But they're already applying for rezoning and replatting under these specific categories that require the development to be this way. They just apply for it and then demand waivers/exemptions to everything that makes these districts/zones unique. It doesn't make sense to me. They would easily obtain permits from the city/county if the government is already requiring/encouraging these types of developments.
You should think about construction in terms of making the most money for the least effort. Builders can sell all the big expensive high profit houses they can make. That’s perfect for them. They don’t have economic incentive to create anything else. If their sweet spot is building conventional sprawl, that’s what they build. If the government complains about sprawl all the while subsidizing it, so much the better. Governments subsidize sprawl with every new highway and with every highway repair. Don’t forget about subsidized utility expansion.
And you should think about government in terms of politicians working for rich contributors and making excuses to the voters. Politicians can tell voters they encourage walkable mixed use developments all the while letting builders build unwalkable sprawl. It’s a matter of who is really in control, and it’s not the voters nor the politicians.
No you *want* to do those things as a private developer.
What *should* be done is wanting to house people as a basic need for a stable life. Urban planning, laws and government subsidies under a system that works for the public *should* prioritize quality of its citizens over making fat wads.
And you'll never start your effort if it's not even in your vocabulary, before even begining thinking about it.
Also don't bungle my culture in with your culture. Not everyone on the internet is from a Houston suburb.
Government employing builders directly and owning the land to do so. Ordering in bulk because they're a nation state, not some dudes in suits and hard hats so get bulk deals from suppliers. Politicians being elected that want to choose such laws and direction. Taxation paying for it and renting at cost and eventually selling back to the individual living in the house. Basically European housing policy before Reagan and Thatcher era.
Mixing uses makes the development more complex and may be beyond the abilities of the developer. If you develop strip shopping centers, you become an expert in understanding building needs, leasing, financing of strip shopping centers. Your architect likely specializes in retail buildings. Your leasing agents likely specialize in retail/commercial. You add residential on top of the building and you need to hire architect, leasing agent, and others who know both types of development. It’s doable but harder. Likewise your exit strategy is more complex. If you build residential you can turn into condos or sell to apartment company. But if it is a mix of both residential and commercial you will have a more limited pool of potential buyers.
Financing as well. Many lenders, especially the small regional ones, which funds a lot of commercial dev, have no experience with mixed use urban style dev. They have a formula that works, and they won't get involved with anything different.
Well, developers are generally doing it to make a profit, not to build tableaux that will please us urbanists. So they build what they think will lease quickly and certainly to low-risk "national credit" retailers. Those retailers want wide, shallow single-level spaces with loading docks in the rear, very few windows, and visible convenient parking out front. Only *in a market that's too big to ignore,* such as Manhattan or Chicago's North Side, can those retailers be persuaded to take a chance on spaces they see as suboptimal.
The development business has invisible infrastructure, too: the financing environment. It's relatively uncommon for developers to build properties and hold them in their own portfolio; they want to sell them to a REIT or pension fund and move on to the next project. Those buyers typically want not only the same features that make them easy to lease, but for there not to be cross-easements, condo associations, or other things that complicate ownership and valuation. They know how to value and trade single-use assets. One-of-a-kind mixed-use projects, not so much.
They probably don't care about transit, except that it is linked to density. All short term real estate interests are opposed to density. That would lower per unit housing costs. The long term costs of property tenure are an externality, as they will never be on the hook for utility maintenance after ten years.
Another perspective as I am reading an urban economics book called "Order without Design":
As others have mentioned, the individual developers want to build what they think will sell and nothing more. Mixed use development projects are hugely complex, creating significantly more risk for individual developers. If central planners stepped back a bit and let cities form more organically, mixed use areas would form naturally over time.
Also I think the car dependence of America and the road infrastructure makes these mixed use developments tough to justify unless its a major metropolitan centre -- they may be seen as more of a luxury than a necessity. Walkable European cities were built over a long time, largely without the restrictive zoning of today, and shaped by economic necessity of its citizens in their time.
This question needs more context (like all questions), but in general, they're usually fighting the retail portion. That retail portion in a 5 over one is typically really expensive to construct. It correspondingly needs expensive rents to amortize the expense in not just constructing the retail piece but also the subsequent code requirements for the units above which are more strenuous because a higher use class is underneath them.
So this pinholes developers and leasing agents to find a very particular tenant that can afford the space and is willing or can afford to take a chance in a location that is not yet proven. Depending on the area these tenants can be very difficult to find and are usually chains.
As an urban designer, this is why it's important to also think about mixing uses side by side adeptly instead of just up and down. Because it's economic and allows for lower barriers of entry (aka. rent) in unproven commercial markets. Both tools are valid, but vertical mixed use being the only option for a building can also be limiting. And those requirements have to be applied intentionally.
Permits, entitlements, planning. It’s easier to build SFD.
