Recently a friend of mine asked me the following question (excerpt):
"I’ve been wondering about somethings, and thought you might have an opinion…..when the economy starts to turn around and we start pulling out of this mess, do you think how we do business as landscape architects and the development business as a whole will be different than it was before? Do you think we as landscape architects will continue to become more of an integral part of projects, team leaders as we were in Colorado? Or is our status shrinking again? Do you see developers developing entire projects for just building the infrastructure and selling paper lots? Or do you see things changing to a completely new way of doing things? Are things still headed toward the muli-discplinary firms?"
The following was my reply:
"Good questions. I do think we are going to be seeing a huge consolidation of firms, and more multi-disciplinary firms. I also see things going far more in the direction of design-build... particularly public projects. We are seeing Fort Collins going that way for all public buildings, and I bet it will head more in that direction for other public facilities as well. I don't think that is a bad thing, and I have enjoyed the ones I have worked on. I see a big disconnect between us design types, and the way things get built in the field. I have never been convinced that architect/designers/engineers know all about construction when it comes to designing things. On the other hand, as we both know, contractors don't always have an eye towards design. Of course I am generalizing. There are certainly some craftsman contractors out there with a strong eye for design, and vice verse. I like the idea of being able to get solid budget numbers as we design projects. I think LA's in particular, do tend to over design projects and add unnecessary costs. But then most civil engineers who think they are designers tend to under design... costs drives design.
I think the best projects is where all team members respect each others discipline and work towards the same goal. I have always tried to do that, and found the projects that are most enjoyable are where that has occurred.
As for the state of development, unfortunately what you are witnessing where engineers and architects rule the world is more the norm than not. What you saw in CA and Denver with the big builders dominating the market is not the rule. In fact, I think that the days of big builders are numbered, at least as large as they have been. I forsee a rise of the smaller builders again, at least for several years. Eventually the big builders will take over again. I do see that builders, esp. big ones, will quit developing their own land and buy finished lots from developers. That has been shifting for several years.
As for what developments will look like I am not really certain. For the short term, I see smaller 10-20 lot developments getting done, as they will be easier to get financed and absorbed by the market, and ones that fill particular niches. On the other hand, economies of scale are hard on these small projects, something I know first hand. Over time larger projects will again come to roost. I do kind of like the model that Lowry and Stapleton have formed, where builders only buy a block of lots here, and a block of lots there, so it is truly mixed."
While this is kind of long and rambling, I would be interested in knowing what you all think.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is dedicated to my musings and views on the built environment, including, but not limited to planning, landscape architecture, architecture, and place making.
About Me
- Terence C. Hoaglund, ASLA
- Terence Hoaglund, ASLA, LEED AP, is the principal of Vignette Studios, a planning and landscape architecture firm located in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Links
Posts
Followers
Technorati
4 comments:
Seems to me that the small projects with the small ma/pa builders are the ones not likely to build. They generally won't get a loan from the national banks (who at least will get bailout money). They rely more on the smaller banks who seem to be disappearing of late (New Frontier Bank out of Greeley who I have seen funding many smaller projects in Fort Collins was issued a cease and desist order for example).
To me it's no surprise that the residential construction going on in Fort Collins are apartments (JFK/Troutman & Timberline/Caribou) given the housing mess. That and student housing is still in demand given that education is still viewed as being valuable for financial success (which may or may not be true).
Where I see true commercial development potential going on is re-development of vacated commercial sites. Fresh and Easy's are occupying vacated Rite-Aids out West. What will happen with the empty Circuit City buildings? And at some point we'll start seeing some vacated bank buildings as all the banks being built (see Harmony Road) doesn't seem to make sense. Communities should start planning now implementing redevelopment standards of vacated bank buildings. Seems like most of the vacated bank buildings in Loveland ended up becoming chinese restaurants.
At the moment, it is hard for any developer to get financing, large or small. Smaller projects though do stand a chance of being able to pull enough investors/ partners together to maybe even not need to use a bank. I do agree smaller companies can't really access national money, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I have noticed over the last couple of major slowdowns, that apartment construction seems to happen when residential construction slows down. I also agree that student housing projects are popular. Even though there is a shortage of student housing at the moment, I do wonder if that will easily get overbuilt with the number of potential projects in the oven. Of course, which ones will get financed?
I do agree that we will see a lot more redevelopment work coming up. Fort Collins in particular is running out of greenfields. Again, don't see redevelopment as a bad thing, I just hope it becomes more mixed use, residential above. I see all kinds of underutilized properties that are prime for mixed use.
Most jurisdictions do have redevelopment standards when there is a major change of use. However, do we really want to go down the path of saying that banks can't become some kind of restaurant? This is just an example of course, but a commercial use is a commercial use. I do see where your line of though is going, and I don't necessarily disagree, but it is a fine line with dictating what goes where.
Just to clarify, I personally don't really favor any sort of redevelopment standards for vacated bank buildings, under the premise they intend to use the existing buildings and not scrape and rebuild. Utilizing existing infrastructure should be a plus rather than a minus. I suspect most larger municipalities will want architectural changes though, perhaps not from the staff level but from P&Z/Council if it gets to that level. Restaurants that look like banks (like in Loveland) I think will attract attention.
Frankly if a bank were vacated on Harmony Road and a restaurant wanted to come in and utilize the drive through service (bank tubes!) to deliver drive through fast food (even with drive through restaurants not allowed on Harmony), I'd say let 'em do it.
I think we are on the same page. I do think that exteriors, landscaping, etc. should be improved, but I don't really want to see it regulated. You do make a point though that I have thought of for some time. In order to encourage redevelopment and infill, they should reduce or waive some of the greenfield charges such as street over sizing, etc.
Post a Comment