Village Pattern 2.0: ChesCo's Answer to Sprawl

Village-style planning in Chester County is not a new planning trend. It is an older framework that was originally created as a defense against suburban sprawl and is now resurfacing as a practical way to manage growth.

The idea first appeared prominently in the Chester County Planning Commission’s Village Planning Handbook, published in 1993.

At the time, planners were already concerned about the dominant development pattern spreading across suburban counties: large-lot subdivisions separated from shopping areas and employment centers, connected almost entirely by car travel. That model, the handbook argued, gradually erodes rural landscapes, fragments historic communities, and forces local governments to extend roads, sewer lines, and utilities farther and farther across the countryside.

The handbook proposed an alternative known as the “village pattern.” Instead of spreading development evenly across the landscape, new housing and small commercial uses would be clustered around a compact center. Homes, shops, and civic spaces would sit within walking distance of one another, typically within about a quarter-mile radius. Streets would connect rather than end in cul-de-sacs, sidewalks would link daily destinations, and open space would remain preserved at the edges rather than scattered between subdivisions.

In the early 1990s, the concept was largely defensive. The county was trying to protect its rural character and slow the outward spread of low-density suburban development.

Over time, the idea evolved into policy. The county’s comprehensive plan, Landscapes3, adopted in 2018, and the Rural Center Landscapes Design Guide released in 2022, outline practical standards for walkable villages: mixed housing types, small commercial buildings, connected sidewalks, and parking placed to the side or rear of structures. The Village Preservation Guide, updated in 2024, goes even further by providing ordinance examples and describing different village types—from historic hamlets to growth-area villages that can accommodate new housing.

The early planning documents warned against sprawl. Today, the same ideas are being revisited as a way to absorb population growth without overwhelming roads, sewer systems, and local services.

Several places in Chester County already illustrate how this village-style approach can work in practice.

One of the most visible examples is Eagleview in Upper Uwchlan Township near Exton. Developed beginning in the 1990s, Eagleview was intentionally designed as a mixed-use community where homes, offices, restaurants, and shops exist within walking distance. The roughly 800-acre development includes residential neighborhoods, office space, and a town center organized around sidewalks, parks, and public gathering spaces. Eagleview Town Center functions much like a traditional village square, with restaurants and small businesses arranged around a green where events and farmers’ markets take place. While it is a modern development, the layout reflects many of the principles described in the county’s village planning guides.

A newer example of the same logic appears in the proposed redevelopment of “Exton Square Mall click to read more”. The mall, which opened in the 1970s, is being considered for transformation into a mixed-use town center that would combine housing, retail, restaurants, and public space on the roughly 75-acre property. Early redevelopment concepts call for replacing large sections of the enclosed mall and surrounding parking lots with a walkable street network and hundreds of residential units integrated with shops and entertainment uses.

Instead of a single retail building surrounded by parking, the proposal seeks to create something more like a small district where people can live, shop, and gather in one place. In planning terms, this reflects a broader shift happening across the country as aging retail and corporate centers are converted into compact mixed-use environments.

Yet this type of redevelopment illustrates the balancing act that village-style planning creates. Higher density makes walkable centers possible, but it can also trigger concerns about traffic, infrastructure capacity, and community character. The same design features that planners view as efficient clustered housing, mixed uses, and concentrated activity are sometimes interpreted by residents as signs of overdevelopment.

Similar dynamics are beginning to appear across the county as municipalities update comprehensive plans and zoning tools. Some townships have adopted village or traditional neighborhood overlays that allow clustered development and mixed-use nodes, while trail expansions such as the Chester Valley Trail and the Southern Chester County Circuit Trail are creating opportunities for walkable destinations along the trail itself. In this model, the trail becomes a spine linking mini-villages together. Projects like the proposed Trestle Bridge Reimagined in Downingtown, which would convert a historic rail trestle into a multi-use trail crossing, show how new connections could extend that network.

The bigger question is whether the idea will remain limited to a handful of projects or become a broader strategy for managing growth across the county. As infrastructure pressures increase and land becomes scarcer, the village model that planners promoted decades ago may gradually shift from an idealistic planning concept into a pragmatic response to the realities of growth.

Let’s move Pennsylvania forward.