Land and Design

Land Design - land planning & design has definitely changed. Vision is being replaced by regulation. Development patterns should be dictated more by land form and site constraints than by zoning.

Site design changes seem to follow the phrase – “what goes around comes around”.

The premise that zoning established by government is the best way to control the use of land is fundamentally flawed. Government’s control of the land by dictating its use and bulk requirements restricts the design creativity, economic success, and vision of builder/developers and land designers.

Prior to 1990, site design trends were typically started in California and then the ideas permeated throughout the nation. As housing gained momentum in the ‘90’s, builders changed product design but also started to view site design as a marketing tool. Design trend leaders shifted from the west coast to other areas i.e. Arizona, Florida, Texas and Colorado.

Leading up to the peak, trends were disregarded for efficiency and accelerated time tables. As we enter a new frontier for real estate development, let’s take a look back and a peek forward.

USES: the market should dictate the land use needs of a community. If local government considers the use a value to the community, the project will move forward. Many highly restricted communities consider their land use map as the best solution and changing their pattern of growth a painful exercise in futility. A majority of the government officials view the real estate development industry as their political playing field.

ZONING: traditional zoning seems antiquated and the regulations are an imposition to creativity, ingenuity, and land design suited for the end user. Since local government controls the land, will zoning approaches change since every jurisdiction will compete for companies that generate jobs?

Zoning has caused the “hop-scotch” development patterns without reasonable linkage between: work, play, shop, learn and live. Many local jurisdictions are concentrating on the aesthetic appearance of a project by regulating design forms, materials and even color. I will discuss more on this topic in another post.

INFRASTRUCTURE: not much has changed over the past four decades in terms of infrastructure materials except for plastic!

In an upcoming post in this series, I will concentrate on infrastructure design criteria imposed at the local level. The standards have become more cumbersome as the infrastructure has become bigger, wider, and stronger. Infrastructure regulations hinder creativity, design flexibility, and cost effective design approaches.

Without any question, cars, fire trucks, and bicycles have dictated site design. After all, the cowboy rode his horse into town, hitched his “ride” in front of the saloon and played poker with his friends. Now, many take their cars to town and park their “ride” at a parking stall bumper and go into Walmart for everything. Many now use bicycle lanes to go to town, secure their bicycle “ride” to a bicycle rack in front of Starbucks and get on their iPad without talking to anyone.

The basic infrastructure of any real estate development project includes roads, water, sewer, and drainage facilities. These elements of the project design are dictated by local government and through the eyes of maintenance and ownership.

SITE AMENITIES: The site designer must create a layout that meets local standards while adhering to the builder’s vision, marketability, and financial constraints. Without a question, housing design has advanced in style and materials.

Builders have added bells and whistles to their product during the “bubble” with the intent of elevating their product above the competition. With these features disappear as the housing industry strives to gain traction?

Architectural design for non-residential buildings has been the primary factor in marketing a point of destination for businesses or retailers.

What about site design and project features?

Will these elements of the project be downsized or become more elaborate elevating the project above the competition?

Design trends that changed housing. There are certainly other approaches that have had a lasting impact on real estate development and I would appreciate your input.

1970 –1980 - Zero lot line and small lot single family projects started to dot the landscape in markets with high land costs. Site amenities i.e. entry features, landscape walls, softscape improvements, clubhouses, pools, playgrounds, etc. became essential for higher density detached housing projects.

 

1980 –1990 - new urbanism or neo-traditional housing approaches became reinvented by designers seeking to minimize the car and maximize resident interaction. Homes were on double frontage lots which increased infrastructure costs and impervious surface while changing the American life style. 

 

1990 –2000 – The clean water act in the ‘70’s led to cluster planning by promoting compact developments on smaller lots and leaving the balance of the property in its natural condition as open space. Cluster developments became a market niche rather than a trend more because of regulatory constraints than consumer acceptance.

 

2000 –2010 – Small lot single family design approaches became more prevalent as housing accelerated. The 2001 recession did not reset housing prices and the financial problems promoting a false market led to “McMansions” - large homes on small lots in projects located on the fringes of suburban or urban centers.

 

2013 & Beyond – land is plentiful but government continues to restrict its use. Government doesn’t act on demographic changes or economic changes until they have to react. We know that “baby boomers” will alter real estate development patterns in the future but will government be a willing partner. In my opinion, vertical mixed uses and transitional communities will be necessary as “baby boomers” age.

 

 

Isn’t it time for visionaries to consider not only where we want live but provide opportunities to live close to where we want to play, shop, learn, and work?

Large scale master planning encourages multiple uses within the same project. Why not use the same approach for smaller projects? Complex projects designed with the land form and not dictated by government will change the dynamics of our industry. Is it too late to take charge and be responsible for our own land?

Next Week: Stakeholders