Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of … · Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities iii. ... A diverse mix of housing ... Greenfield Development

$ Urban Land Institute

Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities

Jim Heid

About ULI–the Urban Land InstituteULI–the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit education and research institute that is supported by its members. Its mis-sion is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total environment.

ULI sponsors education programs and forums to encourage an open international exchange of ideas and sharing ofexperiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and proposes creative solutionsbased on that research; provides advisory services; and publishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate informationon land use and development. Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than 20,000 members and associatesfrom more than 60 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines.

ULI Working Papers on Land Use Policy and Practice. ULI is in the forefront of national discussion and debate on theleading land use policy and practice issues of the day. To encourage and enrich that dialogue, ULI publishes summariesof its forums on land use policy topics and commissions papers by noted thinkers on a range of topics relevant to itsresearch and education agenda. Through its Working Papers on Land Use Policy and Practice series, the Institute hopesto increase the body of knowledge and offer useful insights that contribute to improvements in the quality of land useand real estate development practice throughout the country.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About This PaperThe Urban Land Institute is recognized as the leadingreal estate and land use research and education organi-zation in the United States. For more than 60 years, ithas served as a forum for discussion among diverse par-ties on a host of issues relating to real estate practiceand land use policy.

Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role ofPlanned Communities is the second in a series of papersby noted authors on land use policy and practice issuesof pressing concern to ULI members and the broaderreal estate and land use community. In this paper, JimHeid was asked to share his thoughts on a model forapplying smart growth principles in suburban green-fields, and the role of planned communities in a region-al greenfield strategy. The ideas and insights in thispaper are those of the author and do not necessarilyrepresent the views of all ULI members.

We believe that by publishing this paper and others likeit in our series ULI Working Papers on Land Use Policyand Practice, we continue to raise and illuminate topicsof interest and importance to our members. We hopethis paper and others to follow accomplish that goal.

As always, your comments and insights are welcome.

Richard M. RosanPresident

ULI Project StaffRachelle L. LevittExecutive Vice President, Policy and PracticePublisher

Marta V. GoldsmithSenior Vice President, Community Outreach

Gayle BerensVice President, Real Estate Development Practice

Jo Allen GauseSenior Director, Residential Development Project Manager

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Micaela Porta, EngineBooksManuscript Editor

David James RoseCopy Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Anne MorganDesign and Layout

Diann Stanley-AustinDirector, Publishing Operations

Cover: Aerial perspective of Addison Circle,Addison, Texas, RTKL, 1999

Recommended bibliographic listing:Heid, Jim. Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of PlannedCommunities. Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2004.

ULI Catalog Number: 664A

©2004 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part ofthis report may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronicor mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any infor-mation storage and retrieval system, without written permission of thepublisher.

ii A ULI Working Paper on Land Use Policy and Practice

About the Author

Jim HeidA nationally recognized advocate for environmentallyresponsible land development, Jim Heid focuses on whathe calls “common-sense sustainability.” In 2002, he found-ed UrbanGreen, LLC, to act as a real estate developer andadviser. Heid also serves as executive vice president forBachmann Springs, a land development company inArizona, a position he has held since 2001. From 1994 to2001, Heid served as chief operating officer and seniorvice president with EDAW, and from 1986 to 1993, he was a principal with Design Workshop.

As a consultant to communities and private developers,Heid combines his understanding of best practices with an ability to distill complex design ideas into easilygrasped techniques. Serving as a principal for both landdevelopment and urban infill projects, he also under-stands the challenges presented by regulatory agenciesand the capital markets.

Over 20-plus years of practice, Heid has led award-winningurban revitalization, new community, and resort develop-ment projects throughout the world. In 2003, his work on the Jinji Lake master plan in China was recognized bythe American Society of Landscape Architects with a Merit Award for Design. He holds a master’s degree inreal estate development from Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology and a bachelor’s degree in landscape architec-ture from the University of Idaho. Heid is a member ofthe Urban Land Institute and is a regular speaker at annualmeetings and conferences. Since 1999, he has instructed theULI/Conservation Fund’s workshop in environmentallysensitive development.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank the participants of a ULI forumon the topic of this paper held on March 13–14, 2003,that yielded many of the ideas contained in this paper(see list of forum participants). I would also like tothank Don Priest for his efforts in stimulating interestin this topic among members of ULI’s CommunityDevelopment Council (CDC), Gold Flight. His workingpaper, Planned Communities and the Smart GrowthMovement, is discussed in this publication. I am indebt-ed to CDC Gold members for reviewing a draft of thispaper at their council meeting at ULI’s 2003 SpringCouncil Forum in Baltimore. Their comments helpedto shape and refine the final draft. Special thanks go to Steve Kellenberg; Pike Oliver; George Nolte, Jr.;Frank Martin; Don Killoren; Roger Galatas; and LarryNetherton for their insights and comments. And lastbut not least, I would like to thank the members ofULI’s staff, in particular Jo Allen Gause, who providedguidance and support for this work. This project drawsits financial support from the Urban Land Institute.

Jim Heid

Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities iii

iv A ULI Working Paper on Land Use Policy and Practice

ChairRoger L. GalatasPresident/CEORoger Galatas Interests, LLCThe Woodlands, Texas

ParticipantsUri AvinAssociate Vice PresidentHNTB CorporationColumbia, Maryland

Robert DunphySenior Resident Fellow, TransportationULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Margaret EmblidgeDirector, PlanningThe Bonita Bay GroupBonita Springs, Florida

Gary FenchukPresidentEast West PartnersMidlothian, Virginia

S. Gail GoldbergPlanning DirectorCity of San DiegoSan Diego, California

Jim HeidPresident/FounderUrbanGreen, LLCSan Francisco, California

Steven KellenbergPrincipalEDAW, Inc.Irvine, California

Julia KosterDirector, Project InformationGovernor’s Office of Smart GrowthAnnapolis, Maryland

Gregg LoganManaging DirectorRobert Charles Lesser & Co., LLCAtlanta, Georgia

R. Randolph Lyon, Jr.President/CEOLake Nona Property Holdings, LLCOrlando, Florida

Judy McGowanSenior PlannerSanta Fe County Planning DivisionSanta Fe, New Mexico

Edward McMahonVice PresidentThe Conservation FundArlington, Virginia

Walter NelsonVice President/General ManagerTerrabrook–Houston DivisionHouston, Texas

George Nolte, Jr.CEONolte AssociatesSacramento, California

Stephen NygrenChairman of the BoardChattahoochee Hill Country AlliancePalmetto, Georgia

Sharon PandakCounty AttorneyPrince William CountyPrince William, Virginia

Michael PawlukiewiczDirector, Environment and

Policy EducationULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Roger PlattSenior Vice President/CounselThe Real Estate RoundtableWashington, D.C.

Donald PriestLand Development ConsultantTahoe City, California

Perry ReaderPresidentThe Celebration CompanyCelebration, Florida

William RennerPrincipalEDSAFort Lauderdale, Florida

Will RogersPresidentThe Trust for Public LandSan Francisco, California

Daniel SloneAttorneyMcGuire Woods, LLPRichmond, Virginia

Thomas Weyandt, Jr.Director, Comprehensive PlanningThe Atlanta Regional CommissionAtlanta, Georgia

Rebecca ZimmermanPartnerDesign WorkshopDenver, Colorado

Smart Growth in Greenfields: The Role of Master-Planned Communities Forum

Executive SummaryBetween 2003 and 2025, the United States will grow byalmost 58 million people. Where will this new popula-tion find housing? Many see infill—adding householdswithin revitalized city neighborhoods or inner-ringsuburbs—as the responsible, resource-conscious way to meet the need.

But infill strategies, even if universally accepted, cannothappen fast enough or in great enough numbers to makemuch of a difference by 2025. Portland, Oregon, projectsin its metropolitan regional plan that 70 percent of near-term growth will be on greenfield land versus built-upareas. Other U.S. jurisdictions predict numbers closer to90 percent.

While it is often lumped with sprawl, greenfield develop-ment offers the most practical, affordable, and achievablechance to build without sprawl, given its potential tocreate large-scale, conserved open lands and sustainablemodern infrastructure. Much evidence suggests that pub-lic will plus enlightened private self-interest can rid green-field development of sprawl’s dysfunctions: indiscriminateand incremental use of open land; low-density residential‘tract’ subdivisions; land-consumptive strip commercialdevelopment; lack of connectivity among residential andcommercial development projects; transportation systemsthat are exclusively auto-dependent; social homogeneity;and economic segregation.

The basics of smart growth can already be found in alimited number of greenfield communities that demon-strate a holistic approach to meeting the needs ofgrowth and development. These examples provide amodel that can apply to future greenfield development.Any agenda for positive, sprawl-free greenfield develop-ment involves three prerequisites:

1. A preestablished regionwide system of sustainableopen space that is connected and available throughoutthe region for active and passive recreational use;

2. Ways to reduce car trips: more and higher concentra-tions of mixed-use development—especially in areas acces-sible to public transit—that are walkable or “bikable” fromresidential development; transportation and land use sys-tems that offer a wide range of mobility options; and aregional approach to transportation planning.

3. A diverse mix of housing types, sizes, and prices withinregions and communities, and, where possible, withinneighborhoods. Life and lifestyle options should also

include local or regional access to employment, educa-tion, and personal growth resources, connections tocommercial and recreation centers, and ways to meetneighbors and take part in the community.

Achieving these prerequisites seems to require what only alarger project can offer. This includes sizable resources upfront, economies of scale, a long horizon for planning andbuildout, and flexible, multiproduct delivery that can testand respond to changing markets. The realities of financialmarkets, land assembly, and entitlements point to a modestnumber of developments of 500 to 3,000 acres, built andsold over a five-year period, as the likely alternative to thefreestanding new towns that dominated past suburbanvisions. Some of these smaller communities will contributea specialty—an office campus, a sports and recreationcenter—linked to neighboring communities as part of theregional mix. In this way a regional vision, including a sig-nificant public process, can yield many of the benefits of anew town with multiple landowners and developers.

A regional greenfield strategy needs planners, public offi-cials, developers, and citizens willing to understand, anddetermined to create, high-quality development. Like de-velopments everywhere, planned communities face obsta-cles of political and regulatory acceptance, land assembly,and financing. But compared with development as usual,the well-executed result can be more land-efficient, fiscallysecure, environmentally responsive, in addition to deliveringa better way of life not only for residents of the developedcommunities, but also for residents of the region.

