Leytham, A New Traditional Neighborhood

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:26 pm

Welcome to the forum Herb! It's a great privilege to hear from area developers like yourself. We're all very excited to see your vision brought to life!

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:30 pm

Great presentation Herb, I finally found time to see it. I love the McLaughlin quote: “Those who inhabit a neighborhood are a community. They share a physical environment and a common interest in its future condition, as well as their own well-being. When neighbors communicate effectively about these interests, they may be referred to as ‘community of place.’ . . . Community is more about relationships that bind people together than it is about the environment.”

omahastylee459 · Post by **omahastylee459** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:54 pm

I think its a great development. I dont see why you dont like it DTO, would you rather see the land built up with mcmansions with huge yards? or even worse, acreages? It doesnt matter that its on 168th and state, I would welcome this development anywhere, and hope it catches on in all new neighborhoods

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:30 am

Welcome to eomaha Herb..

Keep us updated on your project..I really liked the write up on it today in the W-H Business section..

..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:14 am

Thanks for your insight Herb on such a wonderful project!! I will be watching with much interest because as I said before there is much more at stake then this project alone.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:12 pm

Well stated Mr. Freeman! I would also like to hear and encourage responses to this question.
How can you support an easy access infrastructure grid at the 200th block of a city?
What do you do after that? North, West, East, South? The 200th block?!?

This invites again the question that we recently had:
What is urban and what is suburb?
Is this Suburb - being a City Center?
Would you want a 6 lane Maple going through Benson?
They want to 2-lane Florence. 2-Lane South-O is happening.

Let's talk reality - not desires.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:46 pm

All,

Six lanes though Benson would in fact slow traffic down. The six lanes they say will someday (long after I am dead) be State Street and the four lanes that will be 168th (10 lanes of concrete total) will, according to Walter Kulash, move traffic less efficiently than a grid of three two lane east/west streets and two two lane north/south streets (also totalling 10 lanes of concrete) would handle. If you are interested, read on:

"Almost a decade ago Walter Kulash, one of America's most far-sighted traffic engineers, defined in great detail why Traditional Neighborhood Development is the most traffic and pedestrian friendly way to design towns and cities."

Here is a link to this classic article:

http://www.myflorida.com/fdi/fscc/news/world/tnd.htm

This explains in detail why a dense grid of smaller streets out performs a sparse aray of large arterial streets.

Yours for the TND Grid,

Herb

Harpoon · Post by **Harpoon** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:26 pm

Herb, I think you chose to do the correct thing with your property. The alternate options of leaving your property undeveloped, or developing it as a typical west-omaha subdivision would be a waste. For those that desire "typical suburbia", there are still plenty of opportunities for them to purchase homes in those locations, but not everyone is in the market for a 4-bedroom house with 3 car garage.

A TND gives a viable alternative for those who are looking for something different that does not currently exist in the marketplace. Most subdivisions are being built with all the homes in the same price range so you get a neighborhood where everyone is the same. A TND allows the neighborhood to contain residents of all ages and income levels, as is accommodated by a combination of townhomes, live-work units, apartments above retail spaces, as well as single family homes. Therefore a more vibrant community is the result. It allows one (if they so desire) to live their entire life in that neighborhood (apartments to live in right out of college, starter homes for a newly-married couple, larger house for when children are added, condo's for when they become empty nesters, and apartments or townhomes again as they are retired). This creates a strong neighborhood with an even stronger sense of community.

TND's are also centered around the pedestrian, not the automobile, and allow for interaction with other residents of the community. Greenspaces are well-thought out, not just leftover space that is too steep to be developed.

Yes, there are plenty of homes available in established parts of Omaha (pre WWII) that still have this look and feel, but many of those homes are not up to modern standards (air conditioning, wiring, etc). Re-creating the idea of an established neighborhood is better than the alternative of developing a "cookie-cutter" neighborhood that has five different styles of homes lining the streets with no uses besides single family residential.

Herb, my only regret is that you didn't start developing these types of neighborhoods 15 years ago. But it is better late than never and I hope you will do some more of these if this is successful.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:48 pm

Harpoon, thank you for your encouraging words. You clearly set forth a number of the benefits of the TND that are only now making their way into our collective consciousness. Based on the overwhelmingly positive feedback and encouragment I am receiving from all quarters, I can only beleive that the new traditional neighborhood at 168th and State Street will be very well accepted by people of all ages and economic levels.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:59 pm

I couldn't help but feel that our good friend Trenton Magid, at the Grow Omaha Show, seemed less than enthusiastic about your development. I don't really understand why. What kind of feedback have you received from other area developers Herb?

