Tag Archives: development

A possible timeline of 50 years to build an American community for 50,000 people

Posted on by

One source suggests it might take 50 years to complete a proposed community in California for 50,000 people:

Photo by George Becker on Pexels.com

A group of Silicon Valley investors aiming to build a new city in California has collected enough support from residents to place a key zoning-change measure on the upcoming ballot.

The campaign said Tuesday it has surpassed the required 13,000 signatures, gathering the endorsement of more than 20,000 residents of Solano County, a largely agricultural community located northeast of San Francisco. The initiative, if approved by voters in the county, would pave the way from construction to begin by overturning restrictive zoning laws from the 1980s that limit development outside existing cities…

Completing the project in the region between the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento could take as long as 50 years.

Building a new community is a sizable project. Is 50 years a normal time frame or longer or short than what we might expect? A few thoughts:

  1. The United States has a history of fast-growing communities. A city like Chicago grew from over 4,000 residents in 1840 to nearly 1.7 million people in 1890. That is fast growth. Or think of boom towns in the West. Or suburbs that in the postwar era that gained tens of thousands of residents in short periods of time. Most communities do not grow as quickly.
  2. Plenty of news stories and opinion pieces in recent years have weighed in on development processes in California. If it takes longer to build in general in California, then 50 years might be longer than expected in the United States.
  3. Going from few residents to 50,000 residents in a few decades is an accomplishment. But the size of the community at its buildout would not even put it in the top 100 cities in California by population.
  4. What are the expected growth rates at different points in those 50 years? How many years from now until the first residents move in? When does the development truly pick up steam?

An abandoned large development in LA turns into graffiti canvas

Posted on by

A large development in Los Angeles that has gone unfinished now goes by the name “Graffiti Towers” to nearby residents:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/style/graffiti-oceanwide-plaza-los-angeles-skyscrapers/index.html

Climbing up abandoned, unfinishedfloors and tightrope walking across balcony ledges, backpacks clanging with cans of alkyd and acrylic, a collective of Los Angeles graffiti artists have transformed their craft beyond urban aesthetics to champion community issues.

Their choice of canvas: Oceanwide Plaza in Downtown LA. Occupying over a full square city block, the plaza was imagined as a vast mixed-use building project, offering city residents over 500 lavish condominiums, a five-star hotel, retail spaces, restaurants and a private 2-acre park.

However, construction on the $1 billion project, which began in 2015, was shelved after the Chinese-backed contractor Oceanwide Holdingsran out of funding in 2019 — and it has lain unfinished ever since…

Transformed in part into an art installation, Oceanwide became an opportunity for the graffiti artists to leave a message to the city below, and a call-out to policy makers who leave buildings to rot…

“People forget that people live here. People own businesses here and they don’t want to have to spend the time and money to clean it up,” said Blair Besten, executive director of the Historic Core of Downtown Los Angeles, an organization which works to improve the quality of life in downtown neighborhoods. The Historic Core prioritizes street sweeping, trash collection — and graffiti removal.

This article showcases the multiple sides of an ongoing public debate about graffiti: is it a response to difficult social and economic conditions? Is it art? Is it criminal behavior that should be punished?

At the same time, how is there such a large abandoned project in Los Angeles? What can a municipality do to finish the development or pursue another use?

Put these two ideas together: are there cities willing to have large-scale platforms for graffiti in or near their downtowns? If graffiti and its place in society is multi-faceted, how might Los Angeles or other large cities incorporate it or work with graffiti artists?

Needing thousands of signatures and a ballot initiative to start building a new community

Posted on by

To build on rural land, the backers of a proposed new city in California need to collect signatures and get on the ballot:

Photo by Matthias Zomer on Pexels.com

Former Goldman Sachs trader Jan Sramek unveiled his closely guarded ballot initiative for the proposed community between San Francisco and Sacramento in January, a plan that envisions 20,000 homes, transit infrastructure, schools, jobs and green space for an initial 50,000 residents. He has since amended it twice to address concerns raised by Solano County and a neighboring U.S. Air Force base.

Thursday is the deadline for the county counsel’s office to give the ballot initiative a title and summary, which will allow signature gatherers to hit the streets in search of the 13,000 they need — and preferably thousands more as a cushion. The delays mean the campaign has just two months, not three, to collect signatures if they want to give elections officials the maximum time to verify them…

“We’ve been walking a line of making sure we get this right and also realizing that the clock is ticking,” he said. “At the same time, we believe that the amendments that we made to the measure will significantly help increase our chances of success in November, and it was definitely worth the additional time that it cost us to get it right.”…

California Forever could have avoided this had the campaign shared its proposal with local officials ahead of time, said Ross, the consultant. “It’s very much an outsider approach,” he said…

The initiative specifies that the development agreement will include the 10 guarantees made by California Forever, such as $400 million to help county residents and Travis Air Force Base families buy homes in the community and $200 million for the county’s existing downtowns. An environmental impact review would also be required.

