What is Infill Development?

Infill development is the process of developing vacant or under-used parcels within existing urban areas that are already largely developed.  Most communities have significant vacant land within city limits, which, for various reasons, has been passed over in the normal course of urbanization. A successful infill development program focuses on the completion of the existing community fabric.  It should focus on filling gaps in the neighborhood. Following are 5 reasons why this form of development is needed now.

1. Infill development contributes to a more compact form of development which is less consumptive of land and resources

Many developers are bypassing vacant urban area land for less expensive land beyond our cities edges.  Our current patterns of sprawling, low-density development at the urban fringe are consuming land (including farmlands, wetlands, and other resource lands)  at a much faster rate than population growth.

2. Infill development offers increased mobility for those who can’t or prefer not to drive. It is also an important part of the equation for minimizing traffic congestion.

In-city living offers other transportation choices in addition to the automobile.  Filling in the gaps creates higher average densities, which in turn support more frequent transit service.  Residents who live near where they work, shop, or pursue other activities often can choose to walk, and carpools may be easier to arrange.  Such choice is particularly important for those who can’t drive including elderly, youth, or low income residents who lack a car.  Communities are learning that they cannot build their way out of traffic congestion.  New highways or lane additions typically fill up as fast as they are built as a result of the extended commutes and more frequent vehicle trips required by spread-out development.

3. Fully utilizing existing facilities and services before considering costly service extensions to outlying areas offers savings for local government budgets.

Building expensive new facilities while existing facilities have existing capacity is wasteful duplication in an era of belt tightening. Many local jurisdictions traditionally have averaged the costs of services across all users rather than charging the full cost of serving more distant development.  This has made outlying development relatively less expensive for the developer, while straining local government budgets. In addition, we are racing to construct expensive, new schools in outlying areas at the same time that we agonize over closing and finding new uses for inner city schools.  Growth at the cities’ edges has come at the expense of central cities.  Older buildings in core areas have been abandoned, existing utilities are underutilized and, in general,  new investment has been redirected to the outlying areas.  Infill development also bolsters local government budgets by putting under- utilized vacant land back on the tax roles.

4. Renewed infill and investment in our central cities is crucial to the overall economic health of the surrounding region

Infill development brings increased numbers of residents to support in-city city commercial centers.  A more efficient business climate can result from employment centers located in close proximity  rather than in scattered sites.  The health of central city downtowns is intertwined with that of the region as a whole.  For a region to be well-positioned to compete in a global economy, it must have at its vortex a thriving central city which can provide the vitality and draw to fuel the region’s economy.

5. Infill development can bring new opportunity and improved qualify of life for in-city residents

The migration of higher-income residents, together with the best jobs, educational opportunities and services from many central cities, has left low-income residents isolated.  It can be very difficult for them to learn about and travel to distant jobs, especially if dependent on transit that requires multiple bus transfers, or carpooling to scattered job sites.  Reduced population and average income in cities also produces fewer tax dollars to support public services, and local businesses.  Fewer opportunities and positive role models, can contribute to loss of hope, increased anti-social behavior and crime.  These trends further fuel middle-class migration from cities.  In contrast, in-city neighborhoods offer living opportunities in neighborhoods with distinctive character and more opportunity for social interaction than sprawl development typically provides.  Infill development can return jobs, purchasing power and new amenities to an urban neighborhood.

It’s a beautiful, warm spring day here in Richmond, VA.  The sprinklers were going in neighborhood yards as I left for work this morning and the clouds are moving lightly on the breeze.  With the sun shining and the birds chirping outside of my office window, even I and my old pal Eeyore could smile and see some optimism for the future.

Activity abounds in the sustainable building world.  California is implementing the first state wide “green”  building code and, according to my friend Imad Naffa (@imadnaffa on Twitter), that state will be pressing builders and developers to build in a sustainable manner.  Governmental units, both small and large, are seeking to add zoning or other incentives to build in a sustainable manner.   More and more developers are seeking LEED certification (though this certification is sometimes subject to challenge).  All of these signs point toward the desire for a more energy efficient and responsible built environment.