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:43 am

JHuston, yeah I got the very same feeling. That's why this development is soooo important.

Herb you can't screw up or we'll be stuck in 1985 forever.

Just kidding. I personally think you underestimated the % of new home buyers that are looking for this type of development. My informal polling and listening to firends, relatives, coworkers etc...talk, has me thinking it is closer to 50% without one house even built. Once people can kick the proverbial tire I think it will be closer to 70-80% with a few stragglers that want that big yard well because it is bigger.

1 side note: I get the feeling that there is a perception (somewhat) that this (and others like it across the country) are nothing more than Disney. I have the feeling that it won't be until the people who move in start reporting back about it's advantages that it will really catch on...........I just hope that Douglas county is not fully developed before then.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:27 am

This project confuses me.

Take the site plan, for example:

I thought this project was fighting sprawl. The project looks as sprawled as anything being built in the burbs.

Sure it has a town center, and some design to it, which is nice to see, but this is still just low density, suburban stuff.

Plus, it's at 168th and State. Hello! Let's "fight" sprawl by building a low density development on the outskirts of the city.

This seems like a classic "pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

CapitalGuy · Post by **CapitalGuy** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:37 am

In terms of single family dwellings it is denser. From my understanding, the homes are not set back from the street nearly as much, and have smaller lots overall. I like the inclusion of green belts/spaces in this development. It may make things a little more spread out but once the landscaping is in place, 20-30 years down the road already this could a real jewel of a neighborhood. Density is a relative term, and this development is dense relative to others around it. As far as the location, I don't know what people expect. Was Herb suppose to twists the city's arm and get it to invoke the new eminent domain common law and wipe out a square mile of the inner city? Folks, lets get realistic here, Omaha is not at the point in its life where it is ready to start through up mid & high rise condo/apt/office buildings on every street. Also, contrary to what at least one person has said Omaha is not done growing west. At this frozen moment in time, it may have outstretched itself, but once it grows into its current size westward development will continue.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:38 am

Aaron, I suggest you read all of Mr. Freeman's posts.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:23 am

I didn't say Omaha wasn't going to grow west anymore. I said that's it's as far as it can maintain. It can keep going but it doesn't mean we can keep doing what we're doing.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:26 am

I don't want to be misunderstood. I really like this prject. I wish all suburban projects would strive for something like this.

And I am a huge believer in New Urbanism.

All I'm saying is that this project is more like New Suburbanism.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:42 pm

All,

A few pieces of information might serve to shed a bit more light on the plan.

Stratford Park, on the northwest corner of 168th and State Street, has 393 single family residential lots on 160 gross acres. That is 2.456 dwelling units per gross acre. Compare that to the densities for this project.

The planners of this project have designed it according to the draft LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - Neighborhood Developments) standards. See the US Green Building Council's website below for more information:

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148

One of these standards requires at least 7 dwelling units per acre of "developable" land. The calculation for determining "developable land" nets out wet lands, creeks, steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas. The 7X multiplier applied to the number acres of developable land for this project requires the project to have at least 939 dwelling units or 5.569 dwelling units per gross acre. On a purely "gross" basis, this project is 2.39 times as dense as Stratford Park. But in reality, because this project has commercial and mixed uses as well as considerable green space, the number of "residential acres'' is considerably reduced, and so the actual dwelling units per residential acre is even greater and very substantially higher than a conventional subdivision. The higher number if dwelling units per acre and the resulting greater density is accomplished by including a diversity of property types including but not necessarily limited to: "bungalow courts," live/work units, ancillary dwelling units, rowhouses, buildings with 4, 6, 12, 20 flats, etc., in addition to a variety of residential lot sizes. These types of units are scattered throughout the site plan. If you study the site plan carefully, you can see buildings of many different sizes and dwelling unit types.

Project densities at these levels DO begin to make a difference. "Research shows that . . . other factors being equal, each doubling of residential density is associated with a 20-30% reduction in vehicle miles traveled per household per capita." Source: LEED for Neighborhood Developments Rating System - Preliminary Draft September 6, 2005, Page 49.