Then why are such projects still in the minority? One rea-son may be the tendency to equate a planned communitywith an end product seen as highly prescribed and hard toachieve, from greenbelt communities and new towns in the1950s, to traditional neighborhood developments (TNDs)in the 1990s. In contrast, many of today’s successes havegrown out of a flexible, citizen-based planning process.Responding to local realities, these communities often drawfrom several planning and design tool kits, yielding resultshigh in livability. The challenge for developers and con-sumers alike is to recognize and encourage these incremen-tal successes, while avoiding both dogmatic rules, and tooloosely reviewed cases of “subdivisions on steroids.”

Approached in a principled, quality-conscious way,planned communities can help achieve the potential ofgreenfield development, ensuring that the places wheremost Americans will live are economically diverse, envi-ronmentally sustainable, and livable.

Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities 1

2 A ULI Working Paper on Land Use Policy and Practice

Where Most AmericansWill LiveMost of the development in the United States, 90 percent orsomething like that, is new development on the edge. If weignore that and just concentrate on infill, the edge city willnever repair itself. New development needs to be informedby the principles of urbanism. It would be a mistake forpeople who care about cities and urban design to assumethat any greenfield development is bad—because it’s goingto happen, and if it doesn’t improve it will overwhelmwhatever infill we are doing in the cities.

—Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist,interview in Metropolis, October 2003

As it has evolved from a planner’s worry to a householdword, sprawl has inspired more and more thoughtfulresponses. No growth has gradually yielded to smartgrowth, as more people take part in deciding what makestheir communities livable.

Yet even the smartest answers typically fall back on nogrowth when it comes to addressing sprawl on its hometurf—the suburban fringe. While smart growth’s preferredcure for sprawl is to redirect new development from sub-urban greenfields—undeveloped areas—to infill sites inurban neighborhoods, it recognizes that greenfields makeup an important part of the answer to sprawl.

Infill and regeneration paint a fine picture: mature park-land, existing (and thus practically free) infrastructure,transit, and institutions. Other promised benefits rangefrom reduced car travel and saving open land, to revivingcities and giving faded suburbs a second chance. Evensuburban developers can profit, after some retooling.Almost everyone wins.

The problem is, it can’t happen fast enough or at a largeenough scale to make an immediate difference. Even ifevery prospective homebuyer and renter in Americadecided tomorrow to return to the city, the supertankerof population and suburban development would steamon for years before making much of a course correction.

Despite the much-touted “return to the cities” of retirees,empty nesters, and young professionals, which is trans-forming older neighborhoods and business centers inmany cities, experts believe that this trend will captureonly a relatively small proportion of future development.Portland, Oregon’s metropolitan regional plan assumesthat, even with the region’s well-recognized growth man-agement efforts, some 70 percent of future growth will be in greenfield areas rather than in built-up areas. Someexperts predict that about 90 percent of California’s met-ropolitan growth is expected to occur in greenfields.

Between 2003 and 2025, the United States will grow byalmost 58 million people—a Census Bureau forecast that roughly continues the average 2.75 million to 3 million-plus-a-year increase since 1980. Even the mostoptimistic assumptions foresee accommodating at most18 million or so of these new people through infill. Thatleaves at least 40 million to still be accommodated insome sort of new greenfield community.

While the basic story is simply a lack of infill sites tohouse projected populations, there are other, moreintrinsic limits to both suburban and urban infill:

� Existing infrastructure often proves too small or tooold to serve the kind of new development required tosupport land cost. Brownfield remediation is often anadded obstacle.

� Especially in inner-ring suburbs, land assembly mayinvolve hundreds of small landowners and entitlementmay take many more years.

� Security issues (or fears) present marketing, operating,and funding challenges in tough urban quarters.

�Dysfunctional school systems in most cities (and manyolder suburbs) preclude marketing to many young families.

� Land prices in close-in locations often are too high tosupport affordable market-rate housing.


Other challenges include well-organized neighborhoodNIMBYist opposition (often framed as anti-density oranti-traffic sentiment) to compact, mixed-use projects,and the very real concern of gentrification.

None of these problems makes infill planning any lessimportant for a balanced regional housing strategy. Butthey suggest that even with strong market demand andpolitical will, repopulating older neighborhoods will be a slow process.

Counting all urban and suburban infill and regenerationalternatives, and other growth sites such as rural smalltowns and exurban settlements, it is clear that today’sgreenfields will have to take on the lion’s share of housingneeded to meet America’s continually growing popula-tion. In the near future, at least, greenfield development isinevitable. Given that reality, we must focus our energiesnot on whether to develop, but on how to develop better.

Infill: Modest Success, Limited Potential

In his working paper, Planned Communities and theSmart Growth Movement, Don Priest, a land develop-ment consultant and former ULI research director andstaff vice president, makes a strong case that most futuregrowth will continue to occur in outlying areas, in partbecause of the difficulties of redirecting growth to built-up areas. He says that infill development in central citiesand older suburbs is proceeding too slowly to signifi-cantly offset the need for outlying growth. Using build-ing permit data from three metropolitan areas to backup his case, Priest shows that even in metropolitan areaswith successful records of infill development, infill as apercentage of total area growth remains a minor portionof total growth. For example, in the Washington, D.C.,metropolitan area, which has experienced extensive infillover the last 25 years, and which has conditions veryfavorable to infill, central and older suburban jurisdic-tions are capturing less than 25 percent of total areagrowth. Similarly in Portland, which has an urbangrowth boundary to direct growth inward, the bulk ofdevelopment is occurring on the edges of the boundaryand not in the central area. In the Los Angeles region,the central city captures only 12 percent of regionalgrowth.

Looking to the future, Priest says the demands of growthwill overwhelm efforts to increase the rate of infill as amethod of obviating the need for outlying growth. For

example, if Los Angeles County is to capture even 50percent of growth predicted for the Los Angeles regionover the next 25 years, it will have to grow at the samerate that it did from 1950 to 2000, a period of exceptionalgrowth by any standard and not one that is likely to berepeated in Los Angeles. Los Angeles (a large part of LosAngeles County) is already one of the densest urbanjurisdictions in the nation and would require major, veryexpensive transportation improvements to accommo-date a large increase in population.

The key to understanding the limitations of infill is torecognize that there are many practical obstacles that are very difficult to overcome, even though in theorythere may be capacity for achieving increased densityby developing or redeveloping underused properties.In fact, inadequate and obsolete infrastructure, NIMBYopposition, high land and development costs, obstruc-tive, lengthy regulatory processes, and other factorsseverely limit the ability of older jurisdictions to accom-modate infill. There are some good prospects for infill,but it is a slow process. According to Priest,“We have toaccept the probability that for many jurisdictions, at least50 percent of the growth is, and will be, in greenfields.”

For more information, contact Don Priest at [email protected].

The Challenges and Opportunities of Greenfield DevelopmentThere is much evidence that public will and private self-interest can end greenfield development’s attachment tosprawl, and renew the much longer American relation-ship of living well on the land. While suburban punditscry that greenfields and sprawl have merged into oneevil, greenfield development per se retains much of thesame potential that attracted many people who chose tolive outside the central city 150 years ago.

Greenfields, unconstrained by surrounding land uses,large and easy to assemble and afford, allow developers toplan comprehensively and build efficiently. Here on theedge, saving open land, building modern and sustainableinfrastructure, and creating diverse and livable communi-ties can still be done right. To be sure, the suburban idealhas shifted from escaping the city to creating a new “edge-less” regional form—where city and country mutuallybenefit from one another. But understanding and win-ning this new game is part of the greenfield challenge.

From the start, greenfield development has promisedordinary Americans a way to enjoy the best of city andcountry, and remarkably often this mix of utopia andpragmatism has delivered. For many, greenfields havesimply meant affordable housing; real estate draws astraight-line rent gradient between the urban core andthe fringe, and a longer commute reduces the cost ofshelter. But creative planning has also regularly captureda touch of utopia. Sought-after communities fromIllinois’s Riverside and New York’s Forest Hills Gardensto California’s Mill Valley were all once greenfields.

Today, a greenfield is defined as any parcel of land notpreviously developed, and is characterized by:

� rural or extremely low-density lands;

� significant natural, cultural, or agricultural resources;and

� locations outside recognized urban limits.

It is these very characteristics that make greenfields anincredible asset, and liability, for accommodating growth:

“Disorderly growth in areas that surround our citiesis fast destroying the open space, the fresh air, and thepleasant surroundings that originally attracted peopleto these areas. The problems of slum and blight,unequal economic and social opportunity, air andwater pollution, clogged traffic arteries, disappearingopen spaces, destruction of natural resources—allthese have been aggravated, if not directly caused by,the way our national growth took place.”

Reading like today’s op-ed page, HUD Secretary GeorgeRomney’s testimony before Congress in the 1960s showshow little has changed in the way growth and sprawl areperceived.

The Sierra Club defines sprawl as “the expansion of low-density, automobile-dependent development that occursat the fringe of the urban landscape.” Isolating land usesand lacking transportation alternatives, sprawl forceslong car trips to schools, employment, stores, and com-munity activities. Combining homogeneous, economi-cally segregated housing with formless public space,sprawl’s generic look seems to suppress anything local orspecial. Perhaps the only new thing about all this is thegrowing number of voices raised against it, from envi-ronmentalists decrying habitat loss, to mayors protestingthe drain of jobs and tax revenue from urban cores, tocommuters facing lengthening drive times, and psycholo-gists mourning loss of community.

It is understandable that the average citizen looks no far-ther than suburban development to explain sprawl, andseeks to stop one by turning off the other. But what ifyou could develop in the greenfields and generate high-quality, diverse living environments? The recent smartgrowth movement has developed a series of concepts tohelp shape new development in both location and form,to be more socially contributory.



In the 2002 publication, Making Smart Growth Work,author Doug Porter articulated the following six ele-ments of smart growth:

� Compact, multiuse development;

� Open space conservation;

� Expanded mobility;

� Enhanced livability;

� Efficient management and expansion of infrastructure;and

� Infill, redevelopment, and adaptive use in built-upareas.

