Moving Cooler (#M87 book) is available from ULI’s online bookstore at www.uli.org/bookstore or by calling 800-321-5011.

Urban Land - September 2004 - Inside ULI

Environmentally Sensitive Development

Developers interested in building more compact, mixed-use communities complained about the inflexibility of local subdivision standards, particularly residential street standards, at a recent conference on environmentally sensitive development.

As one builder put it, “the typical code requires us to build roads wide enough to land a 747 on.” Or, as another builder explained, “Too-wide streets encourage speeding and are unattractive.” Overdesigned roads are also expensive. According to one expert, “Overwide streets can add up to $9,000 to the cost of a house.”

After the first complaint from a builder, a representative of a national environmental organization turned to me and said, “I completely agree with him.” Imagine: an environmentalist and a developer in complete agreement. This would come as a shock to many people but the environmentalist quietly explained that less pavement also means less runoff, less sedimentation, and less nonpoint source pollution.

Developers and environmentalists spend way too much time fighting about areas of disagreement and not nearly enough time identifying areas in which they do agree. This is one of the messages that I took to the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center’s September 9 Conference on Conservation Development.

Sprawl is a hot political issue in Austin and almost every other major metropolitan area, but development per se is not the problem; it is actually part of the solution. The real problem is the pattern of development; in other words, where you put it, how you arrange it, and what it looks like.

Unlike California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and other big states, Texas has no state program to purchase development rights on environmentally sensitive lands. So, does this mean that the Hill Country will soon go the way of the buffalo? Not necessarily, especially if local governments recognize that good development can be a tool for conservation.

So-called “conservation development” can preserve open space, reduce infrastructure costs, and increase property values, all at the same time. For example, California’s St. Lucia Preserve is a 20,000-acre ranch, which clusters a hotel and 300 houses on 2,000 acres while permanently preserving 18,000 acres at no cost to the taxpayers of California. Likewise, Prairie Crossing, a development in suburban Chicago, preserves more than 400 acres while using homeowner fees to build trails, restore native prairie, remove invasive species, and produce organic vegetables.

We often hear people say that a healthy economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand, and yet innovative developers who would protect the environment are often stymied by inflexible regulations. Ironically, when an environmentally sensitive design varies from the letter of the law, developers must often spend time and money arguing for their plan. When the cost and delay are too great, the “by-the-book” project will prevail over innovation, even if it hurts the environment.

A growing number of communities recognize that there are alternatives to sprawl that are more attractive, efficient, profitable, and environmentally sensitive than the typical cookie-cutter subdivision. We need to encourage these innovations and facilitate creative developers who want to design ecologically.—Edward T. McMahon, senior resident fellow for sustainable development at ULI.