This project is not the end of sprawl or even the beginning of the end. But to quote Winston Churchill, perhaps it is the “end of the beginning” of the efforts to quell unchecked suburban sprawl in our area.

Yours for continuing the dialog,

Herb

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:57 pm

jhuston and Midtown Charlie have shared their perceptions about the (shall we be charitable?) "mixed" feelings of Trenton Magid and ask what feed back I have received from other developers.

This is VERY interesting. I invited from the development and commercial brokerage community the following people to engage with and participate in the charrette process and to come to the final presentation:

Trenton Magid
Jeff Beals
Jay Learner
James Otis
Mike Weise
Scott Moore
Chad Hansen
Troy Meyerson
Mike Moylan
Bob Horgan
John Hoich
Gene Graves
Jay Noddle
Todd Heistand
Paul McCune
Mark Weisman
Bob Hampton
Mike Brannan and
Chris Christensen.

The only three who came were Chad Hansen (NAI NP Dodge), Mike Brannan (JLofts) and Christen Christensen (Bluestone) and Jeff Beals (Coldwell Banker Commercial World Group). Their comments were universally supportive and ethusiastic. From the others, who did not participate, I have heard nothing.

I am sure that many of those who did not attend any part of the charrette process had business and/or personal scheduling conflicts. You should draw your own conclusions as to the reasons behind any negative opinions that might be voiced.

Yours for inclusion,

Herb

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:17 pm

Herb wrote:
The only three who came were Chad Hansen (NAI NP Dodge), Mike Brannan (JLofts) and Christen Christensen (Bluestone). Their comments were universally supportive and ethusiastic. From the others, who did not participate, I have heard nothing.

It is significant, I think, to see who was conspicuous by his absense from the charrette process, and I will let you draw your own conclusions as to the reasons behind any negative opinions that might be voiced.

Yours for inclusion,

Herb

When was your final presentation?..Not that they need me to speak for them..But Jeff Beals has been in Washington DC this past week with the Chamber coallition and the mayor..Trenton Magid just got married this past weekend and has been on his honeymoon..

FYI..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:02 am

Omaha Cowboy and ALL,

After I wrote my post of Friday listing the commercial brokers and developers who attended the charrette, I reviewed the sign in sheets and I remembered that Jeff Beals did attend. We actually spoke and Jeff seemed to be very enthusiastic about the project, even suggesting that we do a segment on his radio program. I have amended that posting to reflect Jeff's attendance at the charrette, and I regret my oversight.

Including city staff, governmental officials, Realtors, home builders, architects, developers, commercial brokers, friends and a wide assortment of interested and interesting people I thought could make valuable contributions to the design process I invited nearly 200 people to attend the charrette.

Some, such as city planning department staff, public works and uitilty company personnel, Realtors and builders were invited to special meetings focusing on particular areas of interest.

All invitees were invited to attend the open studio from 1:30 to 5:00 pm on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, September 6, 7 and 8 as well as the final presentation at 5:00 PM on Saturday the 9th.

Yours for inclusion,

Herb

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:25 pm

Any luck getting us some more graphics/renderings. I'd love to SEE more details.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:23 pm

StreetsOfOmaha,

I am working to get the PowerPoint presentation that was made at the final presentation at the charrette loaded onto the website:

http://www.whatsnewonstatestreet.com/

The file has about 150 slides and is approximately 150 megs so it needs to be reduced to a managable size and put in pdf format. Assuming that can be done, when it is accomplished and on the website, I will let the forum know. If that can not be done, we can arrange a place and time and I will show the presentation to all who can come.

Yours for even MORE new traditional neighborhood images,

Herb

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:26 am

Thanks for the clarification and continued project information Herb..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:34 am

All,

The final presentation, prepared by the PlaceMakers team for the last meeting of the charrette, is online now on the project website,
http://www.WhatsNewonStateStreet.com. See Day Six and look for the link on the upper right hand side of the page called "Download the final presentation." The final presentation may be found here:

http://www.whatsnewonstatestreet.com/docs/OmahaPPT.pdf

You will find many interesting slides in this presentation. I especially commend to your attention the slides called "Blocks and Alley," "Figure Ground" for a clearer picture of the block structure of the neighborhood.

There is also a green spaces plan, conjectural pictures that envision neighborhood ammenties amd featires. as well as a number of elevations and floor plans for both homes and community buildings.