The dad in me wants this badly and quickly.  Better air quality, less energy use, and a more predictable weather pattern (to the extent that weather is predictable) can only lead to a better future for my kids.  However (and this is where you should get the “here he goes again” look on your face as you read this), the sad little donkey on my other shoulder is always reminding me to step back and take a quick look at the big picture.

The enthusiasm for the sustainable construction paradigm is laudable but should not overtake some sensible discussion of risks and costs.  Questions (several of which I have discussed at Construction Law Musings) that should be considered during the policy phase of this enterprise are as follows:

• What are the costs to a private developer of forced “green” building that cannot be tailored to a particular project?  Will these costs preclude certain development?
• Can the insurance industry catch up with the regulators?  Without proper insurance coverage, contractors may not be able to justify construction.
• How does the use of LEED (a laudable private rating system that can change without the usual legislative process) in certain zoning and building requirements create risks for the owners, architects and builders?
• What about simple time horizon risks?

None of these issues are insurmountable and I remain optimistic that we can deal with them in a rational fashion.  While I don’t know the answers to these questions from a legal risk management standpoint, as a construction attorney and father, I feel that I would not be promoting a permanent change without bringing the questions to light so that they don’t surprise us and kill this hard fought momentum.  Once many of these questions are considered carefully, we may decide that some are simply too small to deal with, while others are highly relevant and should be dealt with before the courts make the decisions for us.  Once the questions are in the open and some answer is reached, a more permanent foundation for a brighter, more energy efficient future will arise.

Let me close by saying that because of folks like Yahya Henry and the other contributors here at Aribra, and the many great friends I have met along the way, Eeyore is getting quieter and quieter as time goes on.

From Next American City | American Poor Spread to Suburbia, but We’re not Ready

Let’s face it: American public policy has yet to respond to or even grasp the profound change in settlement patterns that has been gradually making its mark on the nation’s landscape over the past few decades.

Cities from Detroit to Des Moines have been pushing the gentrification of their downtowns, with generally positive results, and the results are well documented.

But more consequential to a far larger group is the mass out-migration of impoverished people from center cities into the suburbs, often in the same metropolitan areas. According to a recent Brookings Institute Study, the process is accelerating. Between 2000 and 2008, the percent of poor people living in the suburbs increased by 25%, compared to by 5.6% in central cities and 15.4% for the nation as a whole. More of the poor now live in the suburbs than in central cities: 12.5 million versus 11 million.

The out-migration of the lower-middle class has been just as notable.

From a transportation perspective, this change in the lifestyles of the poor will have a significant effect. Public transit works best when it’s in dense urban centers because it can provide efficiencies of scale by offering service to many people at the same time. This allows it to be cheap enough to satisfy most of the transportation needs of the poor—but only if they live in communities that can be adequately served by buses and trains.

When urban poverty was concentrated in the inner city, at least those who lived there were able to have relatively quick and convenient access via train or bus to the jobs in the downtown office core.

Unfortunately, the increasing presence of poor people in the suburbs means a growing share of the population that lives in sprawling neighborhoods where the provision of mass transit is limited at best—and cannot be expanded at a reasonable cost.

It’s worth looking at one particularly affected region—the Washington, D.C. metro area—to understand what’s going on. According to the Brookings report, the number of poor people in the region’s core cities, including Washington, Arlington, and Alexandria, decreased by 15,000 between 2000 and 2008, to 121,000. In the suburbs, on the other hand, the number of poor exploded by 40,000 to 251,000. Though the poverty rate in the central cities remains higher, the sheer number of poor people in the suburbs is much greater. And it means that the people living in transportation-rich inner-cities are becoming relatively wealthier.

