Market
Lcceptance of
Smart Growth
&ER&
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA231-R-10-001
February 2011
-------
Acknowledgements
Principal author:
Lee S. Sobel, EPA
Contributing authors:
William Anderson, Economics Research Associates
Jade Shipman, Economics Research Associates
Contributors and reviewers:
Geoff Anderson, Smart Growth America, formerly with EPA
Debra L. Bassert, National Association of Home Builders
Paul C. Bishop, Ph.D., National Association of Realtors®
Mark J. Eppli, Ph.D., Marquette University - Department of Finance
James Epstein, EFO Capital Management, Inc.
Joseph R. Molinaro, National Association of Realtors®
Charles C. Tu, Ph.D., University of San Diego - Burnham-Moores Center for Real Estate
Contributors and reviewers from EPA:
Danielle Arigoni
John Frece
Megan Susman
Disclaimer
Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommendation.
EPA 231-R-10-001
February 2011
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
Introduction 1
What Is Smart Growth? 1
Purpose of Study 3
Section I: Methodology 5
Selecting the Projects 5
Analyzing the Data 7
Study Parameters 8
Section II: Summary of Findings 10
Resale Performance and Appreciation 10
Building and Property Characteristics 12
Living Area 13
Lot Size 13
Year of Home Construction 13
Home Prices 15
Price per Square Foot 16
Property Taxes and Homeowners' Association Dues 16
Conclusion 17
Section III: Next Steps 19
Appendix 20
Case Study 1: Abacoa 21
Case Study 2: Afton Village 25
Case Study 3: Amelia Park 28
Case Study 4: Belmont Bay 31
Case Study 5: Birkdale Village 34
Case Study 6: Celebration 37
Case Study 7: Fairview Village 40
Case Study 8: Haile Village Center 43
Case Study 9: FOn 46
Case Study 10: Kentlands and Lakelands 49
Case Study 11: King Farm 55
Case Study 12: Middleton Hills 62
Case Study 13: Mount Laurel 65
Case Study 14: Orenco Station 68
Case Study 15: Southern Village 71
Case Study 16: Town of Tioga 74
Case Study 17: Vermillion 77
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
-------
Executive Summary
Smart growth master-planned developments are growing in popularity, with tens of thousands of new
housing units built in the 20-plus years since the creation of the earliest examples.1 This extensive body of
evidence presents an opportunity to evaluate the financial performance of smart growth housing compared
to its conventional counterpart. Home buyers, developers, builders, and municipal leaders probably
understand the environmental benefits, but they may still need information about the investment potential
of smart growth projects. This report contributes to a better understanding of the impact of and potential for
smart growth development approaches by considering long-term trends in price appreciation. It compares
resale prices for single-family houses and townhouses in these developments with units in conventional
developments that are equivalent in terms of size, age, amenities, and location. The report finds that not
only do smart growth developments enjoy market acceptance as evidenced by stability in prices over time,
but in study comparisons where sufficient performance conclusions could be determined, housing resales in
smart growth developments often enjoyed greater resale appreciation than their conventional suburban
counterparts.
Smart growth developments differ from conventional suburban developments in several ways:
• They offer a greater range of housing choices.
• They offer viable alternatives to driving by building compactly and placing commercial, office,
and/or recreational uses within walking distance of homes.
• They place greater emphasis on a sense of place through site and building design that foster
community interaction and protect natural resources.
By contrast, conventional suburban developments are generally residential only and usually have only one
kind of housing—for example, detached single-family homes on large lots—which often means there is
little diversity among the residents. Because they do not include shopping or offices, these developments
require residents to drive to almost every destination.
This report uses resale data from 18 smart growth developments and 18 conventional suburban
developments across the United States to contrast their appreciation between 1998 and 2004. Local real
estate professionals were engaged to help ensure that contrasting developments were comparable in terms
of local buyer preferences and market conditions. Twenty-one comparisons were completed in 17 case
studies (in some cases, there were multiple developments within a single community). In 10 of those
comparisons, the smart growth communities showed higher resale appreciation. In six of the comparisons,
the conventional suburban communities showed higher resale appreciation. In two cases, the compared
communities showed equivalent performance, and in three cases, inadequate data meant that no conclusion
could be reached.
These results show that there is consumer acceptance of smart growth projects based on long-term housing
values. Housing units in these developments not only hold their value over time, but in more cases than not,
buyers are willing to pay a premium to live in these projects over other competitive suburban housing units
in the same market. For developers, builders, and municipal leaders, this information should provide
valuable insight into planning, approving, and developing smart growth projects.
1 Seaside, Florida, began construction in 1981, and Kentlands, Maryland, began in 1988.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth iii
-------
Section I: Introduction
Smart growth has become a more familiar development concept over the last decade. Smart growth
strategies include design that uses land efficiently, mixes uses, and orients houses and other buildings to the
street. The results include an environment that makes it safer and more appealing for people to walk or bike
and gives them easier access to nearby destinations and services. This approach to development has been
shown to generate a number of environmental and community benefits, such as reduced emissions from
automobile use, reduced stormwater runoff per household, and more opportunities for residents to
incorporate physical activity into their daily routines.2 While these benefits are well-documented, there is
less understanding of how the smart growth approach measures up to its conventional counterparts from a
market perspective, specifically through resales of houses in smart growth developments. In other words,
are the benefits of a smart growth approach to development captured in resale prices? If yes, how much of a
premium do they offer for the homeowner and, by extension, the local government that favors a smart
growth approach over conventional suburban development? This study attempts to answer these questions
by examining how the resale performance of smart growth developments compares to their conventional
suburban counterparts.