But they're already applying for rezoning and replatting under these specific categories that require the development to be this way. They just apply for it and then demand waivers/exemptions to everything that makes these districts/zones unique. It doesn't make sense to me. They would easily obtain permits from the city/county if the government is already requiring/encouraging these types of developments.
Because they're being conservative on how easily/profitably they'll be able to sell what they build.
This exactly.
Simple projects are easier to sell to investors.
You should think about construction in terms of making the most money for the least effort. Builders can sell all the big expensive high profit houses they can make. That’s perfect for them. They don’t have economic incentive to create anything else. If their sweet spot is building conventional sprawl, that’s what they build. If the government complains about sprawl all the while subsidizing it, so much the better. Governments subsidize sprawl with every new highway and with every highway repair. Don’t forget about subsidized utility expansion. And you should think about government in terms of politicians working for rich contributors and making excuses to the voters. Politicians can tell voters they encourage walkable mixed use developments all the while letting builders build unwalkable sprawl. It’s a matter of who is really in control, and it’s not the voters nor the politicians.
No you *want* to do those things as a private developer. What *should* be done is wanting to house people as a basic need for a stable life. Urban planning, laws and government subsidies under a system that works for the public *should* prioritize quality of its citizens over making fat wads.
While I agree with your idealism, that’s not where we are now as a culture. Getting there will take a great deal of effort.
And you'll never start your effort if it's not even in your vocabulary, before even begining thinking about it. Also don't bungle my culture in with your culture. Not everyone on the internet is from a Houston suburb.
OK. And how is that done, exactly?
Government employing builders directly and owning the land to do so. Ordering in bulk because they're a nation state, not some dudes in suits and hard hats so get bulk deals from suppliers. Politicians being elected that want to choose such laws and direction. Taxation paying for it and renting at cost and eventually selling back to the individual living in the house. Basically European housing policy before Reagan and Thatcher era.
Vienna still does this though the city doesn't own the land they just control land prices.
Mixing uses makes the development more complex and may be beyond the abilities of the developer. If you develop strip shopping centers, you become an expert in understanding building needs, leasing, financing of strip shopping centers. Your architect likely specializes in retail buildings. Your leasing agents likely specialize in retail/commercial. You add residential on top of the building and you need to hire architect, leasing agent, and others who know both types of development. It’s doable but harder. Likewise your exit strategy is more complex. If you build residential you can turn into condos or sell to apartment company. But if it is a mix of both residential and commercial you will have a more limited pool of potential buyers.
Financing as well. Many lenders, especially the small regional ones, which funds a lot of commercial dev, have no experience with mixed use urban style dev. They have a formula that works, and they won't get involved with anything different.
Well, developers are generally doing it to make a profit, not to build tableaux that will please us urbanists. So they build what they think will lease quickly and certainly to low-risk "national credit" retailers. Those retailers want wide, shallow single-level spaces with loading docks in the rear, very few windows, and visible convenient parking out front. Only *in a market that's too big to ignore,* such as Manhattan or Chicago's North Side, can those retailers be persuaded to take a chance on spaces they see as suboptimal. The development business has invisible infrastructure, too: the financing environment. It's relatively uncommon for developers to build properties and hold them in their own portfolio; they want to sell them to a REIT or pension fund and move on to the next project. Those buyers typically want not only the same features that make them easy to lease, but for there not to be cross-easements, condo associations, or other things that complicate ownership and valuation. They know how to value and trade single-use assets. One-of-a-kind mixed-use projects, not so much.
They probably don't care about transit, except that it is linked to density. All short term real estate interests are opposed to density. That would lower per unit housing costs. The long term costs of property tenure are an externality, as they will never be on the hook for utility maintenance after ten years.
Another perspective as I am reading an urban economics book called "Order without Design": As others have mentioned, the individual developers want to build what they think will sell and nothing more. Mixed use development projects are hugely complex, creating significantly more risk for individual developers. If central planners stepped back a bit and let cities form more organically, mixed use areas would form naturally over time. Also I think the car dependence of America and the road infrastructure makes these mixed use developments tough to justify unless its a major metropolitan centre -- they may be seen as more of a luxury than a necessity. Walkable European cities were built over a long time, largely without the restrictive zoning of today, and shaped by economic necessity of its citizens in their time.
This question needs more context (like all questions), but in general, they're usually fighting the retail portion. That retail portion in a 5 over one is typically really expensive to construct. It correspondingly needs expensive rents to amortize the expense in not just constructing the retail piece but also the subsequent code requirements for the units above which are more strenuous because a higher use class is underneath them. So this pinholes developers and leasing agents to find a very particular tenant that can afford the space and is willing or can afford to take a chance in a location that is not yet proven. Depending on the area these tenants can be very difficult to find and are usually chains. As an urban designer, this is why it's important to also think about mixing uses side by side adeptly instead of just up and down. Because it's economic and allows for lower barriers of entry (aka. rent) in unproven commercial markets. Both tools are valid, but vertical mixed use being the only option for a building can also be limiting. And those requirements have to be applied intentionally.