An Urban Land Institute/Center of Housing Policy report from last year clarified both the causes and the effects of those changes. The primary explanation of the migration is the availability of low-cost housing on the suburban fringe in Maryland and Virginia; though lodging is still relatively cheap in many of the eastern parts of the District, suburban homes are both cheap and new. Even more attractive is the fact that suburbs promote the image of a crime-free, pastoral environment, a perception that unfortunately tends to fade away once too many poor people make the leap out of the inner-city core.

The high rate of foreclosures in Washington’s eastern and southern suburbs is indicative of the degree to which the lower-middle class has chosen to leave the inner city. The primary consequence of this move away from the dense core is an increase in transportation costs, primarily because of a corresponding increase in the use of private automobiles: the Urban Land Institute report documents an almost inverse relationship between housing prices and transportation costs. Suburban dwellers—rich or poor—find themselves in a situation where their only choice is driving relatively expensive cars.

When a family simply can’t afford to own and operate an automobile, the result is a massive reduction in mobility.

In this context, Celia Dugger’s recent article in The New York Times about Johannesburg, South Africa’s new bus rapid transit system seems particularly relevant. Her discussion of the difficulties of commuting for a nanny living far from the wealthy enclave in which she works is framed in terms of the long-term effects of apartheid, but her situation described could also be interpreted as yet another example of the class-based segregation that disrupts the lives of the working poor in many major cities.

Do U.S. cities provide adequate transportation for people in poor, suburban communities? Surely not in every case, since Americans of all income classes face increasingly long commutes that often don’t seem much different than that of the South African woman profiled in the Times article. Many metropolitan regions have developed in a way that requires a large percentage of the population to take hours-long journeys to get from home to work. This is not a problem confined to the southern hemisphere.

Are the American poor seriously limited by their place in the urban landscape? Can we build housing in a denser manner throughout metro regions, in both inner cities and suburbs, to ensure that we can provide adequate transit everywhere? Can we find ways to encourage the poor to stay in the cities, where they have greater mobility?

I don’t have easy answers to any of these questions, but current federal and local policy does not address the commuting needs of the suburban poor. Too many federal dollars are spent in an effort to attract people to cheap home loans and onto new highways—incentives that ultimately inspire people to move out of the inner-cities, where transportation is cheaper. Meanwhile, neither the federal government nor states have shown leadership in promoting a new way of thinking about and developing the suburbs, whose form remains stuck in the 1950s model, one that may be appealing but which is ultimately difficult to promote for people at the bottom of the income bracket.

Full | The American Poor Spread to Suburbia, but We’re not Ready

Brooklyn 1766

From where I live, I can hear cruise ships sound warnings in the night. I can see sea gulls pausing in church towers. Sometimes, I think I can even smell the sea, or at least feel its misty kiss.

But from where I live, in my apartment or on terra firma (the sidewalk outside) I cannot see from where these signs come. I cannot see the sea.

For perspective, I live a block away from the second highest point in Brooklyn and about 1.5 miles from the Bay as the crow flies. If I got on my roof, I’d view slivers of the East River, bits of New York Harbor, a slice of the Verrazano Narrows. But I don’t have access.

The view from my window.

Over the last two centuries, Brooklyn boomed. Lots of fairly flat farmland and easy access to the surrounding waterways made it appealing to the 17th century Dutch settlers (and of course the Native Indian people before them) and then the British shortly after. What was farmland and before that field and forest is now hardscape. Concrete, brick, mortar, asphalt, glass, steel. Not much permeability, and very little visibility.

New York City is surrounded by water, but you’d be hard-pressed to see it unless you crossed a bridge, made your way to the outermost edges of each borough, took a ride on the Staten Island Ferry or a water taxi. It’s easy to forget that water is all around us.

Harbor views are saved for those with roof decks and those who work or live in high-rise buildings. So, how can the rest of us enjoy the sparkly flow of the East River, the majesty of New York Harbor? A couple of ideas:

Periscopes

If there were a periscope on every block, we’d all get to enjoy a lovely liberty sunset. Check out this nice periscope from an old issue of Popular Mechanics.