What Is Smart Growth?
Housing, commercial centers, civic buildings, open spaces, and transportation networks are the
fundamental building blocks of all development. In smart growth developments, these uses are arranged
around public spaces and transportation options. Residents can walk to work and shopping if they choose.
They can live in a vibrant town center or a quiet single-family neighborhood, depending on their
preferences. Changing the way the building blocks are assembled can make better use of investments in
existing infrastructure and provide new opportunities to maximize public and private returns on new
investments.3
Smart growth strategies help communities protect their natural resources, in part by steering new
development away from critical open space and agricultural areas. They help people stay healthy by
creating bike- and pedestrian-friendly communities where children and adults can walk to their daily
destinations. Smart growth development uses energy more efficiently by allowing people to drive less if
they choose and building more compactly. It creates the sense of community that people clamor for, in the
form of town squares, public commons, urban plazas, and village centers.
In comparison, conventional suburban development is shaped largely by zoning practices that mandate a
clear separation of uses. The building blocks of development are distributed across communities in single-
use pods of office space, housing, and shopping. The primary means of connecting these distinct uses is a
road network that funnels traffic from small neighborhood or office-park streets onto larger collector or
arterial roads. This arrangement forces all traffic onto high-capacity roads, which creates congestion and
makes walking or biking difficult because of heavy traffic and lack of direct routes. Because of the lack of
connectivity and alternate routes, residents have little option but to drive.
The illustrations below show some of the differences between a conventional suburban community and a
smart growth community. Both communities have commercial property, roads, homes, and parks. But these
uses are arranged in two entirely different environments. Where conventional development isolates uses
from one another, smart growth development integrates stores and offices into town centers that include
For additional information on environmental and community benefits of smart growth, see: EPA. Out-
Bui It and Natural Environment. EPA 231-R-01-002. 2001. www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/built.htm.
3 D'Amour, David. Infrastructure Costs Associated with Conventional and Alternative Development
Patterns, Research Highlights. Conventional and Alternative Development Patterns Phase 1: Infrastructure
Costs. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Issue 26.
-------
housing to make these projects active beyond the nine-to-five workday. Where conventional suburban
development uses arterial thoroughfares as the access points to different use areas, smart growth
development links residential, commercial, and recreational areas through a more pedestrian-friendly and
connected network of integrated roads. Where conventional suburban development calls for low-density
development of homes, segmented into pods and subdivisions by type of house, smart growth development
mixes the types of housing and locates some in or near the town center.
Conventional suburban community
Smart growth community
Illustrations courtesy of Dover Kohl & Partners.
Whether they call it smart growth, new urbanism, neo-
traditional design, or sustainable community
development, many developers and planners have seen
and responded to the demand for alternatives to
conventional suburban projects for more than two
decades. Two of the earliest and most prominent smart
growth master-planned communities are Seaside,
Florida, which began construction in 1981, and
Kentlands, Maryland, which began in 1988. These
projects are characterized by—and often best known
for—their narrow setbacks and streets, close-knit mix of
neighborhood uses, and architectural standards that
orient buildings to the street. In some ways, these efforts
draw inspiration from the most treasured and desirable
pre-WWII town centers and neighborhoods in the
country.
Smart growth is best defined by ten principles (see
Exhibit 1) that were developed in 1996 by a national
coalition of environmentalists, builders, planners, and
others known as the Smart Growth Network. Network
partner organizations include the National Association of
Realtors, Urban Land Institute, American Planning
Association, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).4 The principles help guide community design and policy decisions. Each smart growth
project discussed in this report incorporates most or all of the smart growth principles.
Exhibit 1: Smart Growth
Principles
• Mix land uses.
• Take advantage of compact building
design.
• Create a range of housing
opportunities and choices.
• Create walkable neighborhoods.
• Foster distinctive, attractive
communities with a strong sense of
place.
• Preserve open space, farmland,
natural beauty, and critical
environmental areas.
• Strengthen and direct development
towards existing communities.
• Provide a variety of transportation
choices.
• Make development decisions
predictable, fair, and cost effective.
• Encourage community and
stakeholder collaboration in
development decisions.
4 For more information about the Smart Growth Network, see www.smartgrowth.org.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
-------
Yet while smart growth developments share common principles, they are certainly not cookie-cutter
projects. Smart growth projects reflect and respect the distinctive character of the places where they are
constructed, from architectural details to the preservation of natural open space. They also give the
developer flexibility to identify the needs of the local market and to respond with new products that reflect
consumer demands for choices in housing and transportation.
Purpose of Study
Smart growth development may be a recent market phenomenon in some communities, but tens of
thousands of homes have been built in smart growth communities in the past two decades. EPA research
measured the market and capital investment and determined that approximately $9 billion dollars was
invested in the construction of smart growth developments between 2000 and 2004.5 Nearly every state in
the country can now point to examples of developments that reflect some or all of the smart growth
principles. There are now enough units in mature projects to begin to measure how their price appreciation
performs over time.
This report considers how housing units in smart growth projects hold their value over time. By examining
sales data in smart growth developments, it is possible to draw market-based conclusions about how
consumers value such housing and how they perceive the quality of these projects, both as a financial
investment and as an investment in a community. These conclusions can be compared to sales data for
houses in conventional suburban developments in markets where buyers have a choice between the two
product types. The results of this study can inform developers and the public about the market acceptance
of smart growth developments and the price stability and long-term value of the housing in these projects.