A friendly reminder: you cannot just start building a city or community in the United States. You may have been able to do this in the days before states or even afterward with more undeveloped land and smaller populations. But, at some point, communities had to appeal for incorporation. Later, they could appeal for home rule or other recognition.

Today, land use is governed by zoning guidelines at the county and municipal levels. Any change usually has to be approved by some body of local government. Local officials and local residents may disagree with developers and property owners about the best use of land. Some proposals are turned down while others are approved.

It sounds like this proposal has multiple local governments steps to proceed through. Will there be enough signatures to get on the ballot? Will it be approved by voters? What will local (and state) officials do? There is a long way to go even before any ground is broken.

Oppose housing most effectively with environmental lawsuits

Posted on by

A story about battles over housing plans in Minneapolis highlight one effective strategy to stall housing:

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

But the legal avenue available to opponents was through environmental law because, across this country, if you want to stop the government from doing something—such as building a border wall or just allowing new housing—an environmental lawsuit is the clearest way to challenge it.

The lawsuits may not win but they serve their purpose by providing significant delays. The lawsuits also require resources and provide time for the public to think further about the sides. Delays can drive up costs and plans for communities and developers can change in the mean time.

The basis of the article about Minneapolis is the premise that the city and region need more housing, particularly with growing populations. But, building housing and changing regulations about housing is contentious and time-consuming. People disagree, even among those who might appear to be on the same side (environmentalists, pro-housing, etc.). Are lawsuits the way decisions about development and the environment should be made? Environmental lawsuits can help check problematic plans but they can also be less helpful. Are there better systems for working out differences of opinions about development?

Trump on building “freedom cities”

Posted on by

Donald Trump recently said he wants to construct “freedom cities” if elected again. He has had this idea for a while; a story from March 2023 provides more details:

Photo by Brett Sayles on Pexels.com

Former President Donald Trump on Friday proposed building up to 10 futuristic “freedom cities” on federal land, part of a plan that the 2024 presidential contender said would “create a new American future” in a country that has “lost its boldness.”…

He said he would launch a contest to charter up to 10 “freedom cities” roughly the size of Washington, DC, on undeveloped federal land.

“We’ll actually build new cities in our country again,” Trump said in the video. “These freedom cities will reopen the frontier, reignite American imagination, and give hundreds of thousands of young people and other people, all hardworking families, a new shot at home ownership and in fact, the American dream.”

These cities are tied to a bigger project:

Trump’s plan, shared in advance with POLITICO, calls for holding a contest to design and create up to ten new “Freedom Cities,” built from the ground up on federal land. It proposes an investment in the development of vertical-takeoff-and-landing vehicles; the creation of “hives of industry” sparked by cutting off imports from China; and a population surge sparked by “baby bonuses” to encourage would-be-parents to get on with procreation. It is all, his team says, part of a larger nationwide beautification campaign meant to inspire forward-looking visions of America’s future.

When I saw that Trump mentioned this again, I immediately thought about free market cities that some have proposed for different parts of the world. But, that does not seem to be the goal here. Trump wants to build new cities that fit a new vision of American innovation. Freedom = innovation. One implication is that current cities are not free.

For such an idea, multiple practical obstacles exist:

  1. Where would these be located? Which federal lands?
  2. It is hard to build a new city. What is the timeline for this? How many resources will be involved? Will it be all private actors and developers doing the construction?
  3. What will be the guiding mission of these cities? If the goal is innovation, what will be different about these cities compared to existing cities?
  4. What will be the politics of these cities?

All that said, the likelihood of these being built is very low. And I thought Trump was was trying to save suburbia, not necessarily build cities?

Founding a new city in 2023? Quietly buying up property, sending out text surveys

Posted on by

If you wanted to found a new community today, how would you do it? One group is buying up a lot of acres in the Bay Area and sending out surveys:

Photo by Jan Kroon on Pexels.com

Amid a flurry of rumors about a mysterious buyer who has purchased 52,000 acres in Solano County, local residents have received a survey gauging support for a “new city with tens of thousands of new homes.”…

Screenshots of the survey reviewed by SFGATE show an extensive market research campaign. It starts by informing recipients that they will be weighing in on “a description of an initiative that might be on the ballot in Solano County next year” regarding a new development in eastern Solano County.