Observation towers

This tower has multiple vantage points, so we could all get a piece of the view.
[Killesberg Observation Tower, Schlaich, Bergermann and Partners]

How about this dual-purpose wind turbine tower?

Look, there’s already one in Fort Greene Park. Now how do I get up there?

If we all had a view of the water around us, maybe we’d be more careful about how we treat it. Maybe we’d preserve it, and not pollute it. Maybe we’d think about what we let go down the drain, and prevent trash and chemical run-off from entering storm drains. Maybe.

Can you see the sea, a lake, or stream from where you live? Does it inspire you?

The current economic crisis offers a chance for a paradigm shift. We should not waste this opportunity by returning to the status quo that existed before the downturn or even pining for that unsustainable state. Instead, we should embrace rethinking our economy, and in particular our land use, development and construction policies.

We are already seeing some economic changes relating to the downturn. Prior to the economic freefall over the last year, savings rates had dwindled to literally nothing. With the modest level of recovery, some are bemoaning the lackluster spending on American consumers. What we are seeing is actually a rebound of more healthy savings rates rather than a continued hunger for excessive material goods fueled by debt financing. Count me as one who sees this as a long term win even if it means a slower recovery.

The downturn has had disparate impacts that in some markets are directly tied to land use policy. In urban style Arlington County, Virginia, the recession has certainly slowed business growth and hurt specific businesses. Overall, however, property values have dropped only very modestly in the midst of a global downturn. The 2009 budget actually called for a 4.4% budget increase while 2010 recommended a very modest 1.3% decline. These budget estimates reflect a modest drop in property tax revenues associated with a modest property tax increase and moderate value decreases.

By comparison, Prince William and Loudoun Counties experienced spectacular numerical growth fueled by huge sprawling single family subdivisions which feed into clogged arterial highways. These regions have suffered precipitous drops in property values and high foreclosure rates. For example, in 2006, Prince William recorded a total of 249 foreclosures. In 2008, this number jumped to 6,549. These jurisdictions are now struggling to shift their focus and development approach.

Transit oriented dense development has demonstrated a more sustainable environmental footprint and economic framework in challenging times. This intersection of economic and environmental sustainability makes the discussions blooming at places like Aribra and Build2Sustain so exciting and timely. Sustainability requires both economic and environmental consideration and in the end, both are truly symbiotic.

On one level, I see these changes and events as looking forward to the future. On another very different level, I see them as harkening to the better part of our nation’s past. I was raised in large part by my grandparents, children of the depression. My grandfather served in both World War II and the Korean War. Their generation, rightfully called the Greatest Generation, worked, fought, scrimped, and challenged our nation to success. It was these qualities of talent and character, coupled with a wealth of natural resources and a structural backbone of democracy and freedom that constitute what I associate with the phrase “American Exceptionalism”.

Over the last few decades, I believe we have strayed far from the ideals of the Greatest Generation. Deficit financing of excessive consumer goods does not match that generation’s value system. Folks who trumpet the theory that American Exceptionalism means we are “the best” and therefore can swing our global weight around do not get it either. It is not that we ever were or thought we were better than anyone else, but rather that the Greatest Generation did what they had to do and got it done. In fact, this co-opting of the Greatest Generation’s spirit in political discourse runs counter to the very concepts of humility and service that ran at the core of the Greatest Generation.

I think about these themes quite a bit in my daily life, my legal practice, and talks amongst friends. I was so struck when my friend and twitter pal James Bedell recently commented on this very theme in a post The End of American Exceptionalism. If this concept is about permanent US world domination, that is not reality in my book: what goes up, must eventually come down. I grew up pondering the theory of cost of empire and the fall of the Roman Empire. I was part of the guinea pig test history classes for Paul Kennedy’s widely respected The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a tremendous book that still rings true decades later.

