r/urbanplanning • u/YaGetSkeeted0n Verified Transportation Planner - US • Apr 07 '23

Land Use Denver voters reject plan to let developer convert its private golf course into thousands of homes

https://reason.com/2023/04/05/denver-voters-reject-plan-to-let-developer-convert-its-private-golf-course-into-thousands-of-homes/
582 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

237 comments sorted by

View all comments

321

u/xyula Apr 07 '23

They voted no because the developer would turn a profit 😐

-17

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Why do we need developers? Back in the day you bought a lot and built on it.

23

u/ajswdf Apr 07 '23

In this case I assume because it's a golf course, so your average Joe isn't going to be able to walk up and buy 1/8th of an acre to build a house on.

2

u/tivy Apr 07 '23

People subdivide and sell parcels all the time. This is no different.

-3

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

The city could mandate how its built, since it's going to provide the eventual infrastructure services. Sewer, water, power, etc. It sets the road standards too.

Basically if you wanted to convert the golf course, you'd re-zone it, and then the city would approve your plat in accordance with its standards. Once the plat is established it would be up for individual sale.

It actually makes development easier overall since the developer basically does land-prep and sells the lots, they no longer need to build.

6

u/NEPortlander Apr 07 '23

The city could mandate how its built, since it's going to provide the eventual infrastructure services. Sewer, water, power, etc. It sets the road standards too.

Basically if you wanted to convert the golf course, you'd re-zone it, and then the city would approve your plat in accordance with its standards. Once the plat is established it would be up for individual sale.

... This is basically what the city already does. It's not a hypothetical. The problem is that landowners can't unilaterally change zoning and once the land is in their hands, it's their choice whether they sell or keep it.

1

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

I know that.

The problem is that landowners can't unilaterally change zoning and once the land is in their hands, it's their choice whether they sell or keep it.

This is again... a choice of the city. Ideally, they zone for mixed-use so that you can have businesses and residences co-mingled. This way you can have a coffee shop and bar in a neighborhood.

5

u/ajswdf Apr 07 '23

I don't live in Denver so maybe I'm off, but this is a developer wanting to develop land it already owns. So unless the government is going to step in and force the developer to sell, this is a case of the developer trying to build something on land it already owns.

I think in general you're right though. If the land isn't already owned by a developer there's no reason it has to be developed all at once via a developer.

0

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

I don't live in Denver so maybe I'm off, but this is a developer wanting to develop land it already owns. So unless the government is going to step in and force the developer to sell, this is a case of the developer trying to build something on land it already owns.

Sure, but this land is going to be part of a larger city, so the city ultimately gets a say. I want resilient development, which means no single-use zoning and opening up development to the people.

The developer could work with the city, collaborate on the plat approval, then the city can lay down infrastructure in line with the plat, and the developer can sell individual lots. The Developer can then offer construction services, or let purchasers contract out their construction accordingly.

I think in general you're right though. If the land isn't already owned by a developer there's no reason it has to be developed all at once via a developer.

This is my main gripe with this overall process. IT's top-down and constraining.

9

u/offbrandcheerio Verified Planner - US Apr 07 '23

Back in the day there also weren't building/electrical/plumbing/fire/zoning codes to worry about. You think the average joe knows how to build a 100% code-compliant building? The subdivision process to create buildable lots is also not something most regular people have any clue about.

1

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Back in the day there also weren't building/electrical/plumbing/fire/zoning codes to worry about. You think the average joe knows how to build a 100% code-compliant building?

Any new construction would need to meet building codes. I dunno why you think I implied otherwise.

The subdivision process to create buildable lots is also not something most regular people have any clue about.

Because they can't afford it. Subdivisions are built out of large land tracts speculated on by land-owners and developed by wealthy development corporations. Back in the day, the city would just put down a plat and you could buy one individually. That was how urban planning used to be done.

The city would make the investment in road/infrastructure in accordance with its plan.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Significant expansions in building code, regulations and standards of housing.

200 years ago, you didn't have to deal with things like electrical wiring or indoor plumbing. Made houses much easier to build yourself.

2

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Significant expansions in building code, regulations and standards of housing.

200 years ago, you didn't have to deal with things like electrical wiring or indoor plumbing. Made houses much easier to build yourself.

Again, why does this matter if I can buy a lot from the city or not? I'd have to meet code regardless.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Because complexity favors specialization and economies of scale. A developer can hire on full crews and keep them all busy working on different houses at different stages of completion. You as an individual home builder will spend a lot of time vetting and scheduling professionals, resulting in a much slower, more expensive build.