This report contributes to a stronger understanding of the public's acceptance for smart growth
development approaches by considering long-term trends in price appreciation through consumer demand.
Homebuilders, developers, citizens, elected officials, and planning staff can use this information to better
estimate the market receptivity to smart growth housing developments against comparable, conventional
alternatives. This report also demonstrates that not only is there market acceptance of the smart growth
housing product, but that it often performs better from a resale perspective than its conventional suburban
counterpart. Finally, this report builds on earlier studies that demonstrate that the design techniques
employed in smart growth developments at the building, site, and plan levels manifest in a premium that is
reflected in higher average sales prices.6 Collectively, these findings suggest that smart growth can create a
sound local tax base that conveys economic benefits above and beyond the environmental and community
benefits.
The landscape of growth, development, housing performance, and economic vitality is and will always be a
moving target. There is no one fixed, ideal period of time to definitively evaluate the resale performance of
the smart growth housing product compared to the conventional suburban alternative. This study used
resale activity from 2000 to 2004 as a snapshot of smart growth performance. It represents a slice of a
larger period of economic growth in some communities and retrenchment in others. Given the diversity of
location, housing types, and resale points in time, this study offers an appropriate and accurate reflection of
the resale performance of the smart growth housing product in a time of economic transition.
This report is organized into three sections: methodology, findings, and next steps. Section I of this study
explains the methodology used to establish the set of developments that were examined. Section II
summarizes the findings of the completed case studies, and Section III presents some next steps for further
5 www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/
6 See Mark J. Eppli and Charles C. Tu, Valuing the New Urbanism: The Impact of the New Urbanism on
Prices of Single-Family Homes, Urban Land Institute, 1999, as well as the documents featured in Exhibit 2
and Exhibit 4 of this report, The Market Acceptance of Single-Family Housing Units in Smart Growth
Communities and The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 3
-------
research. The appendix provides the detailed qualitative and quantitative data sets that were gathered for
each of the case studies.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
-------
Section I: Methodology
Selecting the Projects
EPA retained Economics Research Associates (ERA), a global real estate research firm, to compile a set of
case studies of housing developments in selected smart growth communities and conventional suburban
communities and to evaluate them based on the long-term resale value of their housing units. The criteria
for site selection and measurement were vetted through peer review by housing industry professionals.
Each smart growth project selected for analysis met the following criteria:
1. Reflects the smart growth principles (see Exhibit 1 in the Introduction) through its site and building
design.
2. Is located within a region's infrastructure framework on a greenfield site.7 This means the project is in
an existing urban, suburban, or rural market, not in a remote or isolated location.
3. Has an active amenity program that includes a mix of uses, a variety of housing types, and prices. It
also has or intends to have retail goods and services at various price points, with similar gradations for
other uses.8
4. Is on a site of 15 acres or larger. For planned communities on greenfield locations, the site must be
large enough to include a variety of public and private uses to create a complete neighborhood or
community.
5. Represent a product type distinctly identified as a smart growth project, not a conventional product
type that is already well-defined and understood by the real estate industry.
6. Can demonstrate adequate long-term resale history for proper market analysis.
Based on the project criteria detailed above, smart growth projects were identified through data sources
such as New Urban News' Communities List and The Town Paper's "TND Neighborhoods.".9
The study also used data from each community's local Multiple Listing Service (MLS). MLS data are the
most reliable and consistent source of detailed historical information on residential sales throughout the
country. While sales data are available for properties nationwide, the data sets are not in a nationwide
database. Rather, the data are organized regionally, and the home sales in a particular region can be
accessed only by subscribing licensed brokers in that region. As a result, local real estate brokers were
hired in each geographical market area to assist with data gathering by accessing regional MLS data.
Local brokers were critical to the data collection effort,10 particularly in the selection of conventional
suburban comparables. Given the strong influence of regional tastes and consumer preferences on housing
purchases, local brokers' practical and accurate knowledge was essential to selecting an appropriate
conventional development in the same market and comparable to the smart growth community. The broker
was asked to select two master-planned greenfield communities designed with conventional suburban
standards that buyers in the market had considered while also considering the purchase of a house in the
7 Greenfield locations were determined to be most likely to have large conventional, suburban counterparts
for comparison.
8 In contrast, single-purpose projects, such as golf communities, age-restricted developments, or second-
home communities, would not be considered to have a multiple-marketing component, given that they rely
on a single niche or buyer segment.
9 These data sources may also refer to smart growth communities as new urbanist, neo-traditional,
traditional neighborhood development (TND), or sustainable or livable communities. New Urban News'
Communities List can be found in Steuteville, Robert and Langdon, Phillip. New Urbanism:
Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide, New Urban News, 3rd edition, 2003. The Town Paper's
TND Neighborhoods list can be found at www.tndtownpaper.com/neighborhoods.htm.
10 Local brokers were not involved in the data analysis portion of this study, only in data collection.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 5
-------
selected smart growth community. Thus, the conventional suburban developments selected for analysis are
verified market counterparts.