In the end, I agree with James that the world hungers for, loves and purchases our “culture”, but I believe to my core that what is perceived as American culture is part of the problem and not the solution moving forward. American Exceptionalism started and maintained from a very different set of core values, and those core values propelled us in large part to our success. In the end, it is about a more modest set of assumptions and expectations, values based on service and leadership rather than consumption and domination. These values in turn fit directly into developing a more sustainable model of growth and the economy moving forward. These values are ours to embody and demonstrate or to ignore and discard, so in the end, the question of whether American Exceptionalism is alive is up to us.

Photo, Flickr

I live a double life.

Most recently that life has been spent amid a cacophony of rumbling trains on the elevated subway line outside my window, the din of car horns from the drive-through fast food restaurant below my building, shrieks from emergency vehicles, bangs and clashes from the construction work on Columbia’s new campus across the way, shouts from passersby, and yes on rare occasions, gunshots.

In contrast, I spent the majority of my life – I’m only 35 – in rural America where the audible equivalent to my current urban context consisted of insects louder than the 1 and 2 trains rumbling above Broadway, roosters and wild turkeys announcing the coming daylight, solitary cars on the highway just down what use to be a dirt road when I was a kid, the distant haunting drone of the Silver Meteor or the Palmetto passing through town three miles west, and, though with more frequency but less suspicion, gunshots.

Lately, I’ve been giving a considerable amount of thought to just how these two extremes, both of which I love for peculiar reasons, are actually two sides of the same coin. On Wednesday, May 23, 2007, that coin got a tad bit weighted to one side as scientists from North Carolina State University and the University of Georgia projected that the earth’s human population, for the first time in history, had become more urban than rural.

Even as these scientists urged us to avoid placing greater importance on urban populations in light of these findings, much of academia rushed to exploit and skew this information with untold numbers of urban studies. Urban had become academically fashionable in a way it never had been before. In actuality, we’re not talking about some dramatic shift; the United Nations estimated that by 2010, less than two months from now, there will only be a 2.6% difference in favor of urban population numbers!

This isn’t a zero-sum game. Urban and rural communities are not in competition with each other – at least they shouldn’t be considered that way. Rural communities produce goods and resources that are then processed by our cities for both urban and rural consumers. Interestingly, researches suggest that if either had to sustain themselves without the other, “few would bet on the cities.”

But there’s a dark side to this relationship between urban and rural communities. NC State and Georgia researchers concluded that not only do rural areas have more than their share of poverty and low education attainment, but they also receive a disproportionate amount garbage, polluted air, contaminated water, and hazardous waste produced by their urban counterparts!

Urban America, regardless of its newly established majority standing, can not afford to continue dumping on rural America.  While one might go so far as to consider this immoral, I believe it’s just plain dumb. Cities need the resources provided by surrounding rural areas for their continuation. Conversely, rural America cannot be left out of the conversations that are going on across this country regarding infrastructure, sustainability, community empowerment, education, and the arts.  It just will not do.

As I continue to discover the similarities and differences between my double lives, I look forward to sharing them and making the connections more mutually meaningful. Moving forward, it’s quite clear there can be no healthy urban America without a equally healthy rural America.

US Army Forces Command & US Army Reserve Forces Command HQ - Under Construction

At first glance, you would think Fayetteville, NC was the mecca of affordable living. The city was voted one of America’s most military-friendly cities and has received quite a bit of national press over the past several months; primarily, for having one of the best performing real estate markets in the country. While  most markets are experiencing double-digit declines, Fayetteville’s growth has been consistent and the city has experienced double-digit appreciation year-over-year.

