Breaking the ice with mainstream developers

The lunch meeting, attended by more than 500 people, brought both a clash of philosophies and a realization that the two groups share common interests. The ULI’s spring conference was held in Denver the same week as CNU VI, which created the opportunity for the first of — no doubt — many meetings between the two groups. The strong attendance at the meeting is an indication of the growing influence of the six-year-old CNU. The ULI, with 14,000 members, was formed in 1936 and is a national trade organization representing developer interests. Some of the group’s founders, including J.C. Nichols who developed Country Club Plaza in Kansas City, created enduring neighborhoods that are admired by the CNU. In the last 50 years, however, ULI members have been the primary builders of suburban sprawl that CNU members recently have been fighting against. The ULI now is taking steps to shift course. ULI president Jim Chaffin announced last December that the organization would devote all of its research for two years to “smart growth,” a concept with much in common with the New Urbanism. The panel included two ULI representatives — Eric Traub, president of American Nevada Corp., and Thomas Lee, chairman of the Newhall Land and Farming Co. of Valencia, California. CNU representatives included Robert Davis, CNU chair and developer of Seaside, Peter Calthorpe, architect and town planner, and Todd Zimmerman of Zimmerman-Volk Associates. Christopher Leinberger, the moderator, is a member of both ULI and CNU. Eric Traub starkly illustrated the continuing differences between the philosophies of CNU and some ULI members. “We have the ‘b and g’ philosophy — that’s blow and go,” Traub said. “We’re volume builders. We need that volume.” To CNUers, the term “blow and go” conjures images of single-use, tract home sprawl. Jonathan Rose, a New York-based developer in the audience, responded that “blow and go” is “antithetical” to good planning. Despite lingering differences, Thomas Lee observed that the New Urbanism has had a profound impact on mainstream development patterns. “So much more thought is given to the appearance of not just the house — but the street,” he said. Panel members discussed and debated the costs, marketability and financial returns of new urbanist projects compared to conventional suburbia. The panel did not resolve these issues, and it will probably be a long time — if ever — before ULI and CNU members reach a consensus on many questions concerning development patterns and the New Urbanism. Nevertheless, it was suggested by several attendees that the ULI and CNU share many common concerns. As a follow up, it was recommended that the two groups address not in my backyard (NIMBY) opposition to development, the reduction of road standards in residential communities and other common interests. That will be a positive step forward.