Post-Base Urbanism

While it's easy to pack up small bases with few traces of use, medium and main operating bases are packed with valuable infrastructure.

If the last thing you may expect to see in the desert is a Cinnabon, you’re not alone.

Not all bases are created equal

Note: This table generalizes from publicly available information. Not all bases in each category will have have every amenity, as they are highly dependent upon branch, location, and construction year.

The U.S. Navy's Construction Battalions grading land for Cubi Point, Philippines, 1953.

Trucks unloading coral for a bomber runway in the Mariana Islands, 1944.

Function, security, and quick deployment are top priority over form, comfort, and longevity. A historical document from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in eastern Asia states, “The first goal, keeping U.S. forces ready to fight, could not be allowed to fail. The second goal, providing comfortable living for U.S. personnel and families, was not as clear-cut.” Despite the cost of maintaining these bases—Vine estimates at least $71.8 billion every year, conservatively—they are often lacking substantial investment. Architects and planners charged with the responsibility of rehabilitating former bases have described them as having, “oppressive uniformity,” “lack of public space with an urban character,” and “little regard for enhancing the quality of life.” In Germany, Augsburg’s city planner believed American development in the area was, “in absolute contrast to Augsburg’s city planning customs and thus caused damage that was not amendable.” Let’s explore the foundations of American base building: 

Bases range in size from single airstrips to sprawling estates. Some of these places have been closed to the public eye for generations. The oldest U.S. base still in operation, Guantanamo Bay, is a household name. Who is funding all this? U.S. taxpayers. Vine estimated in 2021 that the cost of, “maintaining bases and military personnel overseas reaches at least $71.8 billion every year and could easily be in the range of $100-120 billion. That’s larger than the discretionary budget for every government agency except the Department of Defense itself.” Additionally, U.S. taxpayers, “pay an average of $10,000 to $40,000 more per year to station a member of the military abroad compared to in the United States.” The simple difference of stationing a service member in San Diego, California versus Okinawa Japan has a $10-40,000 cost difference.

So why do base closures matter? The current administration is putting long-standing institutions on the chopping block—and the military may not be exempt. While over half of bases closed as the direct result of a conflict ending, 42% closed due to budgetary restrictions and strategic downsizing. Since 1898, the U.S. military has closed nearly 1,800 bases in over 100 countries. From Cold War-era radar stations in Iceland to crucial WWII airstrips in Papua New Guinea, base closures affect local populations in different ways. Often, base closures provide unique opportunities for host nations to take large tracts of land, many of which were closed off for decades and create a place that meets the community’s needs. While some closures will lead to once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for development, many take on quieter uses. Perhaps an old training range simply returns to nature or officer’s quarters become homes in tranquil neighborhoods. Regardless, these thousands of sites offer a chance for a second life for the generations to come, especially in places that have been militarized for decades.

Today, there are over 800 American military bases in at least 80 countries around the world, excluding the U.S. and its territories.

Around the world, government officials, entrepreneurs, sports enthusiasts, and artists have sought creative solutions to local bases closing. Imagine a café nested in a former Air Force control tower, a university campus centered around a helipad, an airport constructed from recycled materials and powered by renewable energy, or rehabilitating Mongolian horses running free on former Army training grounds.  

A 2006 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report titled, Turning Bases into Great Places: New Life for Closed Military Facilities, explores this in great detail, detailing how to bridge the community's needs with the base’s existing infrastructure, historical elements, and nature. It posits, “For some towns, the base is already emotionally or physically the heart of the community, and redevelopment simply reinforces that role.” Let's explore some of the most common rehabilitations of former military bases.

The opportunity to transform a former base presents options for local governments, communities, and corporations to stimulate the local economy, address housing shortages, preserve heritage, protect the environment, or bolster their own defense.

Many installations have been given new life, ranging from refugee housing to megastadiums, and war museums to aquariums.

Does the military branch play a role in reuse?

Absolutely. In fact, this may shed some light on why the number one reuse of former U.S. military sites involves aviation.

The average opening date of today's military bases is 1946. Rising cost of materials, spatial goals, construction methods, and energy standards are just a few of the things modern day planners and engineers encounter when rehabilitating old bases. Then there are the little things, like outlets lacking compatibility with the host nation, or appliances being too large to fit into locals’ homes. 

When bases close in the United States, engineers and contractors are charged with cleaning up these formerly used defense sites. Their protocol is as follows: clean up hazardous substances and contaminants, identify and remove any unexploded ordinances or munitions, and demolish unsafe buildings or structures. Hazardous materials in a military environment could be engine fuel, kerosene, chemical weapons, asbestos, mold, lead-based paints, or nuclear waste. Technology allows them to take stock of old bases’ constructive qualities—concrete, metal, and so on—based on age and location to determine whether there are hazardous materials present. This is especially valuable today, as bases that have been expanded over generations contain more unknowns. 

What you just read is the recommended protocol in the United States. A key difference with bases abroad is that host nations don’t have the opportunity to conduct in-depth environmental monitoring and analysis before the land is given back. Environmental cleanup, ammunition removal, and site monitoring are expensive, and depending on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)—the legally binding document the U.S. and the host nation cosign—the military may not be liable for shouldering those costs. Vine’s research shows that by WWII’s end, “the military was building base facilities at an average rate of 112 a month.” Bases built quickly may not have taken environmental factors or hazards into account, and those effects would only compound over the years. In some cases, bases can’t always be remediated, or the investment may not be worth it, which may explain why 11.7% of bases have been left to nature, 4.4% were abandoned, and 0.8% were simply demolished.

Base closure sign in Bad Kreuzbach, Germany

Many of their best practices mirror those already mentioned, like increasing walkability, preserving history, and emphasizing public spaces, with the goal of replacing the jobs lost when the base closed. The report also underscores the importance of creating places with amenities, business opportunities, and character. 

An architecture firm responsible for rehabilitating Nellingen Kaserne in Germany wrote, “These spaces… tend to pose more of an inherited problem than a welcomed asset.” But what about the hundreds of success stories of rehabilitated bases? Across thousands of case studies, briefs, and project retrospectives, I encountered many of the same wishes and goals when bringing these spaces into the 21st century: an emphasis on green space, energy efficiency, car-free or pedestrian-focused streets, prioritizing public spaces, and preservation of historical details. At the end of the day, it's up to the government, local community, and associated agencies to assess the former base's offerings in terms of infrastructure, historical ties, cultural remnants and what they want to bring into the future.

17% of former bases are used for aviation. The U.S. military is responsible for constructing several country’s international airports, such as Curaçao, Bora Bora, and Tuvalu. In many countries, an airfield may have been the only real infrastructure harnessed by the U.S., like remote islands in the south Pacific or the arid deserts of the Middle East.

Many facilities were seized by enthusiastic drag racers taking advantage of the massive, disused airfields. A WWII airfield in North Bedfordshire became Europe's first permanent drag racing venue.

11.7% of bases revert to their natural state as nature preserves, forests, parks or undeveloped land. Given the U.S. military’s history as one of the largest contributors to climate change, this may seem counterintuitive. However, according to Turning Bases into Great Places, “Many bases have large, undisturbed natural areas that can continue to provide great habitat for fish and wildlife and recreational space for people.” This is especially true for sites that may have only been used for training purposes and no structures were built. Germany alone converted 62 military bases into nature reserves for eagles, woodpeckers, bats, and beetles.

9.3% become residential districts, neighborhoods, villages, or student housing.

In cases where new housing was built, units for low-income residents, senior citizens, first-time homebuyers and people with disabilities are targeted.

Part of a former Air Force base in rural England is now a nature preserve

Here are the top uses of bases globally.