The local brokers checked MLS records to ensure that the houses in the selected communities were similar
enough in terms of age, size, and pricing to represent a true market comparable. Annual property taxes and
homeowners' association dues were also evaluated. Differences in lot sizes and property characteristics
between the smart growth and comparable communities were considered, but were not major determinants
of the price comparisons of the smart growth and conventional suburban houses because smart growth
communities typically offer smaller lots in exchange for the amenities of a walkable, mixed-use
environment. Community descriptions were generated by real estate brokers who detailed the
developments' locations, house features, amenities, and any other characteristics that would affect prices.
In some instances, developers were interviewed to confirm details about their communities. Typically, only
one conventional suburban community had units similar enough to those of the smart growth community.11
The most qualified community was selected as the market comparable.
Eighteen smart growth projects were identified and grouped into 17 case studies:
• Abacoa in Jupiter, Florida.
• Afton Village in Concord, North Carolina.
• Amelia Park in Fernandina Beach, Florida.
• Belmont Bay in Woodbridge, Virginia.
• Birkdale Village in Huntersville, North Carolina.
• Celebration in Osceola County, Florida.
• Fairview Village in Fairview, Oregon.
• Haile Village Center in Gainesville, Florida.
• FOn in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
• Kentlands and Lakelands in Gaithersburg, Maryland.12
• King Farm in Rockville, Maryland.
• Middleton Hills in Middleton, Wisconsin.
• Mount Laurel in Birmingham, Alabama.
• Orenco Station in Hillsboro, Oregon.
• Southern Village in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
• Town of Tioga in Newberry, Florida.
• Vermillion in Huntersville, North Carolina.
Given the surge in smart growth projects since the 1990s, peer reviewers determined that 17 case studies
and multiple comparisons was an appropriate study size. In the future, as more smart growth projects are
completed and generate longer sales histories, larger study groups will be possible.
11 In most cases, one conventional suburban development was chosen. Where two such communities were
selected, it was because neither one had enough housing types to make it comparable on its own to the
smart growth counterpart. For example, if a conventional suburban development was comprised solely of
townhouses, a second conventional development was sought that contained single-family dwellings for
comparison to the mix of housing (townhouse and single-family dwelling) in the selected smart growth
development. In cases where no such comparable could be found (e.g., no conventional suburban
townhouse development could be found that was comparable to a smart growth project), analysis of that
housing type was dropped from the study.
12 Due to the geographic proximity of these two projects, they were combined for comparison against the
conventional suburban development.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth i
-------
Analyzing the Data
The data were analyzed to: 1) determine the price appreciation performance of housing in smart growth
developments; and 2) highlight trends in the building and property characteristics associated with both
types of products. Results of both analyses are described in Section II.
To determine the price appreciation performance for the study sites, ERA calculated the average sales
prices per square foot in each year and generated the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for the
developments. Sales prices for all products were calculated on a square foot basis and analyzed as a
percentage change in price per square foot, as well as a percentage change in total sales price. ERA then
calculated all figures based on the changes from year to year (whether consecutive or non-consecutive), as
well as from the first year to the last year of the study window, to show how the characteristics of each
community's sold homes changed overtime.
ERA selected the CAGR as the study's central measurement because it is considered the best formula for
computing performance of investments over time and allows for easy comparison between two
investments. It was not necessary for ERA to measure for statistical significance between the CAGRs
because the methodology did not involve taking a sample of resales. All resales in a given community were
evaluated, making any difference in CAGRs significant from a statistical standpoint. However, in
determining highest performers in sales appreciation, ERA was called upon to make some judgment calls,
specifically in cases where there were few resales. ERA elected not to identify top performers in three
comparisons due to insufficient data. In these instances, one or more developments had only a handful of
resales in multiple years, or the data did not show any apparent logical linear progression, instead
fluctuating considerably each year, sometimes between positive and negative numbers. Thus the data sets
in these three cases could not be used to draw reasonable conclusions.
CAGR is also an appropriate measurement because it stabilizes and smoothes variations found between
individual years in the home sales prices. CAGR describes the rate of change between the beginning year
and the end year if the change had occurred at a steady rate. It is considered the best formula for computing
performance of investments over time and allows for easy comparison between two investments.
Therefore, changing the years pulled for certain comparisons and pulling data from non-consecutive years
did not affect the consistency of the study's results. Results depend on the time period selected, but as long
as the two investments being compared (in this case, homes in smart growth and conventional suburban
developments) are being compared over the same time period, the results are a valid indicator of the
performance of the two investments in that time period.
MLS data were also used to support the second type of analysis in this report. In addition to determining
appreciation performance, the detailed information available through MLS was used to analyze a number of
characteristics associated with both smart growth and conventional products. As with any development, a
wide range of specific characteristics helps constitute the housing bundle of goods, including house size,
nearby amenities, and school quality. While MLS data vary by region, some housing characteristics are
fairly uniform. Six indicators were selected to compare properties: living area, lot size, year of home
construction, home price, price per square foot, and property taxes and homeowners' association dues.
These indicators represent standard building and property characteristics used in the real estate industry, as
well as the most readily and uniformly available descriptive data for housing across the country. For each
project, minimum and maximum values for each indicator were calculated, as well as average values. The
results of these summary comparisons are described in Section II, while each development is described in
detail in the appendix.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
-------
Study Parameters
The purpose of this study was to contribute to a better sense of the impact of and potential for smart growth
development approaches by evaluating residential price appreciation performance in smart growth and
conventional suburban developments. The study investigated residential resale values only. Sales from the
commercial components of smart growth developments were not considered, nor were new home sales.
