Urbanomics

Yeah, I know, someone somewhere has probably already trademarked that term. I just thought it'd make a catchy title...

By now, you've noticed that I feel pretty strongly about certain types of development. In fact, why would anyone build anything other than mixed-use, transit-oriented, walkable urban communities?

Obviously, it's not that easy. Otherwise, we wouldn't have such suburban growth as we find in places like Phoenix and LA. From what I can tell, it seems to boil down to a few factors:

• Suburban land, such as fields, ranches, and other "greenfield" land is much less expensive than urban infill land. This means that developers have to price housing units or office buildings higher to make up for the increased cost of urban developments.
• Many developers like to build what has historically sold well. So, in central Florida, where development is predominantly suburban, it takes a lot of guts, risk, and money to build urban-style.
• Development fees can be extremely complex and high for urban development. This is even more the case in suburban areas, when attempting to develop urban-style.
• Infill land is harder to acquire and assemble than purchasing a greenfield site. Often, the perfect site for urban development is occupied by a number of old, useless buildings, but because these buildings may be owned by separate owners, coordinating the purchase is much more difficult than purchasing a 400 acre ranch from a single owner.

There are more reasons, but these loom large. Yet, there is hope. More municipalities are becoming aware of the problems with suburban development, and are starting to "enable" urban-style development. Some investors are also catching on. The financials work on projects like this (of course, not so much while the world is in economic crisis, but you know what I mean...). Some developers are looking toward higher-density, mixed-use projects. As the word spreads, we will start to see a greater shift away from sprawl, toward a more urban-style development.