I'm gonna give a pretty long brief here just fyi. So if you aren't interested please just skip to something else.
Hello, just to give a background, I'm in architecture with both a masters and bachelors degree, and urban design certificate. Im relatively young am in the process of licensure.
So essentially my hometown (small, southern US) is planning a redevelopment of nearly 400 acres of wooded property in this small city. My parents and childhood home back up to this property which during my childhood and up until last year was a small working farm and forest. It is in a pretty prime location in terms of being a commutable suburb near major interstates and economic developments on a greater scale. It's location being in a more rural county but just adjacent to three urban centers make it quite the desirable place to live. Although, much of the city is middle income residents and taxes are extremely low. We don't have mansions here and most people live in comfortable means in primarily older built homes that are well cared for.
The development is your pretty standard subdivision. The proposal includes nearly 98% of the land to be allocated for homes. So nearly complete 'tabula rasa' of the existing landscape. Some detached single family, some townhomes. the lots are incredibly small, uncharacteristically so of this area. It includes an HOA community/park space/ect. and would require an extension or redistribution of school district lines that have been changed several times in the last decade already. The city already has a fabulous park system in my opinion that is publicly maintained and accessed year round. The material choices in the proposal are cheap, identical homes, with builder grade finishes, and vinyl siding.
Basically, The land has not been purchased yet and still has the possibility to not go through if the site does not get rezoned. the city will have a few meetings and hearings from the community before voting on the rezoning. Given that the people living here are quite inexperienced in this type of work..much of the average population sees subdivison=new homes=community and liveliness. I can't be the only one but I on the hand think that subdivisions just purely aesthetically-to be blunt-are quite tacky and unattractive. Especially ones with cheap materials and poor landscape design. There are also plenty of other issues that come along with these that i will mention below.
So I plan on attending the meetings and speaking up in opposition for the development. Primarily as a citizen. it is such blip of the most pertinent issues in the world right now, but it's my home for now and I can't stand to see bad projects go through in a place so impactful on my life without at least attempting to voice my concerns. I have reasons other than just visual obviously, but any suggestions that are general as in they could be issues relative anywhere with subdivisions are more than welcome and maybe positives as well. I've never lived in a subdivison so not an experience in which I am familiar. And just for the record, I am not opposing a housing project on this land. The city is in need of housing as are most. But I am in opposition against cheap dwellings that won't last with poor planning of environmental integrity and sustainability.
The issues that I know of currently: the entire demolition of a natural area of the vegetation and trees. This includes a creek and mostly wooded site with wildlife habitat and natural water drainage for what is otherwise a commonly flooded area. (But I won't pretend to be knowledgable in site drainage systems) The proposal as with most new development includes several run-off ponds that end up being quite an eyesore and harbor bugs infestations in the summer due to sitting water. Careful planing of site and land ownership parcels could certainly mitigate and reduce the impact of deforesting the area.
Secondly, I think the model of using an HOA is outdated. The history of the intent of HOAs being used to segregate neighborhoods has only slightly changed. Minority and low-income residents, are still finding that HOA communities are preventing them from home ownership and limit upward mobility of families. It favors those residents with disposable income, primarily being white residents. All the "public space" being introduced as part of this plan is actually not public space at all it's maintained by the HOA and essentially public/private partnership. There are already a few apartment complexes on the fringe of what will developed and these will be included in the HOA. Some of the only rental apartment stye homes in the city, it was surely increase rent further displacing lower income residents out of the city. For such a small city with extensive recreational and public park amenities, it is a strange concept to be a homeowner that would want to contribute a secondary tax in addition to the norm for amenities that we already have at the public level.
And the style of subdivision is very 2003-esque. with very small lots in identical houses the conception of this project is likely 10-20 years down the road but possibly sooner as the building strategies are quick builds on slab. There are other much smaller scale subdevlopemnts that have happened throughout neighboring cities and many have taken decades for completion and have become obsolete/empty before even being built.
With the pandemic came lots of changes to the workforce that will likely continue to take traction to some extent as we move forward in a more digital world. If anything, we have become aware of the need for designated at home office space, less open concept, quality outdoor & public space, and space for growing families and elderly care. I am imagining what the future holds for families as more and more white collar jobs increase job flexibility and WFH positions. Sitting in your office that looks into your neighbor's home five feet away for 40 years of your life since their home is the reverse floor plan of your own and they are also working from home does not exactly sound ideal. Maybe I'm prematurely speaking for the masses because i'm sure people love their HOA sub-developments for various reasons, but this is not a gated community and not a high end or even middle class project. In my opinion it does not add value to this community or the members already living here.
Anyways, that was a lot so if you are still here thanks for reading and if you have any comments, suggestions, feedback, positives, negatives, anything that you can add I'd be greatly appreciative of the discussion.
Non Sequitur
May 28, 21 4:36 pm
a few questions:
Where else are people expected to live?
Why do you think it's the developer's responsibility to "Add value" to the existing community?
Should you tax dollars be used instead to subsidise better materials and/or design choices?
HOA are dumb. I can't believe people willingly pay money for those.
Miles Jaffe
May 28, 21 8:05 pm
Spot zoning - changing the zoning to facilitate a specific development - is illegal here but they have ways around it. Large projects often require environmental impact statements, inclusion of affordable components and/or mixed use based on local demographics, impact studies on civil infrastructure (traffic, sewage, fire, police, etc.), depending on location.