Estimating the sales prices of new houses would have involved contacting builders, estimating land costs,
and evaluating any special mortgage rates that the builders had negotiated with lenders. Additionally,
builders can offer incentives, packages for upgrades, and rebates, which can further complicate the pricing
of new housing units. Further, most newly constructed dwellings are not found in the MLS system because
builders typically sell directly to buyers without real estate brokers, sales agents, or Realtors as
intermediaries. Therefore, studying the appreciation rates starting with the housing unit's original price
would have been too difficult and costly for this study.
Some smart growth communities include townhouses, single-family detached dwellings, and condominium
units. This study did consider different housing types, but only in comparison to their like kind. For
example, townhouses in smart growth developments were compared only with townhouses in conventional
suburban developments. Since single-family dwellings, townhouses, and condominiums were included in
the study but never compared with each other, 21 comparison charts are presented in the appendix for home
sales in the 17 case studies from 36 communities (18 smart growth developments and 18 conventional
developments). Some developments had more than one type of housing unit but did not have a comparable
community for some of the housing types. In those cases, only the comparable housing types were
analyzed, although the range of housing options is noted in the project's description in the appendix.
Data for the case studies initially were sought for the years 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.13 Non-consecutive
years were examined to investigate a broad time period. However, many projects were too young and did
not have resales in 1998 and 2000. In such cases, data were gathered for consecutive years from 2001
through 2004.14 In two smart growth communities, Afton Village and Mount Laurel, there were no resale
values until 2003, in which case data were used for consecutive years from 2003 through 2005. In these
comparisons, there were insufficient data to draw a conclusion. All other case studies conclude with data
from 2004. In all cases, data covered a minimum of three points in time (either consecutive or non-
consecutive years) and were pulled for identical years for each smart growth community and its
conventional counterpart.
While other studies (see Exhibit 2) have attempted to statistically control for all possible differences
between communities using a hedonic pricing model that isolates components of housing valuation, this is
a different kind of study. It focuses on current, on-the-ground market realities in which the practical and
accurate knowledge of local real estate agents was used to select communities that actually compare with
each other at the local level. Buyers are the best indicators of true market acceptance, and this study has
attempted to select communities that buyers consider similarly attractive. This study's methodology is valid
and clear, and peer reviewers accepted the findings, given these assumptions and the limitations of the
available data. This report identified performance for each comparison study during the stated time period
(or highlighted cases in which a determination could not be made with confidence). As market factors
change, it is possible that the selected communities will no longer be comparable, or that results may
change if the studies were replicated upon future examination.
13 The end year of 2004 was selected because that was the last year for which complete data sets could be
gathered.
14 All told, nine smart growth communities (and their conventional suburban counterparts) were evaluated
using this time period: Abacoa, Amelia Park, Birkdale Village, Fairview Village, Haile Village Center,
FOn, Southern Village, Town of Tioga, and Vermillion.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth :
-------
Exhibit 2: Confirming Premiums for Smart Growth Over Time: An Update
In their groundbreaking 1999 work, Valuing the New Urbanism, Mark Eppli and Charles Tu undertook the
first comprehensive examination of the price differential that homebuyers pay for housing in master-
planned smart growth communities. Eppli and Tu selected four traditional neighborhood developments
(TNDs) in four different housing markets. They identified TNDs that had a minimum of 150 sale
transactions to compare against market-area housing that did not have the characteristics of TND projects,
but maintained all other single-family housing characteristics. Single-family home prices were established
using multiple regression analysis, specifically using variables to identify the purchase price of a single-
family house in a TND. Kentlands, in Gaithersburg, Maryland, was one of the case studies selected in
Valuing the New Urbanism. Based on sale transactions between 1994 to 1997, the authors found that in all
four case studies, consumers were willing to pay a premium of 11 percent, on average, to live in a TND.
Kentlands was found to have a price premium of 13 percent against market comparables.
In 2007, Mark Eppli and Charles Tu updated their research on Kentlands and added new research for
Lakelands, a smart growth community adjacent to Kentlands. (Lakelands was too new to qualify for study
in Valuing the New Urbanism.).
Using the same criteria and methodology they applied in Valuing the New Urbanism, Eppli and Tu used
property data from the Maryland Department of Planning to identify almost 4,000 single-family sale
transactions covering Kentlands, Lakelands, and the entire Gaithersburg 20878 zip code from 1997 to 2005.
The conclusions on housing premiums in Valuing the New Urbanism are confirmed in their updated work,
The Market Acceptance of Single-Family Housing Units in Smart Growth Communities. This new paper
concludes that, "After controlling for a series of site, interior, exterior, quality, and market characteristics...
the price of single-family homes in Kentlands and Lakelands is estimated to be 16.1 percent and 6.5 percent
higher than comparable homes in the surrounding conventional subdivisions respectively."
Citing data from 1994 through 2005, the authors conclude that the price premium for single-family housing
in Kentlands is maintained or increases over time, indicating a market acceptance for smart growth
communities. With regard to Lakelands, the authors note that the 6.5 percent premium increased to 9.5
percent over conventional suburban development from 2002 to 2005—a sign of strengthening market
acceptance as more of the project was built and more sale transactions occurred.
Eppli, Mark J. and Tu, Charles C. Valuing the New Urbanism; The Impact of the New Urbanism On Prices
of Single-Family Homes. Urban Land Institute. 1999.