While these attributes describe the antithesis of sprawl,and when taken together create an environment differentfrom many typical suburbs, they should be as easily ap-plied to greenfield development as urban infill develop-ment. It is really only the final principle—location—thatimplies a preference for infill and a belief that greenfieldsaren’t “smart.”

In smart growth circles, debate persists as to whetherdevelopment must border established communities inorder not to be considered sprawl. In fact, many newplanned communities have been, and will be, next toexisting urban areas. But must development be contig-uous to be considered smart growth? Surely there areinstances where noncontiguous development presents a more preferable alternative. For example, it may bebetter to save high-quality open space by leapfrogging to an area more suitable for urbanization.

This concept is well demonstrated in greenfield develop-ments across the country that by their vision, scale, plan-ning, and program achieve high-quality living environ-ments—offering jobs/housing balance, transportationmobility, resource conservation, and enhanced publicopen space and wildlife habitat to a much higher degreethan could be realized in either an infill or a suburbanregeneration setting. But as development moves forwardapace, the question becomes, How can we ensure that allgreenfield development is as appropriate as the few mod-els we look to today?

Getting to Good Greenfield DevelopmentThinking about sprawl and its alternatives demands a lit-tle post-1945 perspective. The blurring of urban bound-aries is part of a long, basic change in the way most peo-ple live. With characteristic optimism, most Americansstill assume that there will be plenty of green space onthe other side of the fence. But this time there won’t be.It is not merely that the countryside is ever receding; inthe great expansion of the metropolitan areas the sub-divisions of one city are beginning to meet up with thesubdivisions of another.

In 1957, when William H. Whyte, Jr., wrote about urbansprawl in The Exploding Metropolis, the idea of a NortheastCorridor or Los Angeles megalopolis was already familiar.Since then subdivisions have indeed merged, erasing old distinctions of city and suburb. Hub-and-spoke com-mutes have yielded to random gridlock. That edge citieslike Tysons Corner, Virginia, are the retail and office cen-ters of their metropolitan areas is old news. Nowadays,“edgeless cities” are making all jurisdictional boundariesan anachronism. The era of the megalopolis is here.

In this context, the history of ideal community plan-ning appears in a new light. From Pullman, Illinois, toGreenbelt, Maryland, or Celebration, Florida, the notionof a complete new town has attracted serious attention,while the individual subdivision or commercial project has become suspect for its contribution to sprawl due to its lack of context or connection.

To tackle sprawl on its own terms, the good ideas behindyesterday’s planned community must now be expanded toa regional scale. Only by addressing the complex benefitsand costs of development at this scale can the issues of landuse balance, resource conservation, multimodal transporta-tion, employment, diversity, and affordability be resolved.While this regional approach may yield full-service newtowns completed over decades, providing anchors andneeded financial and planning resources, the realities offinancial markets, land assembly, and entitlement point tomodest developments of 1,500 to 3,000 acres, built andsold over a five-year period, as the more realistic buildingblocks of tomorrow’s metropolitan form.


Dealing with smaller developments need not mean theloss of a connected, regional perspective. Already in places as diverse as Santa Fe, New Mexico; Chattahoochee HillCountry, Georgia; and San Jose, California, separate, small-er planned developments are being guided under a visionthat will make them appear as if they were a single entityand applied to a larger, regional setting. In this process, acommunity with a specific emphasis—shopping, afford-able housing, land conservation, educational campus—can play a role like that of a district or neighborhood in a conventional city. Even resort and retirement enclaves,minus a few walls and gatehouses, can contribute if theyjoin the mix and connect with the region as a whole.

The creation of a larger regional vision, which typicallyincludes a significant public input process, results in manyof the benefits of a large-scale new town, delivered throughmultiple landowners and developers. In the end, the key tocreating greenfields without sprawl is not the size or capi-talization of each development, or whether it is fully con-tiguous with other developments, or even how perfectly it is designed internally. It is the success with which eachdevelopment connects with the others, and the symbioticrole each plays in making the region greater than the sumof its parts. The goal is to form a cohesive, regionally coop-erative human and natural environment.

Three PrerequisitesIt is one thing to craft a vision for a vibrant regionalform. But how does it actually get realized when the real-ities of landownership, sensitive resources, or a reluctantpopulace come to bear?

If we accept that greenfield development will createhomes for 50 million or more Americans in the next 20 years, and wish not only to avoid sprawl, but also tobuild truly livable environments, how do we begin?

The three elements that follow introduce the critical pre-requisites for sprawl-free greenfield development. Thedownfall of most development to date, and the sprawl it has created, is that most processes, communities, ordevelopers may attempt to address only one or two ofthese elements. But one or two are simply not enough.All three need to be incorporated to ensure success asmeasured by high livability and a truly connected, dy-namic quality of development.

Green InfrastructureAlthough road congestion probably tops lost open space as a sprawl complaint, resolving both issues depends on first defining where greenfield development should andshould not go. Where should we build and, more impor-tant, where should we not build? Approached from aregional perspective, the land itself gives answers. A green infrastructure—preserved watersheds and othernatural and cultural resources in a connected open-spacesystem—can also make “hard” infrastructure such asrights-of-way, utilities, and recreation more land-friendlyand cost-effective.

Mobility and AccessFor residents, traffic may be the worst thing about sprawl.An integrated, multimodal transportation network shouldreduce automobile dependence by as much as 25 percent.Local and regional greenfield planning can enable smarteruse of car trips and create alternatives, from pedestrian-accessible shopping and schools to bikeways, carpools,vanpools, and future bus and rail connections.

Livability and Lifestyle Choices A third, more complex priority is providing a range oflife and lifestyle choices. Over the past 20 years, theAmerican household has dramatically shifted; now,only 25 percent of homebuyers are the traditional two-parent/two-child household. This change in demo-graphics requires a diverse mix of housing types, sizes,and prices within regions and communities (and, wherepossible, within neighborhoods). Furthermore, lifestyleoptions should include local or regional access to em-ployment (at ratios from 0.25 job per every householdand up), a host of educational and personal growthoptions, connections to commerce and public life, and a full range of opportunities for meeting neighbors orgetting involved in the community.


Green InfrastructureIdentifying sensitive regional resources and agreeingwhere development should go must be a proactive,community-based process. Although in the end it comes down to public decision making, it invitessignificant public/private cooperation. And it can get a substantial boost from the private developer of a large-scale planned community.

In an ideal world, communities, leaders, and stakeholderswould come together to decide how much growth is rea-sonable and where it should go. With greenfield devel-opment, location choices would follow agreed-uponcommunity values (e.g., preserving important views,water quality, cultural resources). Land supporting thesevalues would be mapped and ranked, and residual landwould be earmarked for development. Based on theland’s carrying capacity, projected population would besplit among the designated parcels. The result: new devel-opment that is welcomed because it is holistic, environ-mentally sound, community-friendly, and understood by the local constituency. With high predictability as towhere and when development would happen, projectswould have lower entitlement risk and lower carryingcosts and therefore facilitates more generous budgets tocreate high-quality development.

While limited versions of this ideal sometimes occur (see“Three Approaches to Achieving Smart Growth” featurebox), they do not reflect current realities of land acquisi-tion, entitlement, or financing. Regionally based designand approval is a difficult, multijurisdictional effort thatcounters a tradition of zealously protected local land usedecisions, made by authorities who often see develop-ment as either a tax base to be captured, or an evil to befoisted off on the next county. As a result, jurisdictionslarge and small make short-term decisions that they per-ceive suit their constituents’ best interest, when in realitythey have compromised the long-term regional environ-ment, transportation, and/or quality of life.

Increasingly, however, public planners, grass-roots con-stituencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),and citizen groups are stepping out of the traditionalchannels of local land use jurisdictions to address growthas a regional issue. These collaborative forums viewdevelopment and its impacts proactively, believing thatgood development, economic growth, and environmen-tal protection can support each other.

Treating Open Space as InfrastructureCategorical opponents of greenfield development tend todepict it as an either/or proposition: win and protect openspace, or lose and get blanket development and sprawl. AsEd McMahon, director of the Greenways Program for theConservation Fund, says, “When citizens think all land isup for grabs, they oppose development everywhere . . .when people have some assurance that special places willbe saved, they become more amenable to accommodatingnew development.”

But saving special places on a piecemeal basis rarely suc-ceeds. Reactively buying up land to preempt developmentis neither an efficient use of tax dollars nor an intelligentway to shape urbanization. McMahon calls for an ap-proach that is:

�more proactive and less reactive;

�more systematic and less haphazard;

�multifunctional, not single purpose;

� large scale, not small scale; and

� integrated with other efforts to manage growth.

In Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21stCentury, McMahon and Mark Benedict propose the con-cept of green infrastructure. While green space is oftenviewed as something that is nice to have, green infrastruc-ture implies that protecting and restoring our natural lifesupport system is a necessity, not merely an amenity. Greeninfrastructure emphasizes interconnected systems of natur-al areas and open spaces that are actively maintained.

Green infrastructure exemplifies the kind of tool neededto build an initial framework for new development ingreenfield areas—a framework that identifies in advanceboth ecologically sensitive land and land suitable for development. Instead of getting bogged down in thedevelopment versus open-space debate, citizens andauthorities can concentrate on setting predictable ground rules for developers that will, by reducing riskand delay and clarifying expectations, help pay for a high-quality result. By getting in front of the develop-ment curve, progressive towns and regions are alreadyforming partnerships with developers and landowners to craft green infrastructure community maps that arelivable, affordable, and environmentally sound.


Three Approaches to Achieving Smart Growth

Across the country, planners, conservation organiza-tions, and citizens are helping constructively to shapethe growth they acknowledge is inevitable. Employingstate-of-the-art mapping and analysis tools as well asgrass-roots fireside chats, people are discussing appro-priate forms of growth and how to make it happen intheir communities. While each community’s process isunique to its local issues and culture, there are severalcommon hallmarks of success:

• Educating the public about the impacts, benefits, andvarious forms of growth;

• Detailed mapping and analysis of natural and culturalresources to help support established communityvalues;

• Community consensus on those issues that are col-lectively important, and how they should be priori-tized in determining where growth should occur;

• Community outreach and ranking tools includingnewsletters, Web sites, surveys, Internet-based discus-sion threads and chat rooms, and old-fashioned townhall meetings and community workshops; and

• Patience and time: none of today’s successful planswas crafted overnight. The process of educating,mapping, and discussing takes time and patience toensure that voices are heard and ideas are expressedand understood.

