chunks of rural land, building subdivisions far from the city center. It strains infrastructure, costs tax-payers millions of dollars, worsens traffic, and chips away at the natural beauty surrounding Tallahassee.
Urban infill means investing inward — allowing increases in density within existing neighborhoods, particularly those close to jobs, parks, schools, restaurants, transit, and other amenities. These neighborhoods already have roads, utility connections, and fire services — saving taxpayers millions by avoiding the cost of building new infrastructure for incoming residents.
The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan aim to prioritize urban infill — and it all sounds great. But there’s a problem.
The proposal is facing fierce resistance from a small group of inner-city residents — particularly from groups like the Alliance of Tallahassee Neighborhoods (ATN), who oppose any increase in density within their neighborhoods. Let’s be honest about what that means: they don’t want new neighbors. They don’t want apartments. They don’t want townhomes. And, in effect, they don’t want Tallahassee to grow — at least not near them.
But growth is coming, with or without their approval.
If policymakers cave to pressure and delay these amendments, we’ll continue to see unchecked sprawl, more deforestation, and a city that grows wider instead of stronger. If we’re serious about protecting what makes Tallahassee unique, we have to get serious about smart, sustainable, equitable growth — and that starts with saying yes to infill, saying yes to proposed comprehensive plan amendments.
I’ve lived in Midtown for the past three years, in Levy Park. The developer who built my home was able to fit 5 townhomes on 0.56 acre. I love my neighbors, I love the neighborhood — the walkability, the energy, the access to great local businesses, proximity to my office, you name it. And I believe more people should have the opportunity to live there too.
That doesn’t mean building high-rises on every block. It means saying yes to duplexes, triplexes, and corner townhomes. It means welcoming new residents instead of building walls to keep them out.
Many of the similar neighborhoods in our urban core still have 0.50-acre lots occupied by just one single-family home — even as housing demand grows. These are residents who enjoy walking to local businesses like Kool Beanz, RedEye Coffee, and Whole Foods, yet oppose giving others the same access and quality of life. They resist even the most modest proposals, like allowing “light commercial” uses — such as daycares, coffee shops, or dry cleaners — that would serve their own neighborhood. They say things like “preserving neighborhood character,” but what they really mean is “preserving neighborhood demographics.” I firmly believe the ATN’s opposition to these amendments is fundamentally exclusionary — and, at its core, selfish and discriminatory.
The proposed plan amendments don’t change density overnight. Instead, they create a pathway for growth that balances two goals: focusing new development in the urban core and ensuring neighborhoods within the core have a say in how that happens.
Planning staff designed this approach to allow for neighborhood-specific plans — tailored by the neighbors and approved by the City Commission — before any increase in density. This means residents can help shape what infill and redevelopment look like in their own neighborhoods.
Public policy done right — thoughtful and balanced.
This isn’t just about housing — proposed amendments will help local businesses grow as well. For years, we’ve watched urban core (like downtown) businesses struggle to stay afloat. In my view, theissue is simple: there aren’t enough people living nearby to support them. Too many rely on seasonal traffic from students or the legislative session. So why not build a denser urban core that gives these businesses the steady, local customer base they need to thrive year-round? It's a no-brainer, to me at least.
The Tallahassee City Commission is meeting to discuss these amendments on June 11th. If you agree with me, now’s the time to speak up!
Use the link below to show your support for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Let your voice be heard!
This article is an opinion piece by Bugra Demirel, a longtime Tallahassee resident, entrepreneur, and community advocate. A graduate of Florida State University and Tallahassee State College, Bugra was inducted into the Tallahassee State College Alumni & Friends Hall of Fame in 2024 and honored as a Seminole 100 recipient for leading Demirel International—one of the fastest-growing businesses owned by an FSU alumnus. His company holds investments across retail, hospitality, manufacturing and commercial real estate industries.
Comments