“This project would include a new city with tens of thousands of new homes, a large solar energy farm, orchards with over a million new trees, and over ten thousand acres of new parks and open space,” the survey continues…

Since news of Flannery’s acquisitions broke, locals have speculated the buyer could be planning anything from a deep water port to a regional airport to even a nuclear power plant. But building a new city from scratch would present its own set of challenges. For one, the developer would need to acquire water rights to support large suburban housing tracts. And, according to Farley, it would need to change Solano County’s “orderly growth” policy, which restricts urban development in many parts of the county.

Buying up land quietly has a long history. If plans are made public, land prices can go up. People start raising objections. Thus, developers try to acquire land behind the scenes and then make a proposal.

The text polls are interesting. Presumably, they can help the buyers/developers tweak their plan and/or public pitch for development. The data might not be great – how many local residents will respond to an anonymous poll? – but it could provides hint of what locals see as doable or what they do not like.

Almost regardless of what is proposed for this land, expect a lot of response. Housing is needed in the Bay Area but neighbors and leaders will certainly have concerns. Additionally, I would expect commentary on how the process has progressed to that point.

One reason for more studio and one-bedroom apartments: not all places want more children in the community

Posted on by

A Chicago housing report looks at what kid of rental units have been constructed in recent years:

Photo by Max Rahubovskiy on Pexels.com

Chicago is seeing more rental housing developments geared toward families like the Matariyehs, as buildings with higher concentrations of two-bedroom or larger apartments are coming on the market or under construction. On top of the shortage of housing broadly, there is also a shortage of family-sized rental housing — typically defined as units with two or more bedrooms — in Chicago and nationally. Rental housing for families that is affordable is in especially limited supply, as two- to four-flats have continued to be gobbled up or priced up by gentrification in Chicago.

A 2020 report from the Chicago Department of Housing finds that for the past decade, market-rate construction has leaned heavily toward studio and one-bedroom units, which, in turn, has shaped affordable housing production. For affordable housing developed through the city’s Affordable Requirements Ordinance — the policy which requires many developers to make a chunk of their units affordable housing — more than 75% of units under construction or completed as of 2020 were studios and one-bedrooms, with less than 5% being three-bedroom units or larger, according to the city report.

Whether in city neighborhoods or suburban communities, larger units mean more children might be present. Children need to go to school. Children can create noise. Children might be drawn to different local amenities than others.

Some of this is a cost question. Housing proposals in suburbs can often into details about how many children might be attending local schools. How will these costs be covered?

Some of this might be a lifestyle question. The explosion of developments and communities for older residents appeals to a particular set of people. Or, more American households include only one person.

When thinking about more expensive developments in cities and suburbs, many places look at two groups of residents they want to target: young professionals and downsizing seniors. The first group is college-educated and is looking for a package of culture and entertainment. The second group is looking to move to a smaller space and enjoy life in ways they might not have been able to with work and/or family obligations.

There will always be at least a few places and developments that appeal to families. Suburbs, for example, can be known for being family-friendly. There is money to be made here.

But, shifts in households and lifestyles may mean an increasing number of places with relatively few or no children – and this is reinforced by the built environment.

Lack of groundwater means limiting new development in the Phoenix area

Posted on by

The sprawling growth that characterizes Phoenix will have to contend with new regulations tied to groundwater:

Photo by Gabriel Peter on Pexels.com

Arizona officials announced Thursday the state will no longer grant certifications for new developments within the Phoenix area, as groundwater rapidly disappears amid years of water overuse and climate change-driven drought.

A new study showed that the groundwater supporting the Phoenix area likely can’t meet additional development demand in the coming century, officials said at a news conference. Gov. Katie Hobbs and the state’s top water officials outlined the results of the study looking at groundwater demand within the Phoenix metro area, which is regulated by a state law that tries to ensure Arizona’s housing developments, businesses and farms are not using more groundwater than is being replaced.

The study found that around 4% of the area’s demand for groundwater, close to 4.9 million acre-feet, cannot be met over the next 100 years under current conditions – a huge shortage that will have significant implications for housing developments in the coming years in the booming Phoenix metro area, which has led the nation in population growth.

State officials said the announcement wouldn’t impact developments that have already been approved. However, developers that are seeking to build new construction will have to demonstrate they can provide an “assured water supply” for 100 years using water from a source that is not local groundwater.

The sprawl of the United States depends on cheap and abundant water available for the new properties. Phoenix is not alone in pursuing sprawl or in not having to think much about water for a long time.