Rank: 5

Metro: Fayetteville (N.C.)
Share of homes with increasing values: 53.23%
Median value: $119,800
Annual change: 13.12%
Quarterly change: 2.22%

Source: BusinessWeek “The 30 Strongest Housing Markets In the US, August, 2009

If you’ve ever driven Interstate 95 through North Carolina, chances are you’ve driven through or refueled in Fayetteville. Fayetteville, NC has been the news a lot recently; not because it’s Julianne Moore’s hometown (and mine) but because of what’s going on there. The city is in the middle of a rather significant transformation and the country has been watching. Fayetteville is a part of the Sandhills Region and is located within Cumberland County, NC, which is home to Fort Bragg. Fort Bragg is on track to be one of the largest Army installations in the world. As a result of a 2005 BRAC commission recommendation, Fort MacPherson (GA) is scheduled to close. The US Army Forces Command and US Army Reserve Forces Command will be moved to Fort Bragg by March, 2011 and some 40,000 new residents will be added to the area. That’s huge for a city with a population just over 115,000. There is a gold rush underway all to accommodate the incoming troops and their dependents. How will the city manage this growth?

FORSCOM has a $30 billion annual obligation authority for defense and other contracts and provides unmatched opportunities for enterprising businesses who want to compete for these dollars. As a result, many defense-related companies have made the move or are in the planning stage to relocate to the Fort Bragg region. ~ BRAC Regional Task Force

The Disconnect

The Wall Street Journal reported on a Zillow finding that Fayetteville was experiencing double-digit appreciation. Is it good? Maybe for the developers. See, the city of Fayetteville has been largely reactive instead proactive as it relates to this new growth. Infrastructure improvements once delayed have become priority, and a zoning ordinance that hadn’t been revised since 1974 is being revamped. There is evidence of this lack of vision all throughout my hometown. Sidewalks are almost nonexistent in the most populated areas and the public transportation is like many smaller cities, inefficient. It’s safe to assume that the variables used in measuring the increases were partial.

Not only is Fayetteville the sixth largest city in North Carolina, it is also the flattest. Development continues to go out instead of up. I have spent several months researching infill opportunities there and sought to compare and contrast other projects that had been completed. I found one. A sole project downtown that everyone points to when asked about infill development in the city. It’s a well-designed building at the corner of Hay Street and Ray Avenue. Hay Street is the Main Street for the city and an attempt is underway to revitalize the entire downtown area. I understand the project sold out before construction was complete. It wasn’t large enough to create critical mass, but it was large enough to serve as a prototype for what can be accomplished in the city.

I’m not certain I follow the logic in repeating the history and development model that’s proven to be unsustainable but, as far as the city is concerned, there is no other model to follow. Largely, the prevailing housing options in Fayetteville and surrounding communities are single-family detached homes on cul-de-sacs. This model works here because land prices are still relatively cheap and construction prices have remained level compared to other parts of the country. Developers haven’t been challenged to do anything differently or engage in more sustainable development.

The Challenge

My search for sites was and continues to be pretty challenging. I have looked at three. One was in immediate vicinity to Fayetteville State University, and the other two are near Cape Fear Valley Hospital. I thought that if any area had potential for redevelopment, it was these two; the sites were located near the city’s largest employers. Well I was wrong. Growth doesn’t occur within the city limits but on the outskirts, where there is plenty of land. I was rather disappointed in my hometown because I’d assumed they’d reached a phase where they were ready to shed the image of Fayettenam and embark on a new direction; one that would retain some of the knowledge capital being produced locally and shipped out.

I met with the leadership of BRAC Regional Task Force (BRAC RTF) and if any organization locally “gets it,” they do. A quick Google search or glance through the phone book will reveal find few (if any) planners in this city that are not employed by the city (try it). I found one. BRAC RTF brought a much-needed element to the planning process. Engineers do all of the site planning and programming there, and it’s evident in the no-creativity-at-all sprawl throughout the city. It’s actually rather depressing. I left Fayetteville in 1997 and returned for a short while in 2008/9. Other than a few retailers and more vinyl-sided homes, much hasn’t changed in the All American City…the race is on to get it right.