Eppli, Mark J. and Tu, Charles C. The Market Acceptance of Single-Family Housing Units in Smart
Growth Communities. EPA. 2007. www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sg business.htm#p4.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
-------
Section II: Findings
As stated earlier, the data were analyzed to determine the price appreciation performance of housing in
smart growth developments and to highlight trends in the characteristics associated with smart growth and
conventional suburban communities. The analysis revealed three general findings about smart growth
developments:
• In 21 comparisons, 10 smart growth developments had higher resale appreciation than
conventional suburban developments, six conventional suburban developments had higher resale
appreciation, two comparisons generated equivalent conclusions between the two different
development projects, and three comparisons had inconclusive results.
• Smart growth housing units have building and property characteristics comparable to their
conventional counterparts in many cases.
• In approximately 80 percent of the comparisons conducted, housing units in smart growth
developments sold for higher average prices per square foot.15
Resale Performance and Appreciation
This study's hypothesis was that housing units in smart growth communities would, at a minimum, hold
their value over time and in some cases out-perform their conventional counterparts. While the results were
mixed enough to demonstrate the strength of both the conventional suburban product and the smart growth
product, in the end this study supported the hypothesis and revealed a slightly stronger resale appreciation
performance for houses in smart growth developments. Of the 21 comparisons generated for houses and
townhouses in the 36 developments, the smart growth product outperformed its conventional counterpart in
10 of the comparisons, while the reverse was true in six of the comparisons.16 Home resale values in smart
growth and conventional projects were roughly equivalent in two instances, and in three cases, the results
were inconclusive due to too little available data. The summarized results are presented in Exhibit 3.
15 This finding contributes to the conclusion that smart growth units carry a premium in the market and
suggests that they would reflect even greater price appreciation if they were the same size as their
conventional counterparts, thereby yielding a higher overall sales price compared with a same-size
conventional suburban house.
16 Top performance was determined by the greater CAGR figure for sales price per square foot, as
described in Section I.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 10
-------
Exhibit 3. Summarized Results of Comparisons
Smart Growth Development
Case Studies
1 Abacoa
2 Afton Village
3 Amelia Park
4 Belmont Bay Phase II
5 Birkdale Village
6 Celebration
7 Fairview Village
8 Haile Village Center
9 I'On
10 Kentlands and Lakelands
Kentlands and Lakelands
1 1 King Farm
King Farm
King Farm
King Farm
12 Middleton Hills
13 Mount Laurel
14 Orenco Station
15 Southern Village
16 Town of Tioga
17 Vermillion
Location
Jupiter, FL
Concord, NC
Fernandina Beach, FL
Woodbridge, VA
Huntersville, NC
Kissimmee, FL
Fairview, OR
Gainesville, FL
Mount Pleasant, SC
Gaithersburg, MD
Gaithersburg, MD
Rockville, MD
Rockville, MD
Rockville, MD
Rockville, MD
Middleton, WI
Birmingham, AL
Hillsboro, OR
Chapel Hill, NC
Newberry, FL
Huntersville, NC
Type of Homes
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Conventional Suburban
Development Comparables
The Isles and Egret Landing
Laurel Park
Breakers at Ocean Reach
Belmont Bay Phase I
Hampton Ridge
Hunter's Creek
Lakeview Estates
Sterling Place
Belle Hall
Quince Orchard Park
Quince Orchard Park
Park Overlook
Park Overlook
Quince Orchard Park
Quince Orchard Park
Northlake
Forest Parks
Jones Farm
Lake Hogan
Cambridge Forest
McGinnis Village
Higher
Rates
CSD
n/a
CSD
CSD
SGD
Equiv.
SGD
n/a
CSD
SGD
CSD
SGD
SGD
SGD
SGD
Equiv.
n/a
CSD
SGD
SGD
SGD
Notes:
"CSD " is an abbreviation for conventional suburban development.
"SGD " is an abbreviation for smart growth development.
"n/a " indicates insufficient data points to draw a conclusion about performance.
"Equiv. " indicates equivalent performance, such that a determination about better performance could not be made
with confidence.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
11
-------
Building and Property Characteristics
The building and property characteristics of smart growth projects differentiate them from their
conventional suburban counterparts. The way in which buildings orient to the street and the vibrancy of the
pedestrian environment are hallmarks of smart growth development and often drive its higher valuation
(see Exhibit 4). These factors are difficult to ascertain through existing data sets, however, particularly
given the large-scale comparative analysis conducted for this study.
Nevertheless, the detail found in MLS databases does permit an analysis that demonstrates trends in smart
growth developments as compared to their conventional counterparts along a range of building and
property characteristics. Six indicators were chosen and analyzed: living area, lot size, year of home
construction, home price, price per square foot, and property tax and homeowners' association dues. The
findings demonstrate that smart growth houses tend to have building and property characteristics
comparable to their conventional counterparts.
Exhibit 4: Housing Premiums in Walkable Urbanism
In his 2008 book, The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream, Chris Leinberger tackles
market-based opportunities for smart growth development, including premiums associated with housing in
such projects. Leinberger, a real estate developer and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution's
Metropolitan Policy Program, refers to smart growth development as "walkable urbanism" and
conventional suburban development as "drivable sub-urbanism" He offers something akin to a back-of-an-
envelope test that readers can use in their own market to determine not only what the market demand is for
smart growth development, but whether premiums are associated with this type of real estate product.