The role of organizing these tools and leading theprocess can also take many forms. The three primarycategories include:

• Public sector: Whether a regional government agency,a county planning department, or a local jurisdiction,public sector employees often take responsibility fordeveloping and leading the process;

• Public/private: Nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) that have traditionally operated as nonprofitsbut bring together the best of the public and privatesectors have been very effective at leading many ofthese efforts.

• Private: In limited instances, private citizens who areconcerned about growth and environmental issuesband together to tackle the issues head-on.

The following case studies demonstrate three recentsuccesses, each organized and led by one of the entitiesdescribed above.

The Public Sector–Led Process

The Santa Fe Community College District Plan emergedout of Santa Fe County’s efforts to create a growth man-agement plan, which was finally adopted in 1999. Thedevelopment of the district plan (adopted in 2000)included extensive participation from property ownersand residents, as well as public officials. The plan arosefrom discussions about alternative development scenar-ios, possible and logical in the metropolitan area whenparticipants began to consider traditional land use pat-terns compared to more modern subdivision patterns.Paraphrasing from the final document’s introduction:

The heart of the planning effort has been to develop anew way to think about metro area edge problems and todevelop a new set of rules and regulations for develop-ments in nonurban areas near the city of Santa Fe. Thebasic premise of the plan is that the land and the remark-able countryside should determine patterns of develop-ment—not the other way around.

The plan was mandated by the county’s board of com-missioners with the purpose of recommending specificways in which infrastructure and community facilitiescan be built and maintained for the entire district.Additional objectives of the commissioners were con-nected open space and trails, as well as a balance ofdiffering land uses joined by transit.

A planning committee, which included members from abroad cross section of the community, was establishedand met biweekly to develop the plan’s vision and tenprinciples (a sampling includes the land system, circula-tion and connections, infrastructure, environmental andsustainable systems, operations and maintenance).

Each principle formed the basis of a specific set of recom-mendations and guidelines for the plan. Recent landdevelopments in the district have used the plan to helpshape both their final form and entitlement process.

For more information, see “The Santa Fe Community College District Plan,”available from Santa Fe County.


The Public/Private Approach

In 2002, the Greenbelt Alliance, a California-based NGO,sponsored a yearlong public process that examined whatan alternative to traditional sprawl patterns of develop-ment might look like if a group of developers simplyrethought the form of their entitled, but as yet undevel-oped land. The final report, “Getting It Right: PreventingSprawl in the Coyote Valley,” captures the dilemma fac-ing many communities. Focused on 6,800 acres in theCoyote Valley, one of the last vestiges of nonurbanizedagricultural lands in rampantly developed Silicon Valley,the plan seeks to offer community leaders and residentsan alternate future form of development while acknowl-edging the city’s goal of accommodating at least 50,000jobs and 25,000 homes in the valley. Instead of repeatingthe surrounding area’s pattern of generic sprawl, the plandemonstrates how approved development can be accom-modated, while still creating a place “where you knowyour neighbors, you can walk to work, and your kids canwalk to school.” The plan describes a vision for a livablecommunity that includes affordable housing and connec-tions to parks, farms, and spectacular rolling hills.

Using a highly public process, the Greenbelt Alliance andits consultants worked with local residents, environmental-ists, transportation and labor leaders, developers, electedofficials, and landowners to craft the plan using smartgrowth principles. Over 100 organizations participated inthe process as members of a partnership committee. Threecommittee workshops, as well as newsletter and E-mailupdates, were used to gather input and build consensus. Aseven-member advisory committee provided feedback onthe direction and content of the vision as it developed.

The Greenbelt Alliance was careful to ensure that its par-ticipation did not signify either its support for develop-ment in the designated area, or the planning approachrecommended by the final plan.

The resulting plan demonstrated how the city’s goals of50,000 jobs and 25,000 homes could be achieved, whilestill preserving 2,380 acres as working agricultural openspace. Using compact, high-density development, the planalso helped demonstrate how the vision could be realizedby achieving four key ideas: building community; protect-ing the environment and agriculture; ensuring social equi-ty; and promoting economic vitality.

For more information, visit www.greenbeltalliance.org/resource/reports/report_coyote valley.html.

The Grass-Roots Approach

The Chattahoochee Hill Country Alliance (CHCA) is a study in how one man’s concern and extraordinarypatience can lead to large-scale regional change. WhenSteve Nygren started living full time in his bed and break-fast in Fulton County, outside Atlanta, the last thing heimagined doing was leading a comprehensive planningprocess for 40,000 acres. But over time, realizing he couldnot afford to continue buying up land to protect hisbucolic setting, he began informal discussions withlandowners who shared similar concerns about growth.By identifying the top 31 landowners in the region, theCHCA was able to form a nonprofit organization thatrepresented over 51 percent of the total lands in thecounty. A simple assessment of $2 per acre providedenough working capital to begin a series of planningstudies and town hall and living room meetings with all local landowners. Working collaboratively with theGeorgia Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy, theNational Park Service, and local government, the CHCAworked to “preserve the rural character of the the area,and determine the type, form, and location of all newdevelopment in the 40,000-acre landscape.” After morethan two years of meetings and discussions, the grouphad participation from most of the landowners and an$80,000 economic development grant from the county to conduct a planning charrette, including GIS analysis of natural resources. The charrette and study yielded amaster plan that sets the model for future development by creating:

• Three primary receiver sites where high-density,neotraditional development would occur, consistentwith existing infrastructure and land carrying capacity;

• A transfer of development rights bank, where land-owners could trade their as-of-right development to the receiver zones, and in turn protect sensitiveresources;

• Immediate acquisition of the county’s most sensitiveresources by a land trust, creating the backbone ofthe plan’s conserved open-space plan.

The plan’s significant resident acceptance and model forfuture growth have led adjoining counties (even in adjoin-ing states) to inquire about replicating the ChattahoocheeHill Country model, or simply join the plan.

For more information, visit www.chatthillcountry.org.

Greenprinting for Growth Case Study:Confluence Greenway, St. Louis, Missouri

By the time it flows past St. Louis, the Mississippi Riveris already mighty, having just swallowed both the Illinoisand the Missouri rivers. But the Mississippi’s physicalmagnitude alone does not set the entire scale. The flow of history is as powerful as the waterway. Nearly200 years ago, the confluence of the three rivers set thestage for Lewis and Clark to blaze a trail to the Pacific.One hundred years later, this spot was home to the 1904 World’s Fair. When the St. Louis 2004 initiativebegan searching for a public space to commemoratethese historic events, the Confluence Greenway projectwas born. This case study illustrates the dramatic possi-bilities for land protection when there is regional coop-eration among two states, four counties, and one city all working together. The Confluence Greenway projecthas created and funded bistate regional park districts tomanage the creation of a 40-mile-long greenway thatstretches along both banks of the Mississippi.

Vision

The Confluence Greenway project is an ambitious planto create an interconnected series of riverbank parks,stretching north 40 miles from the Gateway Arch in St. Louis to Père Marquette State Park on the bluffsoverlooking the confluence of the Illinois River withthe Mississippi. Such a large-scale goal requires inno-vation and unprecedented collaboration—things thatthe residents and leaders of the St. Louis metropolitanregion have generously supplied.

To begin, an extensive process of opinion polls, work-shops, and public meetings was undertaken to determinea shared vision for the region’s future. This public partici-pation initiated many civic projects, ranging from down-town revitalization to an expansive Clean Waters, SafeParks, and Community Trails program that has madecompleting the Confluence Greenway its first goal. The2004 Parks and Open Space Task Force, a committee ofcitizens, community leaders, and park professionals, con-ceived of legislation for parks and open-space preserva-tion. The Gateway Parks and Trails 2004, a small non-profit organization, then produced a conceptual regional


The green infrastructure concept reminds us that openspace must be planned as rigorously and managed aseffectively as any “hard” infrastructure element like water,sewer, or roads. Investment should happen far in advanceof development and may involve zoning, acquisition, orjust community consensus on critical resource sites.Rather than a luxury to add when public coffers are full,this essential element deserves to be budgeted for andmanaged as prudently as any other civic asset. The greeninfrastructure concept also reinforces the critical ingredi-ent of regional connectivity that gives open space mean-ing, both biologically and as a practical human utility.“Who would ever think of building a road system thatdoes not connect?” asks McMahon.

The Greenprinting for Growth program, created by the Trust for Public Land (TPL), helps local com-munities to draft land conservation strategies that will permanently protect the most important naturalresources in their regions and help shape growth around them (see “Greenprinting for Growth CaseStudy: Confluence Greenway, St. Louis, Missouri”feature box). The Greenprinting for Growth processinvolves three key steps:

�Visioning—Defining a land-protection vision, or“greenprint,” that reflects a community’s growth goals and enjoys public support;

� Funding—Identifying and securing funds to imple-ment the greenprint. Funding may come from acombination of public and private sources includingfederal, state, and local programs that can providesupport for parks and open space, as well as funds from private foundations, nonprofit organizations,business partnerships, and individuals; and

� Acquisition and stewardship—Completing thenecessary transactions to implement the greenprint, andthen actively managing the protected land.

Since 1999, TPL has helped communities across thecountry raise over $25 billion to help them implementtheir land conservation and protection strategies.


parks and open-space plan. Through this process, localleaders envisioned two new regional park districts—one in Illinois, the other in Missouri—that would worktogether, using funds from a dedicated sales tax to cre-ate an interconnected park and open-space system.

Since the Confluence Greenway and other projectscross jurisdictional lines, Missouri and Illinois legis-latures took up mirror-image bills to create metro-politan park and recreation districts on either side ofthe river and linked by an intergovernmental agree-ment. Having initiated the nation’s first bistate parkand recreation project, the two districts will worktogether to protect riparian open space, build trails,create new parks, and refurbish older parks in the St. Louis metropolitan region.

Funding

In November 2000, after years of discussion, delibera-tion, and debate, funding for the bistate vision wasfinally realized. Voters in four counties and the city ofSt. Louis approved Proposition C, the Clean Water, SafeParks, and Community Trails initiative. “Prop C” wonoverwhelming support throughout the metropolitanregion, including landslide approval in both St. LouisCounty (70 percent) and the city of St. Louis (75 per-cent). The proposition approved a 0.1-cent sales tax ineach of the local jurisdictions—which, over 20 years,is expected to generate nearly $500 million to restoreparks, preserve open space, and protect water quality.