The Opportunity

Ground has broken on Military Business Park, a planned one and half million square feet project located along the All American Defense Corridor. Some predict this  Southeastern North Carolina corridor could be the equivalent of Research Triangle Park, located about an hour and a half away. Smaller cities around the country have an incredible opportunity to position themselves as economic development generators once the real estate markets recover. Local leadership will have to make in-town development a priority and provide incentives for developers to do so.

If Fayetteville really leverages this national exposure, they can serve as a model for what other cities of its size can accomplish with vision and proper execution. The hunt is still on for the right opportunity in my hometown, and we’ll see how things progress over the next few months. Do you know of good examples of small towns that have made efforts to create car-free cities?

From Science Daily | Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough To Slow Climate Change

Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone is publishing a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.

“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole — a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs — like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress — may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming.”

According to Stone’s research, slowing the rate of forest loss around the world, and regenerating forests where lost, could significantly slow the pace of global warming.

“Treaty negotiators should formally recognize land use change as a key driver of warming,” said Stone. “The role of land use in global warming is the most important climate-related story that has not been widely covered in the media.”

Stone recommends slowing what he terms the “green loss effect” through the planting of millions of trees in urbanized areas and through the protection and regeneration of global forests outside of urbanized regions. Forested areas provide the combined benefits of directly cooling the atmosphere and of absorbing greenhouse gases, leading to additional cooling. Green architecture in cities, including green roofs and more highly reflective construction materials, would further contribute to a slowing of warming rates. Stone envisions local and state governments taking the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government takes the lead in implementing carbon reduction initiatives, like cap and trade programs.

“As we look to address the climate change issue from a land use perspective, there is a huge opportunity for local and state governments,” said Stone. “Presently, local government capacity is largely unharnessed in climate management structures under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Yet local governments possess extensive powers to manage the land use activities in both the urban and rural areas.”

Full | Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough To Slow Climate Change

Southview Preliminary

by Yahya E. B. Henry

What makes the perfect site? In real estate, the old adage of “Location, Location, Location,” is still true but the locations are changing. You were considered golden if you secured a large undeveloped tract of land with proper zoning that could be developed relatively easily. The story is changing a bit.

Southview is a community I co-developed in 2007.  I located the 62-acre site and, with the team, entitled the property for 143 lots with 3 dedicated out parcels for future commercial use. The entire property was zoned for a low-density residential use that would, after improvements, allow for 2-3 lots per acre. My partners in the project recently made an attempt to rezone the out parcels from their current residential designation to a commercial use. We did not anticipate any resistance from the city as the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) designated this area as a gateway and our property for commercial use. The opposite was true – the city council was resistant to our proposal for rezoning so we resubmitted under a by-right scenario for another 22 residential lots. Southview is now a solely residential subdivision with 165 lots.

Southview is located in Franklin, VA and is part of the Hampton Roads region of Southeastern Virginia. We were convinced, at the time, there was a market for moderately-priced new homes in this market. Primary work centers were 30-45 minutes away and you really could not navigate anywhere without a car; public transportation was not an option. The neighboring city of Suffolk had several high profile projects under construction and the average home was being delivered in the $300-400,000s. Our product would be half that. Did they come? Did anybody come? No.

Ten years ago this project would have been considered the goose’s golden egg: zoning in place, utilities on site, and a seller who wanted to sell. It seemed as if the stars were aligned, but actually a storm was brewing. My former employer’s business model identified land that could be developed, solve the problems (entitlements) and secure development plan approval. Once the approvals were in place, we’d then sell the property to a regional or national builder. 2008 rolls around and the bottom falls out.

We initially began marketing the property in the three million dollar range. It was not a huge a project but potentially a profitable one if all went well; but things did not all go well. Our primary builder had entitled 209 lots immediately across the street and had another 360-home community under construction in the northern part of the city. Main customer – out. The next client we introduced the property to pulled back. This cycle looped continuously for the next 2 years. I spoke about that outcome here in an earlier post. As of today, we are still marketing this property – for a million less – at two million dollars. You can bet this negatively impacts my level of  interest as well.

