17
Jun
2003
Had I mused for days I could not have conveyed the shortsighted mentality of area developers more perfectly than our own real-estate attorney/developer Steve Schalk in a recent Quad-City Times article on the city's plans for developing Prairie Heights, the property it owns at 53rd Street and Eastern Avenue.
According to the article, Schalk, whose group Eastern Avenue Farms owns property adjacent to the city's, is concerned that the city's "new urbanist" concept might not mix well with the traditional "meat and potatoes" development models of the area. In the June 2 article, the Times quotes him as saying, "My people want to come home and enter their garage from the street, get a martini, go in their backyard, where they have privacy, and cook a steak. Malin's people want to come into their garages through the alley ... go on the front porch and talk with the neighbors and eat garbanzo beans for dinner."
In keeping with his vision, Schalk's developments, and most other Quad Cities developments for that matter, have all the imagination and charm of a bale of hay. They make a meat and potatoes statement, all right! Fortunately, most of America has a more sophisticated palate than "Schalk's people" and would welcome a new-urbanist development such as that proposed by City Administrator Craig Malin for the beleaguered 53rd and Eastern site.
My guess is that the cookie-cutter developments that plague our community are cheaper to build, and because they are so blandly familiar, easier to push through the plan-and-zone process. Therefore, developers' resistance to new concepts likely stems from a financial unwillingness to get out of the box, rather than an inability to explore new ideas. The argument that a new-urbanist development will meet with financial success because people, even "Schalk's people," will buy the homes for a variety of reasons beyond just putting a roof over their heads is moot for these developers. Either way, cookie-cutter or an urbanist style, new-construction homes in our Quad Cities-area developments sell because they are the only game in town. Considering that there is a price threshold in the housing market, the rub for developers comes because no matter how much more appealing, attractive, or sensible the new concept is, it will ultimately cost more to build (at least in the beginning), and is therefore not as lucrative a venture.
There is also risk involved because if the new development concept is the success many of us garbanzo-bean-eaters believe it will be, it poses greater competition for the existing developments and a potential disappointing return on investment. Home-buyers might very well pass on the old meat-and-potatoes standard of housing in favor of the refreshing garbanzo-bean-salad version.
But Schalk and friends should not despair, because nothing prevents having a grill in the backyard just because there is a front porch. And best of all, everyone can still enjoy their martinis.
According to the article, Schalk, whose group Eastern Avenue Farms owns property adjacent to the city's, is concerned that the city's "new urbanist" concept might not mix well with the traditional "meat and potatoes" development models of the area. In the June 2 article, the Times quotes him as saying, "My people want to come home and enter their garage from the street, get a martini, go in their backyard, where they have privacy, and cook a steak. Malin's people want to come into their garages through the alley ... go on the front porch and talk with the neighbors and eat garbanzo beans for dinner."
In keeping with his vision, Schalk's developments, and most other Quad Cities developments for that matter, have all the imagination and charm of a bale of hay. They make a meat and potatoes statement, all right! Fortunately, most of America has a more sophisticated palate than "Schalk's people" and would welcome a new-urbanist development such as that proposed by City Administrator Craig Malin for the beleaguered 53rd and Eastern site.
My guess is that the cookie-cutter developments that plague our community are cheaper to build, and because they are so blandly familiar, easier to push through the plan-and-zone process. Therefore, developers' resistance to new concepts likely stems from a financial unwillingness to get out of the box, rather than an inability to explore new ideas. The argument that a new-urbanist development will meet with financial success because people, even "Schalk's people," will buy the homes for a variety of reasons beyond just putting a roof over their heads is moot for these developers. Either way, cookie-cutter or an urbanist style, new-construction homes in our Quad Cities-area developments sell because they are the only game in town. Considering that there is a price threshold in the housing market, the rub for developers comes because no matter how much more appealing, attractive, or sensible the new concept is, it will ultimately cost more to build (at least in the beginning), and is therefore not as lucrative a venture.
There is also risk involved because if the new development concept is the success many of us garbanzo-bean-eaters believe it will be, it poses greater competition for the existing developments and a potential disappointing return on investment. Home-buyers might very well pass on the old meat-and-potatoes standard of housing in favor of the refreshing garbanzo-bean-salad version.
But Schalk and friends should not despair, because nothing prevents having a grill in the backyard just because there is a front porch. And best of all, everyone can still enjoy their martinis.