Half of the money raised from Prop C—about $10million per year in Missouri and $1.5 million per yearin Illinois—will be used for regional parks and trailsand administered through the two new park districts.The rest of the money will be returned to the countiesand municipalities where it was generated, althougheach state has slightly different local government distri-bution formulas. The park districts represent five juris-dictions and more than 80 percent of the residents ofthe St. Louis metropolitan area. Some believe that thesize and sweeping nature of the park project will fostera sense of unity at the regional level.

“An undertaking the size of Proposition C requirescoordination and cooperation across party andjurisdictional lines—not to mention a lot of hardwork. Fortunately, we had the help of the Trust forPublic Land, a nonprofit with national expertise inmanaging land conservation funding campaigns.TPL studied the issues, understood the challenges,and helped us communicate the benefits of theregional park districts to voters throughout the St.Louis metro region.”

—Former U.S. Senator John C.Danforth, Chair, St. Louis 2004

Implementation

One of the challenges in creating a trail on both sides ofa river is crossing the water. The old Chain of RocksBridge, which once carried Route 66 across the mile-wide Mississippi between St. Louis, Missouri, and EastSt. Louis, Illinois, had sat derelict for some 30 years—just waiting for an idea like the Confluence Greenway.In June 1999, following a $4 million renovation, Chainof Rocks Bridge reopened as a major bike path andwalkway. Now, on weekends, several thousand peopleuse the bridge to cross the great river. One month afterthe reopening of the Chain of Rocks Bridge, the lateGovernor Mel Carnahan of Missouri and GovernorGeorge Ryan of Illinois met mid-span to sign a historicdocument creating the nation’s first local bistate parkand recreation project. A 400-mile-long section of theriverbank has been dedicated to the Mississippi RiverTrail, a multistate cycling route. The state has alsoacquired key properties in the city of St. Louis and inMadison County that will become part of theConfluence Greenway.

This shared vision for the region makes the St. Louis2004 initiative a model for the country. According to E. Terrence Jones, professor of political science at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, the ConfluenceGreenway “will draw attention and activity back to the waterways that bind us all, the historic reason forour location, and the common geographic threadamong us.”

Source: The Trust for Public Land Web site (www.tpl.org).


Combining Infrastructure: Gray Meets Green We have seen that what at first may seem like an ecolo-gically responsible solution to public utilities may riskdegrading the environment by overtaxing outdatedsystems. For example, older neighborhoods that appear to be an ideal alternative to greenfield development can be a source of pollution by combining stormwater andsanitary sewer networks in a combined storm outflow(CSO) system.

In contrast, an integrated plan can employ new technologyand management systems that are holistic in design andenvironmentally sound in operation. Stormwater runoff,an urgent issue for greenfield development, can be man-

aged using a set of best practices centered around non-pipe solutions. In addition to better storm event manage-ment, nonpipe designs can help create or enhance wildlifehabitat, reduce capital and operational costs, and deliverbetter water quality to the environment than traditionalengineered solutions.

Similar innovations in wastewater treatment are likewisereducing initial capital costs by means of easily phased,self-contained decentralized treatment systems. By ap-proaching greenfield development holistically and on aregional scale, the sequential process of water treatmentcan be designed to support varied development formsover time, reduce large capital outlays, and remove theissue of expanded mainline infrastructure that indirectlyencourages sprawl.

The Benefits of Integrated Infrastructure

The term nonpipe solution refers to design of storm-water management in a manner that does not rely onunderground pipes and catchment systems. Rangingfrom old techniques such as vegetation-lined trenches(swales) to innovations such as level spreaders (perfo-rated pipe that allows collected stormwater to self-meterits release into absorption or infiltration fields), nonpipedesigns can reduce capital costs, improve the quality ofwater released into the environment, and often afford asignificant amenity to the community.

Prairie Crossing, a 660-acre conservation development in Grayslake, Illinois, used a nonpipe solution to resolveits on-site stormwater management issue. Through acombination of frontyard swales and noncurbed streets,stormwater is collected and fed by gravity to a commu-nity focal point, a 22-acre pond. The swales are heavilyplanted with native plants that support the community’sprairie aesthetic. The root system of the plants capturestoxins, greases, and heavy metals, naturally filtering thestormwater as it makes its way to the community pond.Upon entering the pond, the water is at such a high levelof quality that it serves as a community swimmingamenity in the summer. The result of this system is veryhigh-quality stormwater runoff entering the ecosystemof the lake, visual support of the community’s imagefrom the street, a no-cost community amenity (swim-

ming in the summer, skating in the winter), and savingsto the developer of $1.2 million in initial capital costs.

Off the coast of Charleston, South Carolina, lies aunique island community known as Dewees Island.With over 1,200 acres and only 150 units, DeweesIsland Partners successfully developed a failed high-density resort development into a showpiece of sus-tainability. One of the primary elements of the Deweesstrategy was an innovative wastewater treatment systemthat gained the favor of project opponents because ofits low-tech, high-quality simplicity. A combination ofresidence-based grinder pumps and anaerobic pretreat-ment tanks allows for all solids to be digested prior toentering the effluent stream. Liquids are conveyed via asmall-diameter pressurized piping system (STEP) thatcentralizes treatment through hydrogen peroxide pre-treatment and traditional leach field. After ten years ofactive use, the digesters at each residence have shownno residual biosolids, meaning 100 percent decomposi-tion. One of the primary reasons for this very high rateof success is the banning of garbage disposals in anyresidence. Disposals create water treatment problemsby concentrating and suspending fats and oils, the oneelement that will preclude successful decompositionusing anaerobic or aerobic digesters.

Landownership and EntitlementsToday, more NGOs and planning firms are taking anactive role in educating families and institutions that hold legacy lands. Green infrastructure can give theselandowners a vision and a timeline for development or conservation, so that parcels may be acquired andprotected as part of a larger regional strategy.

Financial pressures can force families with large, resource-rich landholdings into expedient development. Often,the first purchaser’s lands pass to third and fourth genera-tions who lack a conservation ethic or an estate tax plan.As a result, large and small working landscapes—farmsand ranches—suddenly come up for development withoutbenefit of contextual or regional planning.

In general, unpredictable entitlement processing, exacer-bated by antigrowth sentiment, extends the approvalprocess and drives up costs. Delays consume funds avail-able for habitat enhancement or acquisition of open space,and may force the developer to add units or reduce quality.

In the end, one of the most challenging aspects of green-field development remains the fragmented way in whichland is acquired, planned, and developed. Jurisdictionsneed to strengthen their political will to create—andstick to—a vision for connected regional development.

Mobility: A Public/Private BalanceIf open space is the rallying point for citizens concernedabout greenfield development, transportation issues areusually the platform.

Activists and the media often portray congestion andlong commutes as issues for local government, calling for some specific road building or transit fix. In reality,however, mobility is probably the most holistic of thethree main greenfield issues.

An integrated, multimodal transportation network involvesa true balance of traditionally public utilities—highways,collector roads, regional open-space paths and bikeways,transit—and the private streets, sidewalks, community path networks, carpool and vanpool systems, and telecom-muting resources often best provided by larger planned

community developers. Here, too, there is a need for com-munity and regional citizen participation to make sense ofthousands of different consumer transportation profiles.

In many ways, the process is an extension of green infra-structure and its “smart conservation”—an equally multi-faceted and interconnected “smart transportation.”

To quote Robert Dunphy, ULI’s senior resident fellow for transportation:

“Transportation systems become smart when theyoffer community residents and workers a range oftravel options that can expand choices and reduceincreases in traffic congestion. It means expandingaccess to travel by transit, paratransit (such as van-pools and carpools), walking, and biking. Currently,conventional greenfield development patterns maketransit expensive and underused, render carpoolingineffective, and discourage walking and biking.”

The challenge for planners and developers, then, is to con-ceive and create patterns of development that will makebalanced transportation feasible, both at the project’s out-set and after buildout (including so-called transit-readyplans). A particular need is to encourage—through design,inviting connections, and attention to comfortable dis-tances—walking and biking.

A related issue is interconnected streets to provide mul-tiple access points and optional travel patterns, relievingcongestion caused by single-point entry/exit road hierar-chies. The concept of interconnectivity goes beyond traf-fic management, adding benefits in creating a secure andwalkable community when, for example, streets are prop-erly designed for narrower widths, on-street parking, andfour-way stop intersections.

At a larger scale of connectivity, the regional perspectiveof green infrastructure is inseparable from transportationplanning. The combination of green infrastructure at aregional level, plus a multimodal transportation overlayto connect the interstitial areas suitable for development,creates a holistic framework for future growth.


Livability and Lifestyle ChoicesThe small-town ideal of neighbors of diverse ages andincomes living close together and walking or taking pub-lic transit to work, school, shopping, entertainment, andcommunity activities—an ideal effectively impossiblewith suburban sprawl—can readily reemerge in goodgreenfield development.

A study released in August 2003 by Smart GrowthAmerica showed a clear link between sprawl-type sub-urban living and health problems. “Measuring the HealthEffects of Sprawl” used census data from 448 counties inthe United States to examine sprawl patterns and healthproblems such as obesity and hypertension, and identifieda clear correlation between the two. Recent emphasis oncompact and walkable forms of development is not sim-ply a planner’s ideal, but a real benefit to quality of life—both in terms of character and longevity.

Recent compact greenfield developments such as Celebration, Florida, or Kentlands, Maryland—oftencalled traditional neighborhood developments (TNDs)—have demonstrated the level of market interest: premiumbuyers are willing to pay for a small-town feel with full-service offerings. This underscores the idea that alterna-tives to sprawl are more than academic arguments—themarket clearly recognizes the improved lifestyle of“smarter” development patterns.

However, the traditional town may not be the ideal for all residents. American consumers are no more likely toaccept a fine-grained TND as a one-size-fits-all solution,than they are to embrace urban infill as the only respon-sible way to build. An overall greenfield strategy that isboth market-responsive and socially appropriate requires a mix of uses and housing types, sizes, and prices offeredin a variety of physical forms. While some communitiesmay be small-town in character, others may become spe-cialized—built around an office park, a retail center, or an extended-care village, for example.