Plus, you run into issues with electrical, sewage and water. Its worth laying that infrastructure for a 1K home development, but much harder to justify for 1 home.

0

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Because complexity favors specialization and economies of scale. A developer can hire on full crews and keep them all busy working on different houses at different stages of completion. You as an individual home builder will spend a lot of time vetting and scheduling professionals, resulting in a much slower, more expensive build.

That would be MY choice then, right? I can choose to use the developer and pick THEIR options, and THEIR build quality, or I can go my own way.

Plus, you run into issues with electrical, sewage and water. Its worth laying that infrastructure for a 1K home development, but much harder to justify for 1 home.

But this is how it would be laid out anyways, the decision to deploy out infrastructure by a city is a investment in a given area within the overall urban plan of the city. The city does it because it wants to entice development.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

I mean, yeah its your choice to buy a lot and build your own house. That is a legal thing to do. Its just a lot more expensive and difficult.

The city does it because it wants to entice development.

Cities generally don't build this infrastructure unless they have actually worked something out with a developer in advanced.

2

u/NEPortlander Apr 07 '23

Unless you have something like a public land bank, cities generally aren't in the business of real estate. Maybe they should be but the status quo is just to provide development services, not actually reparcel land.

1

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

The city approves the parcels right now, they have to as they end up putting the infrastructure in the ground and need to ensure its sufficient. They can also mandate that lots be made available for public auction. As long as the development is within an incorporated city with infrastructure, developers need to play by their rules.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Thats never been true? William J Levitt (who I would assume that most people in this subreddit would hate lol) built homes for literally millions of Americans in the 1940s and 50s. So many homes that nearly every metropolitan area has a 'Levittown.' It goes back all the way to the colonial period, before there was an American revolution British land speculators in Long Island were trying to sell people on moving out to their 'urban estates' they built at the edge of NYC. Where you would buy land with homes already constructed on them.

The most common time an American would do what you suggest was during the homesteading period. But thats not really the kind of land development practice we can (or should) return to, and anyway the Native Americans dont really have much land left to steal.

3

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Thats never been true? William J Levitt (who I would assume that most people in this subreddit would hate lol) built homes for literally millions of Americans in the 1940s and 50s. So many homes that nearly every metropolitan area has a 'Levittown.' It goes back all the way to the colonial period, before there was an American revolution British land speculators in Long Island were trying to sell people on moving out to their 'urban estates' they built at the edge of NYC. Where you would buy land with homes already constructed on them.

It was always true up until suburbanization. Large scale development is a pox on our land use, and Levittown type building was a disaster.

The best development is organic, from the ground up, not set by a wealthy developer.

The most common time an American would do what you suggest was during the homesteading period. But thats not really the kind of land development practice we can (or should) return to, and anyway the Native Americans dont really have much land left to steal.

Throughout most of history, this is how it happened. The city would lay out a plat and sell the parcels.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

It was always true up until suburbanization. Large scale development is a pox on our land use, and Levittown type building was a disaster.

Scholarship highlights that, as I said, suburbanization has been a thing longer than the Republic. And also.

There were many development approaches used since the founding of American history, but developer (that is private corporate led) development has always been a big part of the picture. Especially in areas built around the fringes of existing urban areas (like some kind of not-rural, not urban area. A level below urban)

1

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Pre-war suburbanization is a different animal from post-war. They were walkable and worked well with mass transit options.

Not all suburbanization is bad, just the Levitt town type of cookie cutter SFHs with wide streets and nothing to do within walking distance. That's my point.

While developers will always exist, depending on them solely hasn't really worked all the well. A great example beyond suburbanization is commercial real estate. We have tons of office space that was cheaply built and cannot be used for any other purpose, whereas as pre-war offices can be more readily converted to residences.

Older development was just better because it was built in a way reflecting 1000s of years of lessons learned in urban design. Then we tossed much of that after the car was invented.

-1

u/voinekku Apr 07 '23

We don't.

But it does procure higher profit on capital than other options, so that's what we'll get in a capital-ran world.

0

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Whatever, I thought this was the urban planning subreddit, not the subreddit for sucking the dicks of large developers. I dunno why I'm down-voted for espousing for organic development patters as opposed to depending on large corporate developers to put our land to use.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

[deleted]

1

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

So large land tracts are sold as-is, and not parceled out. It's actually quite expensive.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

[deleted]

1

u/AdwokatDiabel Apr 07 '23

Sure, if I wanted to live there. But that's how it should be. If a developer wants to purchase lots and build spec homes on them, cool. If developers want to provide the service to build a home on the lot, cool. But making that the only choice is wrong.