However, the immediate and long-term future in at least a few metro areas involves a lack of water. This is certainly an issue in the West and Southwest. It could be in play in other regions as well.

Since sprawl is so ingrained in American daily life and in assumptions about successful communities, seeing how developers and communities procure water could get really interesting.

Chasing development: give big tax breaks to Foxconn, then to Microsoft…

Posted on by

American municipalities want growth and jobs. Hence, they give tax breaks to corporations to locate there. In southern Wisconsin, they first gave big money to Foxconn. When that fell through, now they are giving money to Microsoft:

Photo by Jonathan Borba on Pexels.com

Taiwan-based Foxconn Technology Group forged an agreement in 2017 with former Gov. Scott Walker to manufacture LCD screens in Mount Pleasant, investing $10 billion and employing 13,000, in return for billions in subsidies. But the company, a top manufacturer of Apple’s iPhones, downsized its plans and created few jobs, forcing government officials to find other users.

Data centers process and store huge volumes of computer data, forming the backbone of the internet. Although these facilities typically don’t create large numbers of permanent jobs, local leaders and tech experts say Microsoft’s arrival signals the Foxconn land, along with infrastructure improvements already complete, won’t go to waste…

Residents on the land promised to Foxconn were displaced from their homes, but the company, blaming “unanticipated market fluctuations,” canceled the mega-factory. In 2021, it signed a new deal with Gov. Tony Evers, who beat Walker after criticizing the original agreement. Instead of up to $3 billion in subsidies, Foxconn agreed to collect $80 million for creating 1,454 jobs and investing $676 million in a set of smaller facilities by 2026.

Microsoft’s agreement with Mount Pleasant and Racine County requires it to launch construction by 2026. The company can recover 42% of its property taxes, but no more than $5 million per year. The local governments can also repurchase the land at the same price if Microsoft fails to hit the deadline.

The logic for this is provided in the story. Attracting big companies and jobs is viewed as important. If growth does not come here, it will go to other communities who will benefit. The deal with Foxconn fell through but having some deal and a few jobs is better than nothing. Growth must continue as must the tax breaks.

Do they really have to continue in this fashion? The final paragraphs hint at one of the possible motivating factors for these companies locating in southern Wisconsin: they are just over the Illinois border and can service the Chicagoland region. If Chicago area municipalities will not compete with each other in these same ways, just go over the border and find plenteous tax breaks. Another motivating factor seems to be a fixation on big companies and tech companies. What community would not want to boost they have a Microsoft facility (even if it is just a data center)?

I hope some people keep following up this story and similar ones to find out what communities and residents actually get out of these tax break deals. How much is spent per job? How does the business growth help the community? What does a data center contribute to a community? Years down the road, who benefits the most from these deals?

Removing a tree that predated Chicago

Posted on by

Before Chicago, there stood at least one oak tree:

Photo by Valeria Boltneva on Pexels.com

For almost three hours, crews from Fernandez Tree Service hacked away at one of Chicago’s oldest trees, a centuries-old, sprawling bur oak that had reached the end of its life span. The nearly 70-foot giant was here long before the zoo was built in 1868, when the area was just a lakeshore covered with tall grass, and possibly even predating the incorporation of the city of Chicago.

Director of horticulture at Lincoln Park Zoo Katrina Quint said the tree is 250 to 300 years old. The caramel cross-sections of the trunk have diameters of 60 inches…

Scott said that in northeastern Illinois, about 1 million acres of land used to be oak forests. There are only 17% of those oak ecosystems left, and 70% are in private ownership, meaning that they’re not in protected status, she said…

Morton Arboretum’s Robert Fahey wrote about this native species loss in the 2015 Oak Ecosystems Recovery Plan, led by the Chicago Wilderness and the Oak Ecosystems Recovery Working Group. Fahey overlaid 1830s public land survey data with 1939 aerial photography and 2010 analysis to see where oak ecosystems used to exist and where they exist now.

The Chicago area now has many trees, but losing one of its oldest trees both harms the ecosystem and severs a connection to the past. Trees are an important part of the landscape and can outlive development and people.

One thing that cities and suburbs tend to do is level the landscape, plop buildings, roads, and more on the ground, and place all sorts of infrastructure underground. It is hard to imagine that prior to the Chicago region, there existed sand dunes, waterways that operated differently (the Chicago River, in particular), groves of trees, swamps, and prairie spaces. The growth of Chicago was bad news for these natural settings as the city consumed land and resources, produced much pollution, and recreated “nature” along the lakefront and in parks.

I hope more people can see what areas looked like before mass development in the United States. This can help prompt thinking and action about what we might do with land beyond building houses and providing pathways for vehicles.