To some, this may sound like more sprawl. But to distin-guish the development patterns of the past from a visionfor the future, a successful regional approach must includea comprehensive framework of green infrastructure andtransportation mobility, infilled with a carefully craftedrange of lifestyle and product choices. The differentiating

factor between the sprawl of today and the vision outlinedhere is the connectivity provided by the framework ofgreen infrastructure and transportation mobility. Thisframework is further enhanced by the carefully craftedsynergy that will evolve from mixing uses.

Integrated and varied land uses, neighborhood designsand housing types, densities and price ranges, and innov-ative products in general often seem to need the scale,longer horizon view, multiple product delivery system,and testing capability that a larger, single-developer proj-ect offers. This kind of development is best known as aplanned community.

Perhaps the strongest argument for considering plannedcommunities a critical component to developing green-fields without sprawl is their ability to provide affordablehousing at several price levels, skillfully designed to beseamless and invisible alongside market-rate housing. Byoffering areas of higher density, or by allocating land coststo shift the burden from lower-priced houses and apart-ments, larger individual communities can more readilydeliver home products at a variety of price points.

Furthermore, providing employment and educationchoices, mixed uses, and a variety of housing types ingreenfields works better under the umbrella of an indi-vidual planned community.

Planned Communities: Core ElementsThe tradition of comprehensively planning virgin tracts ofland for settlement in the Americas dates to the SpanishLaw of the Indies of 1573. Later, New Englanders used thecentral common to create both a utilitarian focus and anorganizing structure. Visionaries from Penn to Pullmanexperimented with planned settlements to foster commu-nity and a utopian way of life.

As we have seen, however, the freestanding ideal plannedcommunity quickly became an anachronism (exceptamong planners and academics) after World War II. TheU.S. government’s resolve to provide housing and main-tain economic growth led to rapid deployment of planneddevelopment across the national landscape. Somewhere in the rush to provide housing, the concept of creating asense of place was lost, and planned developments replaced


planned communities. The factors at work included thecommodification of housing, the desire to create a modernlook and feel unlike Depression-era Elm Streets, and themarket’s desire to serve the automobile. Especially in theSouth and West, the move to edgeless urbanization wasswift and sure.

Nowadays, the knack of distinguishing a high-qualityplanned community from what one observer calls a“subdivision on steroids” is not to be underestimated.It is often easier to identify the difference after the factrather than during planning, however. But the name“planned community” still captures the essence of thetwo main clusters of ideas that have distinguished gooddevelopment in greenfields since the 1500s:

� “Planned” implies a comprehensive approach to analysis, programming, construction, development,and management.

� “Community” describes a balanced and purposefullinkage of uses that makes it possible for people not onlyto live, work, and play in their local environs and social-ize formally or informally with their neighbors, but alsoto be part of a place they take pride in.

As the concepts have evolved, “planned” may now refer to both a site-specific area and a region. A “community,”while it should still operate at a neighborhood level, maynow also involve a linked network of communities on aregional scale. The major distinction will be entities thatindeed look like villages and call themselves planned com-munities—walled golf course enclaves or limited-pricesingle-family housing tracts, for example—yet fail the testby being unconnected, homogeneous, and regionallyobstructive rather than contributory.


Planning Form Defining Characteristic(s) Image Examples

New Communities/Towns Large scale, long term,balanced/mixed land uses

A new town • Reston, Virginia

• The Woodlands, Texas

• Summerlin, Nevada

Traditional PlannedCommunities

Moderate scale, moderateterm, mixed uses, and highopen space/recreationcomponent

A new village,contemporary in form

• Ladera, California

• Gainey Ranch, Arizona

Recreation Communities Recreation and lifestyleorganizing element(s),predominantly second home

A resort lifestyle community

• Desert Mountain, Arizona

• Hualalai, Hawaii

Active Adult Communities Age-restricted with centralfacilities for fosteringresident interaction andlifestyle

A retirement lifestyle community

• Sun City, Arizona

• Sun City, Nevada

New UrbanistDevelopments

Garages loaded from rear, street-separatedsidewalks, fine-grain mixed use

A traditional village • Seaside, Florida

• Kentlands, Maryland

ConservationDevelopments

Conserved open spacefocus, typically underconservation trust

A rural hamlet • Spring Island, South Carolina

• Prairie Crossing, Illinois

TABLE 1: SOME PLANNED COMMUNITIES COMPARED

Benefits of Planned CommunitiesWell-executed planned communities offer significantadvantages of scale and are comprehensive in accommo-dating growth, which in turn can generate other benefits.While planned communities may range from 500 to over10,000 acres, the most common size is 2,000 to 3,500acres, according to Robert Charles Lesser & Co., a leadingindependent real estate advisory firm. This size gives plan-ners and developers flexibility to integrate uses, ensurecompatibility between development and land, and con-duct site inventory and analysis using a whole-systemsapproach, a base for sustainable development.

Green Infrastructure Preservation of large open spaces is facilitated by large-scale community development. Environmental protec-tion and enhancement are served because the site isevaluated in its larger context, and project economicsoften allow for development areas to underwrite bothinitial and long-term management costs associated withconservation measures.

Efficient and Responsible Infrastructure Use The planned community process offers opportunities to locate, design, and phase infrastructure incrementally,together with residential and other land uses, in ways notpossible with small-scale subdivisions. A comprehensiveapproach often improves systems’ operating efficiency and financial feasibility, and makes sustainable technolo-gies more accessible. Examples include integrating potablewater, storm drainage, and wastewater treatment withhabitat development, employing low-energy natural treat-ment instead of mechanical systems. Finally, infrastructurefinancing can take advantage of special service districts,which are difficult to obtain with fragmented ownerships.

Financial AdvantagesArguments against both greenfield development andsprawl cite the cost of extending infrastructure and socialservices for incremental development. Analyses show taxrevenues generated by new subdivisions often fail to coverbasic services. Mixed-use planned communities, on theother hand, can balance or generate new revenues to coverextended services and systems, including advanced cost-effective technologies. In addition, the larger scale of devel-opment and the access to special service district financingthat it affords allows planned communities to avoid taxingexisting utility districts for implementation.

Mobility and Alternative Transportation Likewise, a comprehensive planning and developmentprocess can foster a diverse, efficient transportation net-work connecting neighborhoods, employment, retail,and recreation centers within and outside the plannedcommunity. Interconnected streets, walking and hikingtrails, and path systems for alternative vehicles (e.g.,electric cars and carts) offer residents the benefits ofincreased exercise and fewer car trips. Large plannedcommunities can plan far into the future to provideroom for transit links that may not be supportable at the outset of development, but could never even beconsidered in incremental development.

Jobs/Housing Balance No community can be a self-contained job source in thisage of mobility, but planned communities with employ-ment centers can give more people the option of livingnear work, shopping, and recreation and education facili-ties. The regional vision described earlier is essential to fos-tering communities that develop in a mutually supportivemanner, so that one community may be the employmentfocus, while another may serve as the residential focus, andstill another may provide a major recreation resource.

Mixed Uses and Varied Housing Types Integration of a variety of land uses, neighborhooddesigns, housing types, densities, and price ranges isoften best accomplished in a planned community. Byshifting density and allocating land costs, planned com-munities can deliver more diversity and affordabilitythrough nontraditional products. Examples include over-garage apartments, live/work lofts, English basements,and “multifamily mansions.”

These are some of the benefits that make high-qualityplanned communities valuable additions to any region,and an important tool in developing greenfields withoutsprawl. But what elements define and ensure a qualityresult, and how are they achieved?



What Makes a High-Quality Planned Community?Greater than the sum of its parts, a high-quality plannedcommunity is the product of plans and components effec-tively organized to create the intangibles of community andplace. Regardless of their size, good planned communitiesincorporate a variety of housing types, sizes, and prices;include a complementary mix of land uses; and provideample common space and a vital public realm. Other criti-cal characteristics that developers and professional plannersagree upon are the following: a form of community gover-nance to maintain resources and character; a comprehen-sive approach to planning and delivery; and a long-termvision zealously adhered to by a single entity.

Finally and not least, there is the critical ingredient of con-nectivity, of playing a complementary part in a plannedregional network of preserved open space and balancedgreenfield development. But having explored this elementat the outset, we should now concentrate on the individualdevelopment. What are the important characteristics ofthe proposed site, what uses need to be included in thecommunity, and how should they be spatially organized to create a lively, high-quality environment for residents,employees, and visitors?

The best of today’s planned communities encompass thefollowing principles:

Systems-Based StructureStarting with Olmsted at Riverside and moving throughMcHarg, this is one of the most enduring and fundamen-tal benefits of comprehensive planning, the hallmark ofplanned community development. A thorough under-standing of a site and its carrying capacity is critical to sus-tainable development. Today, the power of GIS technologyand improved scientific analysis allow much more intelli-gent analysis and modeling of development alternatives.

Contextually and Locationally Responsive In situations where a project is located in a greenfield,planning or studying outside the parcel boundary to iden-tify affected systems and linkages, as well as potential syn-ergies within an appropriate development shed, will resultin a more responsive and appropriate development plan.

Resource EfficiencyA contribution of the green development movement,resource efficiency is a simple moniker with a diversity of implementation strategies. It starts at the macro scaleof transportation, reducing vehicular dependence; downto a micro level of energy efficiency for habitable spaces;and finally analysis and recognition of the embeddedenergy in materials used in construction. Other issuesinclude water, wastewater, and stormwater managementand their impacts on both energy consumption and theirbeing perceived as a resource rather than a nuisance.Finally, recycling and waste stream management pro-grams all affect resource use.

Streets as the Public Realm What had been banished to the infrastructure column in land development pro formas has reemerged as thecornerstone of the public realm. Attentive and detailedunderstanding of the complex interplay of width andscale, pedestrian character, texture, light and shadow,architectural and landscape edge conditions has allowed us to convert asphalt to agora, a higher plane of publicconnection and place making.