Good luck. In the U$A the only thing that matters is profit.
midlander
May 28, 21 8:38 pm
there's a much shorter expression for your ideas: Nimby.
I'm gonna give a pretty long brief here just fyi. So if you aren't interested please just skip to something else.
Hello, just to give a background, I'm in architecture with both a masters and bachelors degree, and urban design certificate. Im relatively young am in the process of licensure.
So essentially my hometown (small, southern US) is planning a redevelopment of nearly 400 acres of wooded property in this small city. My parents and childhood home back up to this property which during my childhood and up until last year was a small working farm and forest. It is in a pretty prime location in terms of being a commutable suburb near major interstates and economic developments on a greater scale. It's location being in a more rural county but just adjacent to three urban centers make it quite the desirable place to live. Although, much of the city is middle income residents and taxes are extremely low. We don't have mansions here and most people live in comfortable means in primarily older built homes that are well cared for.
The development is your pretty standard subdivision. The proposal includes nearly 98% of the land to be allocated for homes. So nearly complete 'tabula rasa' of the existing landscape. Some detached single family, some townhomes. the lots are incredibly small, uncharacteristically so of this area. It includes an HOA community/park space/ect. and would require an extension or redistribution of school district lines that have been changed several times in the last decade already. The city already has a fabulous park system in my opinion that is publicly maintained and accessed year round. The material choices in the proposal are cheap, identical homes, with builder grade finishes, and vinyl siding.
Basically, The land has not been purchased yet and still has the possibility to not go through if the site does not get rezoned. the city will have a few meetings and hearings from the community before voting on the rezoning. Given that the people living here are quite inexperienced in this type of work..much of the average population sees subdivison=new homes=community and liveliness. I can't be the only one but I on the hand think that subdivisions just purely aesthetically-to be blunt-are quite tacky and unattractive. Especially ones with cheap materials and poor landscape design. There are also plenty of other issues that come along with these that i will mention below.
So I plan on attending the meetings and speaking up in opposition for the development. Primarily as a citizen. it is such blip of the most pertinent issues in the world right now, but it's my home for now and I can't stand to see bad projects go through in a place so impactful on my life without at least attempting to voice my concerns. I have reasons other than just visual obviously, but any suggestions that are general as in they could be issues relative anywhere with subdivisions are more than welcome and maybe positives as well. I've never lived in a subdivison so not an experience in which I am familiar. And just for the record, I am not opposing a housing project on this land. The city is in need of housing as are most. But I am in opposition against cheap dwellings that won't last with poor planning of environmental integrity and sustainability.
The issues that I know of currently: the entire demolition of a natural area of the vegetation and trees. This includes a creek and mostly wooded site with wildlife habitat and natural water drainage for what is otherwise a commonly flooded area. (But I won't pretend to be knowledgable in site drainage systems) The proposal as with most new development includes several run-off ponds that end up being quite an eyesore and harbor bugs infestations in the summer due to sitting water. Careful planing of site and land ownership parcels could certainly mitigate and reduce the impact of deforesting the area.
Secondly, I think the model of using an HOA is outdated. The history of the intent of HOAs being used to segregate neighborhoods has only slightly changed. Minority and low-income residents, are still finding that HOA communities are preventing them from home ownership and limit upward mobility of families. It favors those residents with disposable income, primarily being white residents. All the "public space" being introduced as part of this plan is actually not public space at all it's maintained by the HOA and essentially public/private partnership. There are already a few apartment complexes on the fringe of what will developed and these will be included in the HOA. Some of the only rental apartment stye homes in the city, it was surely increase rent further displacing lower income residents out of the city. For such a small city with extensive recreational and public park amenities, it is a strange concept to be a homeowner that would want to contribute a secondary tax in addition to the norm for amenities that we already have at the public level.
And the style of subdivision is very 2003-esque. with very small lots in identical houses the conception of this project is likely 10-20 years down the road but possibly sooner as the building strategies are quick builds on slab. There are other much smaller scale subdevlopemnts that have happened throughout neighboring cities and many have taken decades for completion and have become obsolete/empty before even being built.
With the pandemic came lots of changes to the workforce that will likely continue to take traction to some extent as we move forward in a more digital world. If anything, we have become aware of the need for designated at home office space, less open concept, quality outdoor & public space, and space for growing families and elderly care. I am imagining what the future holds for families as more and more white collar jobs increase job flexibility and WFH positions. Sitting in your office that looks into your neighbor's home five feet away for 40 years of your life since their home is the reverse floor plan of your own and they are also working from home does not exactly sound ideal. Maybe I'm prematurely speaking for the masses because i'm sure people love their HOA sub-developments for various reasons, but this is not a gated community and not a high end or even middle class project. In my opinion it does not add value to this community or the members already living here.
Anyways, that was a lot so if you are still here thanks for reading and if you have any comments, suggestions, feedback, positives, negatives, anything that you can add I'd be greatly appreciative of the discussion.
a few questions:
Spot zoning - changing the zoning to facilitate a specific development - is illegal here but they have ways around it. Large projects often require environmental impact statements, inclusion of affordable components and/or mixed use based on local demographics, impact studies on civil infrastructure (traffic, sewage, fire, police, etc.), depending on location.
Good luck. In the U$A the only thing that matters is profit.
there's a much shorter expression for your ideas: Nimby.
NIMBY is the new redlining.