Multifamily Trends - Spring 2004 - Inside ULI

ULI/HUD Forum Examines Barriers and Solutions to Land Assembly for Infill Development

In February, the Urban Land Institute, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), convened a panel of experts to examine the barriers to land assembly for urban infill development and how to remove them. The panel was chaired by Maureen McAvey, ULI’s senior resident fellow for urban development.

The difficulty of assembling and acquiring land in close-in neighborhoods is consistently mentioned as a chief impediment to urban redevelopment, particularly when the land use is being changed to accommodate housing or a mix of uses. Forum participants pointed out that while there is a pressing need for more infill development to help counter the growth of suburban sprawl, land assembly obstacles are formidable: high land costs, limited supply, difficult site assembly requirements, long chains of title, and the desire of some property owners to hold land indefinitely for speculative use. “As a result [of the obstacles], much potentially usable land in close-in areas is bypassed because it is cheaper and easier to build further out,” said McAvey.

Daniel Konnor, director of infill land acquisition for John Laing Homes in Van Nuys, California, commented that despite strong demand for urban infill housing, efforts to produce it—particularly moderately priced housing—are often stymied since much of the land available in downtown areas is zoned only for commercial use, requiring zoning changes that can be time consuming and that may delay or complicate the appraisal process. “We need cities to reexamine their zoning process and help us do our jobs,” he said.

Forum speaker John Kromer, senior consultant at the Fels Institute of Government in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, cited a Brookings Institution report listing ten steps local governments can take to improve opportunities for assembling and marketing land and encouraging development:

• Know the territory. Inventory the properties, know their market value and the zoning, determine who owns them, and make the data publicly available.
• Develop a citywide approach to redevelopment. Categorize neighborhood types (for instance, stable, emerging, distressed) to determine appropriate steps.
• Implement neighborhood plans in partnership with community stakeholders.
• Make government effective. Create an efficient process for acquisition, disposition, and redevelopment.
• Set up a sound legal framework for local governments to use eminent domain to take properties. Strengthen the local government’s authority to put underused property back on the market.
• Create marketable sites. Make sites large enough for re-development through clustering.
• Finance redevelopment. Offer incentives such as short-term financing, subsidies, or tax benefits to attract private investment and development.
• Showcase natural and historical assets. Market the community as an appealing place to do business.
• Be sensitive to gentrification and relocation issues. Aim to create mixed-income neighborhoods that are both economically and socially diverse.
• Organize for success. Recognize that success requires cohesive partnerships at all levels of government and among all stakeholders. While redevelopment of vacant land is a local responsibility, success hinges in part on state laws and regulations and on federal assistance.

Though land assembly is “not popular, not what politicians want to run on,” they should realize its importance as a catalyst for economic growth and community enhancement, McAvey noted. The issue of assembling land to spur economic development is gaining importance as more localities seek ways to generate revenue and overcome fiscal constraints, she pointed out.

Several land assembly–related topics were identified for further research, including:

• revamping and expediting the planning and permitting process;
• doing more or doing better with fewer resources and shrinking assistance from the state and federal governments;
• addressing different types of environments for land assembly: weak markets, strong markets, small- and large-scale cities;
• land banking, which enables communities to have land ready for redevelopment when it is needed;n private sector land assembly involving collaboration among property owners and nongovernment buyers such as foundations, and which does not require public takings;
• providing more community education programs; and
• creating a means of sustaining political leadership for the long term.

To build on the forum discussion, ULI plans to hold advisory services program panels that examine land assembly issues, and publish a book on land assembly, noted McAvey. A detailed report on the forum will be made available in April at www.policypapers.uli.org.