Infrastructure as an Asset With the element of streets removed from the infrastruc-ture category, attention can be focused on the capital-intensive and entitlement-critical issues of stormwater and wastewater management. Once considered a nuisanceto be piped away as quickly as possible, enlightened think-ing has now recognized that these two can be a significantresource. Increasing science and sustainable thinking onboth subjects have produced solutions that are scientifi-cally possible, biologically beneficial, and aestheticallyappealing. In arid climates, the simple act of effluent reuseon landscape reduces potable water consumption andprovides reduced piping requirements for disposal, whilealso recharging the aquifer. The role of stormwater reten-tion, detention, and first flush treatment has generatedthe opportunity for both new landscape and habitat en-vironments while also reducing infrastructure costs.

Places, not Projects Place making, however difficult to define, is another in-gredient without which there can be no smart growth.Program mix and synergy; material color, light, and trans-parency; the role of landscape and pedestrian space; andthe type and spatial organization of furnishings, signage,art, and soft programming are all being carefully woveninto environments that make places out of projects.


Fine-Grain Mixed Use While many new developments of the 1970s and 1980ssought to create the vitality and energy evocative ofsmall villages and towns, their application and executionreflected a naiveté about market dynamics and a lack ofsophistication in physical design. The “build it and theywill come” approach to village centers created program-matically correct, but locationally deficient, strugglingretail centers. But the concept of re-creating the smalltown main street was given a considerable boost with the advent of Celebration. While the economic meritsand challenges to realizing equilibrium can be debated,a visit to Celebration today would suggest it is hard todeny the vital, exciting vibrancy that the Town Centeraffords the community. Less ambitious but equallyimportant examples at Haile Plantation, Florida, andeven Hidden Springs, Idaho, show that both place mak-ing and mixing diverse uses are critical to differentiatinga community, while making it sustainable. Much morethan a utilitarian place for selling goods and services,they provide a focal point, marketing icon, and commu-nal venue for residents and visitors alike.

Connecting People and Culture One of the most compelling ideas to emerge from recentland development success stories is that premium buyerswill pay to be part of something real or authentic. A site,properly selected and analyzed, will yield a wealth of in-formation that affords not only land use and spatial orga-nizing cues, but also the essence of the community or itsroots. A carefully developed understanding of both the site and the region’s history (genuinely incorporated into the development program—not as an add-on or trite marketing ploy) will form the soul of a communitythat connects buyers with shared values. After capturingand sharing a community’s essence, individuals should be included in its evolution. This is accomplished notthrough a set of dogmatic and aesthetically driven codes,but through a shared set of goals and values that allownew residents and guests to develop authorship of theircommunity, taking it to an even higher level of connectionto each other, the community, and the region at large.

Good Design at the Project LevelRooting Development to the LandLand is often thought of as simply the ground upon whichuses are developed. But each site combines physical, bio-logical, and cultural characteristics that impart a qualityand identity unlike any other. Early and thorough invento-ry and analysis help to shape community form.

Internal Open-Space SystemsHigh-quality planned communities share the commontheme of a significant, interconnected open-space systemderived from understanding the site’s special character.This system should follow the clear hierarchy set forth bythe National Recreation and Park Association. This startsat the block level with tot lots and moves up in scale andservice area through neighborhood parks (one-half acreto one acre), village- or community-level parks (two toten acres), to regional-level parks that may be in excess ofseveral hundred acres. The key is a variety of open-spaceoptions, passive and active, located at various walkingdistances from development, and interconnected througha combination of open-space corridors, enhanced streetlinkages (parkways), and detached pedestrian and multi-purpose paths. This concept also speaks to marketing: inannual buyer surveys, the National Association of Realtorshas found that the amenity homebuyers most want is walk-ing trails and paths.

Enabling Transportation Alternatives Giving residents multiple routes to get from one place to another is a critical concept for building community,increasing the value of planned communities, and creat-ing sustainable development. Alternative transportationin the context of planned communities most often meanswalking or cycling. While transit-ready development andparatransit are program elements that should be consid-ered and planned for, the concept of walkability is a basic,easily developed precept for any high-quality plannedcommunity.

Walkability as a Design ToolMost people are comfortable walking one-quarter mile to a given destination, and depending on the circum-stances will walk up to one mile. Walkable communitiesneed both interconnected and pedestrian-friendly streetand path systems, and well-arranged land uses to ensurethat recreation, convenience goods and services, and a


Element Policy Makers/Reviewers Developers Citizens

Open Space Create regional prioritiesand establish standardsbased on scientific data.

Shape plans to supportregional systems. Fundthrough real estate transfertax, percent of sales price,or long-term endowments.

Embrace competingimperatives of growth and conservation anddefine areas of criticalsensitivity.

Transportation Establish funding and long-range plans fortransit.

Accommodate futuretransit with “transit-ready”corridor planning. Ensuredensity support for futuretransit concepts.

Be realistic about cost and timing of transitsystems. Be willing to fund long term through tax programs that sup-port regional transit.

Affordable Housing Establish realistic targets,based on econometrics of region. Reduce orremove development and impact fees thatincrease cost of housingfor affordable components.Enact zoning changes andcodes to accommodatenonaggregated forms ofaffordable housing.

Don’t just rely on impactfee or fee-in-lieu solution.Look for innovative solu-tions including housingabove retail, offeringgranny flats, and mixed lot size products.

Recognize the importance of diversity in commu-nities and avoid NIMBYreactions. Support higherdensity products andmixed-use developments.

Jobs/Housing Balance Look at location andopportunities for jobcreation on a contextualbasis. Be realistic aboutnumber of jobs and retailthat can be supported bycorresponding number ofrooftops.

Broaden planning contextto look at regional influ-ences. If your project has limited employmentpotential, how can yousupport nearby employ-ment centers—i.e., finan-cial marketing support,rubber tire transit program,joint marketing approach.

Remember that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Think about best placesfor employment to becreated and supportclusters of employment in key areas that will allow transit and amenities to work.

TABLE 2: ROLES AND INFLUENCE IN PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

choice of housing products all fall within a short walkingdistance. Ideally, more destination-oriented uses such asemployment centers, village retail, and civic uses can belocated within a one-mile radius. Walkability is furtherenhanced by the open-space network’s multipurposepaths, but a more important community identity ele-

ment is pedestrian connections made through the streetnetwork. The revival of a streetscape of detached side-walks, narrower driving lanes, alley-loaded garages, andon-street parking all add to a walking experience that ispleasant to the eye, safer for pedestrians, and helpful inbuilding a real community.

Developing for Diversity and Market FlexibilityAs early as the initiation of the Federal Title VII programin 1970, mixed use has been advocated as the cornerstoneof high-quality planned communities. As “balanced de-velopment,” it was defined as “a complex objective thatincorporates two principal subgoals: 1. Efficiency in landuse and the consumption of natural resources, includingenergy; and 2. A physical living environment that meetshuman needs and minimizes adverse environmental im-pacts.” Successful planned communities of the past 20years offer a long roster of residential and nonresidentialuses, often highly integrated within neighborhoods of tenacres or less. This “fine-grain” unit of land use is inher-ently more walkable and richer in human terms than thetraditional suburban superblock of homogeneous hous-ing or commercial products. Another benefit is the flexi-bility to fine-tune product mix in response to marketcycles or buyer preferences.

Planned Communities:Beyond Basics

SustainabilitySustainability as a concept for development touches manyaspects of the development process. Based on ideas firstformally defined in 1987, sustainability is “meeting today’sneeds without compromising the ability of future genera-tions to meet their needs.” But a sustainable planned com-munity can be elusive.

Sustainability requires balancing ecological, economic,and social equity needs. Great progress has been madein addressing at some level the ecological aspect of sus-tainability, starting with site understanding and proac-tive conservation. Newer planned communities take this concept further by exploring resource efficiencies—reducing energy consumption (through walkability,transit, building design), decreasing water use (throughusing indigenous landscape, reclaimed effluent), andcontrolling types of materials used in construction(high levels of recycled content, low embodied energy).

Meeting economic criteria can be more challenging; thisrequires looking holistically at the proposed development,in a manner not easily quantified in a typical pro forma.Life-cycle analysis and life-cycle costing are two conceptscritical in sustainable “green building.” They examine not

only the first cost of certain features, but also the cost over their life span, including maintenance and ability tobe adapted to later uses. Readily applied to corporate orcivic structures where long-term owners care about long-term cost, such analysis may be of little interest to resi-dential developers concerned with price-sensitive prod-ucts designed to sell quickly. Planned communities thathave introduced life-cycle costing and energy-efficientcomponents, however, are able to charge a premium of 20 percent or more over neighboring developments,by showing buyers the value of better-built homes thatcost less to operate and maintain over time.

The social equity component of sustainable planning is often considered both intangible and esoteric. Still,planned communities that provide more accessibletransit, more diverse and cost-effective housing, morecommunity-based social involvement, and more posi-tive interactions among a diverse population of resi-dents are increasingly seen as having their own marketedge among younger, better-educated buyers.

Community InteractionDuring a recent symposium on sustainable development,John Knott, CEO of Dewees Island, remarked, “Like it ornot, for better or for worse, by being in the communitydevelopment business we are all social engineers.”

As many in the business realize, the craft of buildingplanned communities is more than roads and houses.Over the past decade, a mantra has emerged: “creatingcommunity beyond the real estate.” What this implies isthat finding ways for people to interact with their set-ting and with each other can be as critical for success as physical layout, financing, or construction.

A sense of community, then, is another intangible thathas spurred widespread consumer interest. Soft pro-gramming—the development and management ofoperating programs encouraging people to participatein their community—is both a sales tool and a way toenhance project value. Local intranets offer anotherkind of belonging, but physical destinations remain themost important. Trails, tot lots, neighborhood parks,and corner cafés all create venues where chance meet-ings can occur, encouraging neighbors to connect withone another and with their community.



Element 500–1,000 Acres 1,000–5,000 Acres 5,000+ Acres

Open Space Neighborhood parks andcentral community green.

Extensive communitysystem that may reach 50 percent of totalacreage. Large conser-vancy areas along withlarge active recreationalcomponents.

Extensive range of pro-gram options and typesof open space, consis-tent with national stan-dards. Provide varietyusing per-capita ratios,within standard proxim-ities to households.Anchor regional systemof recreation and con-servation programs.

Program Range of residentialproducts with limitedneighborhood-servingretail. Employment centersdriven by contextualinfluences and density.

Range of residentialofferings, employmentcenter, and retail potentialup to regional center.

