LandChoices: Opportunities for Landowners to Preserve Their Land

Land Choices: Changing Development in America

Conservation
Subdivision
Helps
Landowners
Planners
Developers
Neighbors
Realtors
Residents

Learn More
Frequently Asked Questions

Conservation Subdivision
Design Myths

MYTH: "Clustering" is the same as conservation subdivision design.

TRUTH: Clustering is an outdated process that normally only preserves 25% to 30% of the land, often including land that could not be built on anyways, i.e. unbuildable wetlands, steep slopes and floodplains. In addition, clustering places homes close together in pod-like arrangements, a style that does not offer much privacy and is not popular with homebuyers.

Conservation subdivisions on the other hand, in addition to preserving the unbuildable lands mentioned above, preserve 50% to 70% or more of the dry buildable land. Conservation subdivisions strategically place home sites for privacy, value, and the best views of open space.

MYTH: I can't build as many homes using conservation subdivision design as I can using conventional subdivision development.

TRUTH: Conservation subdivisions allow the same number of maximum home sites as zoning allows if you were to build a conventional subdivision.

MYTH: Conservation subdivisions are one more type of "sprawl" and they encourage development in fringe areas that should be preserved.

TRUTH: Ed McMahon, a Fellow at the Urban Land Institute and one of our nation's top experts on land use, points out that for the foreseeable future, the majority of new development will continue to take place in greenfield (rural, natural areas) locations.

According to "Greenfield Development Without Sprawl: The Role of Planned Communities" from the Urban Land Institute, "Many see infill-adding households within revitalized city neighborhoods or inner-ring suburbs-as the responsible, resource-conscious way to meet the need. But infill strategies, even if universally accepted, cannot happen fast enough or in great enough numbers to make much of a difference by 2025."

"Even if every prospective homebuyer and renter in America decided tomorrow to return to the city, the supertanker of population and suburban development would steam on for years before making much of a course of correction. Despite the much-touted "return to the cities" of retirees, empty nesters, and young professionals, which is transforming older neighborhoods and business centers in many cities, experts believe this trend will capture only a relatively small proportion of future development."

"Between 2003 and 2025, the United States is expected to grow by almost 58 million people-a Census Bureau forecast that roughly continues the average 2.75 million to 3 million-plus a year increase since 1980. Even the most optimistic assumptions foresee accommodating at most 18 million or so of these new people through infill. That leaves at least 40 million to still be accommodated in some sort of new greenfield community."

Most of the development in the United States, 90 percent or something like that, is new development on the edge. If we ignore that and just concentrate on infill, the edge city will never repair itself...It would be a mistake for people who care about cities and urban design to assume that any greenfield development is bad—because it’s going to happen, and if it doesn’t improve it will overwhelm whatever infill we are doing in the cities.
-- Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist
interview in Metropolis, October 2003

The reality is that there is not enough money to purchase for preservation most of the private lands that come up for sale. Many landowners want full equity from their lands. Conservation subdivisions are one way to preserve these lands while providing equity to the landowner.

MYTH: It costs too much to preserve land and trees when developing subdivisions.

TRUTH: Studies prove that setting land aside for natural areas costs less than clearing and grading that land and providing subdivision infrastructure. Big Builder magazine said it best:

"Leaving land in its natural state or building trails through it is cheaper than building infrastructure or golf courses."
-- May 1, 2006

MYTH: I don't want one of those conservation subdivisions built near me due to the increased density.

TRUTH: Conservation subdivisions have the same density as zoning would allow with a conventional subdivision. The houses are simply rearranged to preserve over half of the buildable land. A conservation subdivision is NOT a planned unit development (PUD), often called a "New Urbanism" style community, where densities are greater.

In a conservation subdivision, the local ordinance doesn't necessarily allow more houses on a particular tract of land; developers must set aside at least half of the buildable land, and can then build the same number of houses on the property that's left. In the end, the development allows the same number of homeowners as a conventional subdivision.

MYTH: I can make more money by simply clear-cutting all the trees, grading the land flat and filling the property with house lots and streets as in a conventional subdivision.

TRUTH: Studies prove that homes in conservation subdivisions where trees and natural lands have been preserved are usually more profitable and faster selling than conventional subdivision development.

"The results show that lots in conservation subdivisions carry a premium, are less expensive to build, and sell more quickly than lots in conventional subdivisions...Together, the results show that conservation subdivisions are more profitable to developers than conventional subdivisions...That lots in conservation subdivisions sold in about half the time as lots in conventional subdivisions must be advantageous to the cash flow of developers...These numbers translate into premiums for lots in conservation subdivisions ranging from $13,000 to $18,000 per acre over lots in conventional subdivisions."
--From "The Economics of
Conservation Subdivisions"

MYTH: I have to live on a tiny lot if I buy a home in a conservation subdivision.

TRUTH: Lot sizes in conservation subdivisions vary in size determined by market demand and the area. For instance, in Sugar Creek Preserve, a conservation subdivision in southern Wisconsin, lot sizes range from 40,510 sq. ft. (.93 acres) to 187,448 SF (4.3 acres) with the average being 53,500 sq. ft. (1.3 acres). Other conservation subdivisions offer lot sizes of 3/4 acre, 1/2 acre, and some in urban settings offer lot sizes at 1/4 acre. As most of the homes have views of open space, and access to these acres, the size of the yard becomes much less important.

MYTH: Most homebuyers want a large McMansion style home on a large lot in a large lot subdivision.

TRUTH: "America's love affair with sprawling homes is showing signs of waning as the real-estate market softens and aging boomers seek smaller houses." From The Wall Street Journal (June 16, 2006).

Studies and actual cases point out that lots in conservation subdivisions often sell faster than lots in conventional and large lot subdivisions. For example, lots on lakes and golf courses normally are a bit smaller and they often are the fastest selling real estate.

There may always be a certain segment of the market that may still want a home in a large lot subdivision. Conservation subdivisions may not be for everyone, but once most people are exposed to the high quality of life in a conservation subdivision, they often purchase a home in a conservation subdivision and become proponents of the design.

America is seeing a surge of home buyers who want all the amenities they are used to, but also want a smaller home in order to reduce payments, utility costs, upkeep, and free up more time to enjoy life. More home buyers want views of open space and access to parks and natural areas for a higher quality of life.