Yours for more visuals,

Herb

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:13 pm

Thanks, Herb.

After a closer look, the project appears to be fantastic. (albeit in the suburbs

)

I noticed that some of your inspiration photos were from Alexandria, VA. What a great example of a traditional urban neighborhood. Probably one of the best in the U.S.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:57 pm

Herb,

I just went through your slide show presentation. I thought it was very well done with plenty of examples fo townhouses and multiunit dwellings. I can see why you have been getting all the acolades!

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:32 am

WOW! I liked it before but I like it even more now that I see the slide deck. This is so completely different from what the current norm is!! I'd like to see other developers top this. No really I would. You have really raised the bar!!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:09 am

midtown charlie wrote:You have really raised the bar!!

Exactly! Way to go.

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:12 pm

I am trying to decide what I like better about this neighborhood:

1) The fact that various levels of incomes can live in the same neighborhood.

or

2) The original land is unaltered(read destroyed).

What's better the environmental angle or the social angle...hmmmm

Maybe eomaha could offer awards to reward those developers who think outside the box. Not sure what could be offered as an award other than notoriety.....

EDIT: or for those who think inside the rhombus.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:18 pm

midtown charlie wrote:
1) The fact that various levels of incomes can live in the same neighborhood.

Do you really think that's going to fly? That's the reason people move to 168th and State areas is to get away from poorer people.

Post by **Brad** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:22 pm

It happens all over. They will build a hearthstone or celiberty neighborhood ($110,000 - $140,000) right next to A boyer and young neighborhood where houses will be ($250,000+) and then have some appartments on the corner.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:35 pm

It might be because I haven't read through all of this guy's stuff yet but there isn't going to be much diversity (in people, housing, and income) between an area with $110,000 and $250,000 homeowners. Throw in some $60,000 to $80,000 homeowners and we'll see. For all I know that could be the case. But if it's in the previous range than I question the diversity it will bring.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:42 pm

Yes, Brad, you are quite correct.

The difference between the examples you cite and this new traditional neighborhood is that this neighborhood will have many different housing options and sizes and price points sprinkled throughout. Housing will not be grouped together by type or size or price (all like sized single family homes together, all row houses together, all apartments together etc.). This will be accomplished by having houses of different sizes and types, rental units, live/work units, ancillary dwelling units, etc, each in close proximity to the others and not in segrated "pods" of all like-kind housing.

It is this seemless mix of housing types and sizes that creates such an architecurally interesting and socially diverse neighborhood. I have seen just exactly what I am describing in the real world, and it is wonderful, both esthetically and socially. This is not idle chatter or utopian day-dreaming. It will work beautifully and people will want to live in such a place.

Yours for diversity of both buildings types and types of people,

Herb

CapitalGuy · Post by **CapitalGuy** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:51 pm

It might be because I haven't read through all of this guy's stuff yet but there isn't going to be much diversity (in people, housing, and income) between an area with $110,000 and $250,000 homeowners. Throw in some $60,000 to $80,000 homeowners and we'll see. For all I know that could be the case. But if it's in the previous range than I question the diversity it will bring.

Ummm....There aren't hardly any homes in the city in that range except for really old, dilapidated homes in North & South Omaha or in some condos. The low 100's is the lowest mainstream home value you will see. Of course there will be outliers that are lower however. I can already anticipate that your response will be something like, "it can't really be urban unless you have the full spectrum of income levels and racial backgrounds." For starters, that is your definition of urban. Secondly, life isn't usually like a Dickens novel. You don't always see the pauper in such close relation to the fat cat. Really, what Herb is going to make avaiable should accomplish bringing together a cross section of different people. Sure he won't have the lowest income earners to be found, but did you expect a cardboard box and a park bench for the local homeless individual to live in on the project renderings? Lastly, give me a break about the rich people living in West Omaha to get away from poor people. It doesn't have to always be an us vs. them perspective on things. Couldn't it be that the affluent desire large yards for the kids and new construction? Also, how do you explain the affluent individuals choosing to live in condos downtown or in homes in Dundee? Are they just the ones who "get it"?

Post by **Admin** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:01 pm

I don't want a social debate in this thread. Thanks.

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:15 pm

The other cool thing about the varying housing sizes/prices is that one now has a choice if they want to stay in the neighborhood as their finances change.