Range of residentialofferings, significantemployment center andretail ranging from neigh-borhood centers to majortown center in excess of1 million square feet.

Transportation Systems Interconnected streetsystem with sidewalks.Bike paths and walkingtrails system. Limitedopportunity for on-demandrubber tire vehicle transitsupport, unless close tolarge regional network.

Interconnected streetsystem with sidewalks.Extensive bike paths and walking trails system,providing a variety ofexperiences and types of path systems. Transit-ready planning should beinitiated with rubber tirevehicle program run byhomeowners associationor transit authority.

Interconnected streetsystem with sidewalks.Extensive bike paths and walking trails sys-tem, providing a varietyof experiences and typesof path systems. Shouldbe connected or anchormajor regional system.Transit-ready planninginitiated with rubber tire vehicle programmoving to regionalsystem in future.

TABLE 3: CRITICAL ELEMENTS: APPLICATIONS AT VARYING COMMUNITY SCALES

Places, Landmarks, and IdentityPlace making, or creating a sense of place, is a planningabstraction that has become widely accepted in the broadercircles of development and by the buying public. It requiresfostering identity and connectivity for a community, sothat in the end people take pride in where they live.

Place making happens through heroic gestures of build-ing town centers, as well as the mundane details of streetsigns and sidewalks. It is the result of detailed and experi-enced attention to the form and look of local buildings,landscape design that anchors a project in its local and regional environmental setting, and symbolic placementand design of community for schools, churches, squares,retail centers, and corner stores.

Outreach and CommunicationAs significant land users, planned communities have arole in educating the public about what they are doingwell and why it is important for the broader region. Es-pecially in communities that emphasize sustainability,marketing materials and centers are often more abouteducation than selling. Advertisements, community lit-erature, and the design of the centers themselves involvepotential buyers and tour groups in concepts of com-munity, sustainability, and living lightly on the land.

Combining marketing and education can lead to perma-nent education facilities that form a focus for the com-munity and an asset for the region. Interpretive centersat several recent planned communities give residents asense of pride and connection to the land, plus valuableoutreach, research, and education serving local school-children, environmental groups, and interested citizens.


Community Outreach as an Amenity

One of the hallmarks of today’s leading environmen-tally responsible planned communities is their com-mitment to environmental education. In communi-ties such as Dewees Island and Spring Island, both inSouth Carolina, naturalist centers form a significantcomponent of the community’s focus. While bothcommunities have a fairly small number of units(Dewees with 150 and Spring Island with 350), eachused a combination of real estate transfer taxes andinitial percentage of sales to endow and continue tofund full-time naturalists and programs for habitatrestoration, resident education, research, and—mostimportant—community outreach. Dewees, accessibleonly by ferry, regularly shuttles schoolchildren outfrom inner-city Charleston, so that they begin at anearly age to value and appreciate the uniqueness ofthe low-country ecosystem. Resident children are en-couraged to research and document local flora andfauna for the center, and for their work are rewardedwith something called “bio-bucks,” which are beyondthe benefits they gain from creating a living piece ofinformation for the community’s residents.

Planned Communities:Obstacles

A Short Track RecordWhat kind of impact do planned communities currentlyhave as an antidote to sprawl? Some 973,000 single-fam-ily homes were completed in 2002, a number expected toremain constant for the next two decades, according toThe Housing Boom: Another Twenty Years of Growth,published in March 2003 by the National Association ofHome Builders. A valuable piece of information wouldbe to know how many of these homes were built inplanned communities. However, while there are a num-ber of firms that have built successful businesses analyz-ing and forecasting planned community demand, thereis no central database of how many communities exist inthe United States, or how many homes they deliver tothe market on an annual basis.

Two pieces of information do provide some anecdotalinformation relative to this issue. Robert Charles Lesser& Co. (RCLCo) creates an annual survey from an initialscreen of approximately 50 large planned communities,to determine which communities are selling the mostunits on an annual basis. Published in April 2003, the2002 survey showed the top-selling 20 planned com-munities sold 24,542. Another source of information isNewland Communities, which through its acquisition ofTerrabrook Communities in fall 2003, is now the largestdeveloper of planned communities, with a portfolio of60-plus communities in 11 states. Three of Newland’scommunities made RCLCo’s annual survey of top-sellingcommunities. Newland’s remaining 57-plus communitiesdelivered just under 8,000 units according to KathleenFarley, Newland’s director of marketing and communi-cations. This combination of the top-selling 20 plannedcommunities, and the top developer of planned commu-nities delivered 32,542 units in 2002, or less than 3.5 per-cent of the total residential units built in the UnitedStates that year.


If optimistic projections anticipate urban infill and suburban regeneration will accommodate 30 percent ofall required new homes in the coming decades, then at least 800,000 units a year need to be developed ingreenfield locations. If less than 5 percent are currentlybeing developed in planned communities, what are thefactors limiting their more broad-based use in developinggreenfields without sprawl?

Public PerceptionsBeyond distrusting greenfield development per se,some localities oppose a perceived elitist quality inplanned communities, especially master-planned com-munities. This is especially clear with recreation devel-opments or active adult communities, which by naturemarket to specific demographic or economic strata.

In February 2003, a conference titled “Preserving theAmerican Dream of Mobility and Homeownership”took direct aim at smart growth and densification,urban growth boundaries, and other “intrusive plan-ning policies” associated with planned greenfield devel-opment. One featured speaker asserted that if peoplewant to live in sprawl, they should be able to do so.Undoubtedly, some such opposition faces any nationalagenda for planned community development.

Uncertainty and RiskEntitlement and ApprovalsAs the entitlement process becomes more challenging and new rules and guidelines are imposed, any developerembarking on a planned community program confrontssignificant uncertainty and financial risk. Political uncer-tainties represent a high risk for any kind of development,consuming dollars with no guarantee of a reasonablereturn. A developer may be forced to compromise onquality because of the time and money consumed in theentitlement process, building faster and cheaper simply to meet cash flow and financing needs. Conversely, out-of-date codes and unenlightened public officials often forcedevelopers to give up on innovating and instead buildwhat they are allowed “as of right,” resulting in run-of-the-mill development that is all that the codes will permit.

Capital MarketsAs the process of developing planned communities hasbecome more widely researched and documented, so hasthe record of financial failures and successes. Of 13 newtowns that received loans or guarantees through theFederal Title VII program, only one—the Woodlandsoutside Houston, Texas—managed to survive financiallyintact. Underwriting of new development has becomemore stringent, investment time frames have shortened,and required rates of return have increased. These factorshave combined to shorten the cycle of a typical project tothree to five years—greatly reducing the scale of projectsthat may be financed, and discouraging progressive prod-ucts and concepts.

Visionary Developers: A Dying Breed Some of today’s most influential planned communitiesemerged during the 1970s and 1980s from the real estatedepartments of large resource companies such as Mobiland Gulf Oil. Others reflect the leadership of visionarybuilders such as James Rouse and Charles Fraser. Today’sdevelopers, however, may well decline to follow in theirfootsteps. Most resource companies have left the plannedcommunity business because the risk was not commen-surate with the rewards. National merchant builders have moved in, not with visions of a great place to live,but to have more lot inventory on which to build homes.With no experience or interest in mixing uses, they con-tinue to build one-dimensional bedroom communities.The challenges of entitlement, patient capital, and fluctu-ating markets have further reduced the field of develop-ers willing to spend a decade creating an innovativeplanned community.

ConclusionContinued growth and the resulting demand for newresidences, retail shops, and places to work are inevitable.Dialogue of the past 20 years has focused on the real andperceived problems associated with growth, yet only noware we beginning to converse constructively about how to shape new development effectively. Urban infill is animportant part of the shaping process, but we must alsorecognize that even our best efforts at redirecting growthwill still result in a majority of new development beinglocated in greenfield settings. Consequently, we can wastetime debating the problems attributed to greenfield de-velopment, or we can focus energy on making sure thatgreenfield development is done right.

Identifying and agreeing on appropriate areas for devel-opment cannot be done through reactive, incrementalactions or short-sighted legislation and planning. Visionsfor the future of our exurban areas must be created bygiving stakeholders an appreciation of the significantchallenges that need to be addressed, as well as a say inhow they are resolved. Policy makers and political leadersmust have the will and long-term outlook to make deci-sions that will benefit their constituents over generations,not just election terms. Real estate developers must bewilling to participate proactively in helping define appro-priate areas for development, while concurrently sup-porting conservation and green infrastructure efforts onresource lands.

When there is agreement on where development shouldtake place, high-quality design and construction must bedelivered. This means connected, diverse, visually andsocially appealing development that is carefully conceivedand well executed. Planned communities provide a verygood vehicle for achieving all these objectives and more.Planned communities have greater potential to conservelarge tracts of open space that are biologically significant.They can help construct financial mechanisms to supporta variety of housing types and price points. And they canmix uses over their development life, bringing vitality,walkability, and a sense of community.

Realizing the potential of planned communities as adevelopment tool for accommodating growth is easiersaid than done, however. A combination of negative pub-lic sentiment, inconsistent application of ideas and execu-tion of designs, and the funding duration offered by thecapital markets often precludes the ability to create long-term visionary plans that are allowed to develop andevolve over time the way cherished urban centers have.

To effectively realize the potential of planned communi-ties, we need a more informed private and public audi-ence. This can be achieved starting with distribution ofthis publication, and continuing through the formation of broader alliances of organizations that champion realestate, conservation, and homebuilding issues to agree on the process and content of better greenfield develop-ment. Developers need to become better informed onbest practices in community development and be morehonest in their marketing and expression of terms. Cur-rently, the U.S. Green Building Council is working with a multidisciplinary task force of experts, including ULI,to create rating criteria for community design, similar tothe very successful LEED rating program developed forcommercial buildings.

With a projected growth of 60 million people over thenext 25 years, no growth and slow growth are not realisticoptions. Smart growth is an idea that captures the imagi-nation, but lacks definitive implementation tools. Plannedcommunities are a proven tool that is already playing asignificant role in balancing the challenges of preventingsprawl, while creating high-quality living environments ingreenfield areas. If we are to avoid the development pat-terns of the past and still respond to inevitable marketdemand for new housing, understanding the value androle of planned communities is absolutely critical.


Documents

Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of … · Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities iii. ... A diverse mix of housing ... Greenfield Development