Using the real estate section from major metropolitan newspapers, Leinberger compares 2007 sales data
from single-family detached (SFD) units and condominium units in high-end housing submarkets and
urban centers in the Detroit, Denver, Seattle, and New York City metropolitan housing markets
(Birmingham, Highland Ranch, Kirkland, and Westchester County, respectively). Leinberger takes the
added step of gathering the comparative research from these markets from the National Association of
Realtors' website.
When comparing the dollar per square foot sales prices between SFD units in the same markets, the
walkable urban units had premiums over the drivable suburban units of 100 to 150 percent. The dollar per
square foot sales comparison of condominium units established premiums for the units in walkable urban
neighborhoods at 40 percent. Finally, the sales per square foot comparison between SFD and condominium
units produced premiums for the walkable urban units of 51 percent to 200 percent. In the two cases where
Leinberger compared SFD units to condominium units, he points out that premiums were realized despite
the condominium units' being significantly smaller than the comparative SFD units, a sign of market
preference for such real estate.
Leinberger finds that substantial premiums exist when comparing housing types found in existing walkable
neighborhoods and existing drivable suburban neighborhoods. He concludes that people are willing to pay
a significant premium for walkable urbanism.
Leinberger, Christopher B. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Island Press.
2008.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 12
-------
Living Area
Some people believe that houses in smart growth communities are smaller than conventional suburban
communities' houses. Yet of the 21 comparisons, the conventional suburban houses had larger average
living areas in both start and end years in just eight instances. In three cases, the conventional suburban
dwelling units were larger in the end year only, reflecting the tendency of such communities to build larger
houses in later development phases. Contrary to popular belief, however, houses in smart growth
communities were larger on average in both start and end years in six competitive comparisons, and in four
comparisons, the units were virtually the same size in both start and end years.
Lot Size
Because smart growth communities are more compact and walkable, houses in these communities could be
expected to have, on average, smaller lots than those in more conventionally designed developments. While
lot size was not available in all MLS systems due to regional variations in the reporting mechanisms, the
available data were generally consistent with this expectation with a few exceptions.
Data were unavailable for five of the comparisons. Of the remaining 16 comparisons, nine showed
conventional suburban communities' lots as larger on average than those in smart growth communities. In
fact, a few comparisons showed conventional suburban development houses with lots that were two to four
times the size of those in the smart growth communities. Four case studies, including Belmont Bay and
Celebration, showed nearly identical average lot sizes. The remaining three case studies showed larger
average lot sizes in smart growth communities.
The data reveal two findings. First, maximum lot sizes for townhouses in smart growth communities
exceed those of conventional townhouses. For example, the townhouse lots in King Farm and Park
Overlook were close in average size, but the smart growth community had maximum lot sizes that neared
4,000 square feet, while those in the conventional community peaked at 2,400 square feet. Thus, the
availability of larger lots in the smart growth community affected the average. Several other case studies
revealed that some smart growth communities include larger lots for single-family home development than
conventional suburban projects, in addition to the more compact development typical of smart growth. This
occurs when smart growth projects offer an extremely broad mix of housing types. Examples are the case
studies involving the single-family detached houses in Kentlands, Lakelands, and King Farm when
compared with Quince Orchard Park. Kentlands, Lakelands, and King Farm had a broad range of lot sizes,
from just over 1,000 square feet to more than 10,000 square feet, which skewed the average. In contrast,
houses in Quince Orchard Park were on lots that ranged from just over 2,000 square feet to 4,700 square
feet, a more modest range. These two findings affected only three of the 16 case studies with data on lot
size, though in most smart growth communities, lot sizes are smaller than conventional suburban
communities on average.
Year of Home Construction
The dates of home construction were analyzed by averaging the construction years of all houses sold in
each community in the years studied. Thus, these averages do not reflect the average construction year of
all units built within a given community, but rather the average construction year of houses that were sold
during the years evaluated. As shown in Exhibit 5, 10 of the 18 smart growth communities studied sold
houses that were built in 1999 or 2000 on average, while 13 of the conventional suburban communities had
average completion dates from 1998 to 1999. When the average construction year of homes in smart
growth communities is compared to their market comparables, as shown in Exhibit 6, ten of the groupings
have comparables that fall within two years of each other. The largest gap by far was more than 16 years,
which was between King Farm and Park Overlook. With that comparison excluded, the average years of
home construction for all the smart growth communities fell within four years of the market comparable.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 13
-------
The average construction year of all homes sold is mid-1999 for smart growth communities and 1998 for
conventional suburban communities, an average difference of 1.3 years.
Exhibit 5. Number of Communities by Average Year of Home Construction
Q
f.