They could be in college and live there. Once they get out and can afford a home they can still stay. As they get kids and maybe a better paying job they can always upgrade to a larger home. Once the kids leave and the find that the big ol house is too much they can then downsize back to something smaller all while never leaving the neighborhood they love.

I guess this is why I have such a hard time understanding why other developers haven't tried this yet (considering the city is pushing for this). The benefits just seem a like a no brainer.

Herb, what are the negatives for a developer to try what you are doing? I can see tons of benefits but there could also be some downsides. i.e. selling people on a smaller yard.

Doesn't it seem funny that people will buy a house with a big yard and then never take care of it or hire someone to do it for them.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:33 pm

I never said anything about what is and isn't urban. I never offered any definition on urbanity. What I did say is that there won't be too much difference between someone owning a $110,000 home and a $250,000 home.

Like I said I haven't had a chance to really look at this project in depth. I only have the internet at work right now so I can't even see all of the pictures with our filter.

From what I've seen though this doesn't really strike me as anything overly impressive.

I will say this though. I think of someone started a new town (an actual city not a subdivision) and did a project like this I'd be more for it. Even if it was built next to one of the small towns around Omaha like Springfield or Bennington that already has an old town center, that would be better. That way you could have some sort of a city master plan like when the areas of Minne Lusa or Florence were established.

That would also help with what I see eventually being an insular development. You're not going to get all of the developers around you to adhere to the same standards. This project could end up being an island in a sea of regular suburban development. Starting a new town would be better because you would have some say of what goes on outside your borders. You could build upon your idea.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:06 pm

DTO Luv writes: “It might be because I haven't read through all of this guy's stuff yet but there isn't going to be much diversity (in people, housing, and income) between an area with $110,000 and $250,000 homeowners. Throw in some $60,000 to $80,000 homeowners and we'll see. For all I know that could be the case. But if it's in the previous range than I question the diversity it will bring.”

Consider an invitation and a several points to ponder. First the invitation, DTO Luv. Rather than "this guy," you can call me "Herb" just like several others here do.

Now the points to ponder:

Diversity . . . One person's diversity is another's homogeneity. Think about it this way. Even in your example of $110,000 houses and $250,000 houses, there is a price multiplier of 2.27 times from the low price to the high price. In other words, DTO Luv, all other things held constant, for the buyers to qualify for their home loans, we could assume that the buyers of the $250,000 houses would have to earn 2.27 times what the buyers of the $110,000 houses would have to make. That in its self is much more diversity than a neighborhood like Stratford Park just to the west of this new traditional neighborhood in which the houses are slated to range from $250,000 to $350,000; a price differential of only 1.4 times from low to high.

Non-diversity . . . Most conventional subdivisions have a similar narrow range of prices for a very simple reason. The developer gives the engineer the “program” for laying out the subdivision. The developer has in mind a target price for the homes and so he tells the engineer, “make me 68 foot lots” (or 72 foot lots, or 85 foot lots; you get the idea.) The because all the lots are about the same width, they are all priced about the same with minor variations for walkout lots costing more and flat lots costing less. Because all the lots are about the same price, all the houses built on them all cost about the same.

So all the buyers have to earn about the same amount of money to be able to qualify for the loans to buy the houses that all cost about the same because they are all built on lots that all cost about the same because all the lots are about the same width because that was the program the developer gave the engineers who laid out the subdivision. So everything is pretty much . . . you guessed it . . . the SAME! It all stems from the developer’s original instructions to the engineers.

The Small House. . . Now let us consider the “small house at a small price” question. As a practical matter, at the sizes currently being built it is not possible in this market, as you would like to suggest, to build new houses costing $60,000 to $80,000. The 1,108 square foot Triton row houses sell for $116,900 or $106 per square foot. The 1,040 square foot Richland Collection, the low end of the Hearthstone line, costs $102,000 or $98.00 per square foot. Nationally, there are a few builders approaching the matter of affordability by building much, much smaller single family homes in the 700 to 800 square foot size range. At this size it just might be possible to build a single family house costing less than $80,000, but the market for such a “small house” is untested here in Omaha.

Bungalow Courts . . . If you study the site plan for this project, you will see two bungalow courts west of the creek along the east edge of the mixed use center. Each court contains six very small bungalows. These homes would not even have garages; the owners would have shared parking with the commercial users. These homes, depending on the plans, could be in the sub 800 square foot “small house” range, and so might be priced at about $80,000. The market for these homes is young singles and the senior citizens who are down-sizing possibly for the second and last time into a small home. Whether the market here will accept this product is, for the present, an open question. But the designers have created the opportunity for us to test the acceptability of the “small house” concept.

