Tag Archives: 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.

Lo, look yonder at that new basketball court in a new suburban park!

Posted on by

Driving through a nearby suburban subdivision under construction, I spotted this amenity in the new park in the middle of the townhouses and single-family homes:

This is a nice new court. It is not quite regulation length but it does feature two usable half courts. It is at one end of the park with a pavilion next to it and then a playground at the other end. The court, like many, is fairly open to the sun and nearby houses.

Is this worth noting? Years back, I discussed a possibility: do suburban communities not want many basketball courts? I have followed up a few times since. Why would park districts make circular courts? Are residents just putting in their own courts in their backyards? Additionally, the hot new sport is pickleball and communities are making sure they have new courts.

This will be an interesting outdoor court to keep an eye on as the subdivision is completed. There will, no doubt, be nearby residents who want to play. The court is very close to houses on multiple sides. How busy will this court be?

Maryland and Virginia suburbs competing for new FBI headquarters

Posted on by

Which DC suburb will be home to the new FBI headquarters? The competition is heating up:

Photo by Pierre Miyamoto on Pexels.com

The process of selecting a site for a gleaming, modern, suburban campus–style headquarters—one that could host roughly 8,000 FBI employees—began in President Obama’s first term. There was a four-year interruption during the Trump administration, but then the plan got back on track. With a final decision looming, elbows have gotten a lot sharper and complaints a lot louder.

To many of the aides and politicians involved, the end can’t come soon enough. It’s gotten bitter. The Virginians cite the “raw application of power” by Hoyer and others as the source of the bad feelings. The Marylanders argue that the bad vibes come from the FBI, which they claim has shown favoritism toward Virginia. All Maryland’s delegation is trying to do, they argue, is even the playing field.

The process has also activated deep-seated frustrations from Marylanders about why northern Virginia, which has boomed with corporate relocations and a government-contract explosion in recent decades, gets to have it all, while Prince George’s County—which, they hasten to note, is a majority-Black suburban county in Maryland—seemingly goes overlooked. The Virginians vent that Maryland is desperate and doing whatever it can to work the refs.

What both delegations agree on is that this is a once-in-a-generation contract that could serve as a 50-year anchor for either community, potentially bringing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the winner. There are political legacies at stake here. Plus, there’s the CIA angle, which no one can talk about.

In many ways, this sounds like a typical competition between suburbs for a corporate headquarters or a sizable new development. On the line are jobs, status, new buildings, and potentially new residents and businesses who will want to locate nearby.

But, this is also different. The government makes this decision, not a private company. The buildings, jobs, and status may have more staying power because it is backed by the federal government.

When a decision is made, it will be interesting to hear the explanation from the FBI and the federal government on how they made the choice. Are there roughly equal options and a choice had to be made? Or, does the FBI have specific priorities when choosing a suburban community?

Trying to organize food co-ops in the suburbs when local farms and food producers have dwindled

Posted on by

One suburban food co-op is hoping to launch later this year in central DuPage County. Where do they get their food from?

Photo by Engin Akyurt on Pexels.com

Prairie Food will focus on local, organic and sustainably produced food. The co-op has cultivated relationships with Walnut Acres Family Farm in Wilmette, Rustic Road Farm in Elburn, Jake’s Country Meats in southwest Michigan and “quite a few dairy farms,” Kathy Nash said…

Co-op organizers say the model — local control, local ownership — has become especially relevant after the pandemic brought on food supply issues…

Food co-ops clearly define what “local” means. The Food Shed’s goal is to source 25% of all of the store products within a 100-mile radius. The McHenry County co-op purchased land on Route 14 and Lakeshore Drive to build from the ground up. The shopping space will cover around 7,000 square feet…

The Food Shed started from a desire to connect with local farmers and “tap into the local economy,” Jensen said. The co-op was officially incorporated in 2014.

If the comparison is between a 3,000 mile salad where the ingredients come from a long ways away or having food from within 100 miles or a few hours drive, then the co-op is definitely pursuing local food.

At the same time, the desire to buy local food is made more difficult in suburban settings where development has gobbled up land for decades. Looking back at some research notes I had, I found these facts about local farms:

-The amount of land in DuPage County devoted to farming dwindled toward the end of the twentieth century – down to 11% of the county’s land in 1987 and 95 farms in 1992 – according to the Chicago Tribune.

-Also in the Chicago Tribune, the last dairy farm in DuPage County closed in 1993 with the land sold to a developer. At one point, the county was known as “the milk shed for Chicago.”

-The last beef cows in Naperville left in 2005 with the sale of a farm to developers (also according to the Chicago Tribune).

So even as some suburbanites want local food, the developments and communities in which they live are at least partly responsible for pushing food production further away?

Try to run an online world and a company town

Posted on by

Would it be easier to run Twitter or build and oversee a company town? Elon Musk is exploring constructing a town in Texas for employees of his multiple firms:

Photo by Tatiana Syrikova on Pexels.com

In meetings with landowners and real-estate agents, Mr. Musk and employees of his companies have described his vision as a sort of Texas utopia along the Colorado River, where his employees could live and work.

Executives at the Boring Co., Mr. Musk’s tunnel operation, have discussed and researched incorporating the town in Bastrop County, about 35 miles from Austin, which would allow Mr. Musk to set some regulations in his own municipality and expedite his plans, according to people familiar with Mr. Musk’s projects.

They say Mr. Musk and his top executives want his Austin-area employees, including workers at Boring, electric-car maker Tesla Inc. and space and exploration company SpaceX, to be able to live in new homes with below-market rents…

As of last year, Boring employees could apply for a home with rents starting at about $800 a month for a two- or three-bedroom, according to an advertisement for employees viewed by the Journal and people familiar with the plans. If an employee leaves or is fired, he or she would have to vacate the house within 30 days, those people said.

I am intrigued by the contrast between online and offline activity. I have argued before that the two realms are more linked than people think. Here, both the business activity spans these two realms as might the world of employees and visitors.

What might the fate be of this proposed community? On one hand, if the primary goal is to provide cheaper housing for employees, perhaps such a community could be really helpful. Since housing is a significant portion of household costs, providing cheaper good housing could help attract and retain employees. Another bonus is that employees are close to work and might be willing to work more hours.

On the other hand, when has a company town worked out well in the long-term? What regulations does Musk want to implement and what are the penalties for not adhering to them or disagreeing with them? Even with reduced housing prices, how will employees feel about always being tied to work?

My suspicion is that this will not work out as intended. Developing a community is no easy task and the interaction between work life and community life is hard to manage.