Suburban Nation - Andres Duany [43]
The town founder: George Merrick, beloved developer of Coral Gables
Since then, developers somehow have devolved from admired figures into reviled characters, challenging drug dealers and pimps for position in the public’s esteem. How could this have happened? Are they of no use to society? In fact, developers provide the nation with products that it needs: they build houses, shops, offices, even streets and roads, and they often do so at great financial risk. But they are resented, because they are unable to provide these things in the form of towns, places that people care about. Instead, they can provide only sprawl, toward which most people feel indifferent at best. As long as the conventions of real estate development effectively outlaw the construction of mixed-use neighborhoods, developers will find it very difficult to build anything that provides residents with a sense of community. Similarly, as long as zoning codes favor low-density development over the creation of compact communities, developers will not be able to shake their reputation as land rapists, as they turn farm after farm into cookie-cutter sprawl. This is why one can buy a bumper sticker that reads: LEAVING TOWN? TAKE A DEVELOPER WITH YOU.
The modern developer: snake-oil salesman
Essentially, the demonization of the developer arises from the relationship in people’s minds between nature and culture. Any new construction on undeveloped land replaces nature, typically farmland or forest, and few would claim that this is not a loss. However, if what replaces nature is a town or a village—a place of culture—then perhaps that transaction could be considered a fair trade. After all, even the most ardent environmentalist wouldn’t want to level Nantucket, Charleston, or Santa Fe so that nature could reclaim that territory. On the other hand, were the typical citizen offered the opportunity to remove a subdivision, a strip center, or an office park for, say, an orchard, one might expect an enthusiastic response. The public knows that these single-use pods are not places of culture, and that trading nature for sprawl was not a fair transaction—and they know that it was the real estate developer who brought them the lousy deal.
THE INSIDIOUS INFLUENCE OF THE MARKET EXPERTS
But the hapless developer deserves only part of the blame, for the deck was already stacked against healthy growth by municipal regulations and engineering conventions. Perhaps even more culpable in this scenario are those surprisingly powerful advisers to the development industry, the market experts, who have been unrelentingly spreading the same message for over thirty years: build sprawl or lose your shirt. Specifically: do not mix uses; do not mix incomes; build walls and security gates; put the garages up front; and assume that nobody will walk. Thanks to the market experts, most developers are still trying to sell the equivalent of a 1972 Chevy in a world that is anxiously awaiting the next Toyota Camry.
Selling the image: suburban developers’ commitment to the traditiottal neighborhood typically runs no deeper than their marketing departments
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the market gurus is that they are well aware of the popularity of the traditional neighborhood concept. Much of their literature, their imagery, and their sales technique pays homage to the idea of neighborhood, village, and small town. They know that the small town sells—preferred by a 3:2 ratio over the suburb in a recent Gallup pollbh—and they tell their developer clients to label their products as such, whatever form they may actually take. They have co-opted much of the original vocabulary of traditional town planning in their efforts, from the village green to the corner store. Unfortunately, by doing so, they discredit those terms and debase