Rental Opportunities . . . Another way for people of more modest means to live in this new traditional neighborhood is to rent a smaller flat or an ancillary dwelling unit over a garage to the rear of a single family house. These dwelling types will be available throughout the neighborhood. If the premise is that one should be a five minute walk from a morning cup of coffee and newspaper, then we need to ask, “Where does the counter girl live?” She will be able to live right in the neighborhood, and like her customers, she will be able to walk to work.

The High End . . . On the higher end, you can expect to find in the neighborhood larger row houses, town houses and single family houses. These will extend the upper price ranges considerably and perhaps even to nearly a million dollars or more.

The TND Range of Diversity . . . Now consider the full range of price diversity for fee simple ownership. Prices may range from let us say $1,000,000 on the high end to let us say below $100,000 on the low end. This creates a price range of 10 times from low to high. Compare that to the 1.4 range at the conventional subdivision, Stratford Park just on the other side of 168th street. This is what I mean by diversity in people, their incomes and the housing choices available to them. And when you add in the rental options in the neighborhood, the range of diversity is even greater.

I can not think of any one new neighborhood that has a range of dwelling types and sizes, of prices and choices even beginning to approach this. Can you?

Yours for TND diversity,

Herb

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:38 pm

Midtown Charlie is exactly right on several points.

The diverse range of housing types, styles, sizes and price points permits people to stay in the new traditional neighborhood for the "Full Circle" of their life cycle. Regardless of changes in their incomes, family situation, age there is very likely to be a wonderful place for them to live without every having to leave the place and the people they love.

This aspect of the Full Circle of one's life is one of the thoughts that gripped me as I was contemplating the name for my new company. You can find out more about why I named my business "Full Circle Ventures" by clicking on Day Six of the project website, http://www.WhatsNewonStateStreet.com and then selecting the link on the right called, "Read the story behind the name of Herb's company."

Midtown Charlie asks, "what are the negatives for a developer to try what you are doing? I can see tons of benefits but there could also be some downsides. i.e. selling people on a smaller yard."

Yes, Charlie, that is one of the risks: selling people a smaller lot for proportionately more money is a risk. "Why should I pay more for a smaller lot?" will be a question. The answer is that there is more usable green space and many great places to walk to. I call these "walking points" and there are a great number of them designed into the new traditional neighborhood. See this article from the neighborhood website: http://www.whatsnewonstatestreet.com/in ... tml#talkin.

Other issues for some people will be these:

"There are more lots. I don't like the density."

"There is a wide variety of housing types and sizes. I want to live where all the houses [aka the people]are all about the same."

"I don't like the rear access and having to go through an alley."

"I don't like the hills and I don't like the idea that I might have to carry my groceries up a flight of stairs to preserve the topography."

"I don't really want to live in an area with so many people aways walking around, kids playing in the alley behind me, walking on the sidewalks in front of me . . . peeeeople EVEEEEEEERYWHERE. Bon fires, movie nights on the green, out door music, indoor music, farmers' market, sledding hills, ice skating ponds, smells from the dinner and the coffee shop, ARRRG!!! Make it Stooooop . . . .

Charlie, the demand studies for traditional neighborhoods indicate 15% to 30% of the people want TND living. The 70% or so who want their big (and usually empty) back yards and their car oriented copnventional subdivision will not be prospects for this neighborhood. But for those others this will be the only choice for them. And that is what makes the risks acceptable for me.

Thanks for your continuing interest and support.

Yours for acceptable business risk,

Herb

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:15 pm

So Herb, what it sounds like to me is that you want to build an urbanesque neighborhood. I've had a chance to look at your plans and it doesn't look bad.

BUT.....

If you want to build a plce like this, why not do it next to other similiar areas. Heck do it on 68th and State. I think what you do will be nice but I see it becoming isolated from the developments around it.

If only 30% of buyers want TND why not build it closer to similiar areas? It would seem to me that buyers like this would not want to be clear out on 168th and beyond. That could be discouraging to people who want to buy into a TND but are put off by the distance to the urban parts of the city.

I hope you don't think I'm totally against this. I see what you're trying to do and it's commendable but like I said I don't see this living up to the "real thing" at that location.