Site Location

Southview’s Location, Location, Location did not equate to the ‘opportunity’ we thought it once presented. I’m not saying this model doesn’t work - it’s economically beneficial  for developers of conventional subdivisions. It’s been proven that homebuyers are willing to pay more for a walkable environment close to services, their employer, and venues of entertainment. Southview did not allow that. It was simply more of the same and we’re paying for it. What do you think, is this part of the reason suburbia isn’t sustainable?

-

I woke up on the morning of October 5th, poured a cup of coffee, and opened the paper.  Unusual for me, but I had just arrived in my home state of South Carolina the previous evening from New York.  As I enjoyed that tactile experience of holding the printed news in my hand, my eyes scanned the pages for topics that usually interest me: art, design, architecture, planning, politics, and the environment. “What’s doing here down south?” I thought.

I came across this article, Carolinas water dispute goes to court. In summary, South Carolina has brought a case before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that South Carolina’s water supply risks being significantly diminished through unchecked divertment plans proposed by South Carolina’s neighbor to the north. The water source at issue in this case is the Catawba River, which starts in western McDowell County, NC and is a tributary to the Wateree River in central South Carolina. The Attorney General for South Carolina, Henry McMaster, believes that if North Carolina’s plans are successful, it would establish a precedent that would give other states, namely Georgia, reason to divert significant amounts of water that would adversely impact South Carolina’s water supplies.

Map of Santee River watershed showing Catawba River and tributaries.

There is a doctrine of equitable apportionment in the U.S. Constitution that basically protects states’ rights to natural resources that cross our otherwise arbitrary political boundaries.  This battle between North Carolina and South Carolina – yes, they are two separate sovereign states – isn’t the first squabble over interstate resources and how the equitable apportionment doctrine should be applied. Wyoming v. Colorado (1922), New Jersey v. New York (1931), Arizona v. California (1931), Colorado v. Kansas (1943), Idaho v. Oregon (1983), and Texas v. New Mexico (1983) stand as cases that reveal a long history in the distribution of natural resources among political entities. Although the severe draught in the southeastern United States was declared over as early as April of this year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there’s no doubt that should climate change scenarios become realities, the equitable apportionment doctrine will be revisited as resources are impacted.

What are the regional planning and administrative implications involving access and distribution of interstate resources? Would redrawing our political boundaries along geological, hydrological, and ecological boundaries be result in a better organizing system? Perhaps, but the more likely action is to overlay resource jurisdictions that  span our existing political boundaries. Throw in the interests of private corporations, such as Duke Energy in the debate between North Carolina and South Carolina, and you get what McMaster calls a “complex question that will be based on a comprehensive analysis of the past, present and future needs of the state of North Carolina and the state of South Carolina…”

Water has been a largely undervalued resource for most of us living in the United States today.  The question of access and distribution of this resource will become only more complicated as the Catawba River debate suggests.  Bear in mind that water is essential in so many aspects of our lifes; energy production, recreation, economic development, mining, agricultural irrigation, drink water, tourism,  historical and cultural significance, the list goes on, and yet we have yet to place a value on this particular resource that accurately reflects the extent to which it impacts our lives.

The article reminded me to pick up Robert Glennon’s new book “Unquenchable.” The publisher, Island Press, says this:

The looming catastrophe remains hidden as government diverts supplies from one area to another to keep water flowing from the tap. But sooner rather than later, the shell game has to end. And when it does, shortages will threaten not only the environment, but every aspect of American life: we face shuttered power plants and jobless workers, decimated fi sheries and contaminated drinking water.

I’d like to launch into more philosophical ground on how our propensity to carve up the world into neat little bounded areas runs counter to the way natural systems work and how this inevitably gets us, and the rest of our world, into trouble.  Perhaps another post. In any event, this issue of access to resources, particularly water,  is something that is both big and small and it doesn’t end at the tap.

]]> http://aribra.com/dividing-water-and-other-calamities-between-arbitrary-boundaries/feed 1