1
n n n r
1995 199
6 1997 1998
n
1999 2000 2001 2002
• Smart Growth Communities
D Conventional Suburban Communities
Source: Multiple Listing Service, Economics Research Associates
Note: Not shown in the graph is Park Overlook, -which had an average build date of 1985.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
14
-------
Exhibit 6. Average Year of Construction of Homes Sold
Smart Growth Developments Avg Yr of Age
and Market Comparables Construction Difference
Abacoa
The Isles
Egret Landing 1998 -1.4
* Afton Village 2000
Laurel Park 2002 2_4_
Amelia Park 2000
Breakers at Ocean Reach 1998 -2.7
Belmont Bay (Smart Growth) 2002
Belmont Bay (Conventional)
Birkdale Village
Hampton Ridge
Celebration
Hunter's Creek
Fairview Village
Lakeview Estates
* Haile Village Center
Sterling Place
I'On
Belle Hall
Kentlands
Quince Orchard Park
Lakelands
Quince Orchard Park
King Farm
Quince Orchard Park
Park Overlook
Middleton Hills
Northlake
* Mount Laurel
Forest Parks
Orenco Station
Jones Farm
Southern Village
Lake Hogan Farms
Town of Tioga
Cambridge Forest
Vermillion
McGinnis Village
All Smart Growth Developments
All Conventional Suburban Developments
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1996
1999
2000
1997
1995
1999
2000
1999
2001
1999
1984
2000
1999
2002
1999
1999
1999
1998
2000
2000
1998
2001
1999
1999.6
1998.2
-1.9
0.1
0.8
2.8
-3.3
4.0
-1.0
-1.2
-16.3
-1.2
-2.6
-0.3
1.7
-1.9
-2.4
-1.3
Source: Multiple Listing Service, Economics Research Associates
Note: Communities -with an asterisk (*) had very few data points
in the years studied.
Home Prices
Of the 21 comparisons conducted, 14 revealed smart growth communities with higher average home prices
in the starting year of the comparison. By the last year studied, smart growth communities had higher
average home prices in 14 of the comparisons, although not necessarily the same communities that had
higher home prices in the starting years. But 11 comparisons did show home prices higher in the same
smart growth communities in both the starting and ending years. The results varied according to the
specific development and market being evaluated. However, these data indicate that in a snapshot of any
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 15
-------
one year, two-thirds of the smart growth communities had higher average prices when compared with
houses in conventional suburban communities.
Price per Square Foot
For analysis of price and market valuation, each smart growth community's average price per square foot
(not the compound average growth rate) was compared with its conventional suburban counterpart in both
the first and last years of study. Approximately 80 percent of all comparisons showed higher average prices
per square foot for smart growth communities' houses than for those of their conventional counterparts. In
a hypothetical situation in which two houses of identical size in market-comparable communities are sold
sometime between 1998 and 2004, this finding reveals that it is very likely that the product in the smart
growth community would sell for more money, regardless of the year of sale. This result indicates that, in
general, smart growth houses are valuable to both buyers and sellers.
Yet this finding may have affected the outcomes of the analysis of the projects' resale appreciation rates.
Each comparison calculated the percent difference in the average prices per square foot between the smart
growth and conventional suburban communities. These percentages were then averaged across all of the
comparisons. Smart growth communities' average price per square foot was 13 percent higher than their
conventional suburban comparables. Since most smart growth communities began with a higher average
price per square foot than their comparable, it may have been more difficult for them to attain the same
CAGR as a market comparable that began with a lower price per square foot.
Property Taxes and Homeowners' Association Dues
Differences in property taxes and homeowners' association dues affect the cost of living and thus can make
one community more attractive than its market comparable. It was therefore important to consider
significant property tax and homeowners' association dues differences in this analysis to help explain price
differentials. These indicators are not, however, as reliably reported in the MLS system as the other
measurements discussed here. Due to regional differences in the MLS databases, some communities did not
have this information. Of the 18 smart growth developments and their 17 comparisons, the MLS system did
not provide property tax values for six comparisons and did not give homeowners' association dues for four
comparisons. In these instances, the brokers were asked to verify similar property taxes between the houses
in different communities, which helped ensure that the communities served as market comparables.
Other issues complicated the use of these data. In some cases, real estate agents incorrectly entered the data
into the MLS system when the property was originally listed for sale, as demonstrated by some listings
showing monthly homeowners' association dues that were identical to the annual dues reported for other
properties. This may be coincidental, or it may have been caused by whoever entered the data into the MLS
not paying attention to whether fees were calculated annually or monthly. Regarding property taxes, the
MLS data do not specify the year for which the property tax amount is reported. As such, this study has
reported the numbers from the MLS system as listed and verified the figures for both property taxes and
homeowners' association dues with local brokers wherever possible.
Despite the aforementioned concerns, most smart growth communities reported average property taxes and
homeowners' association dues that were similar to their market comparables. Of the 11 studies for which
property tax information was available, eight had similar average property taxes. Property taxes were
considered similar if, in each evaluated year, the average property tax bills for a given community were
within several hundred dollars of its market comparable. An annual tax bill difference of, for example,
$300 is not likely to affect which community a buyer selects, especially when so many other criteria are
more significant to buyers. The three comparisons with notable property tax differences can be attributed to
variation in house prices between the competitors, which is likely to affect the assessed value of the
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 16
-------
properties and thus property taxes. Of the 13 comparisons for which homeowners' association dues were
listed, nine had similar homeowners' association dues. The remaining four comparisons had differences of
no more than $500 per year, as well as ample evidence for improper entry of true homeowners' association
dues at the time of sale. It was determined, therefore, that differences in property taxes and homeowners'
association dues have not affected the market comparability of any properties studied.
Conclusion
The data analysis supports the hypothesis that smart growth products perform as well as, if not better than,
their conventional suburban counterparts. Of the 21 comparisons generated for housing units in the 36
developments (18 smart growth, 18 conventional suburban), the smart growth housing units outperformed
their counterparts on resale price in 10 of the studies, while the conventional suburban housing units
outperformed in six of the studies. The remaining projects demonstrated resale performance that was
roughly equivalent or was inconclusive.
Some generalities can be drawn from the analysis:
• Smart growth communities demonstrated higher home prices than their conventional
suburban counterparts.
• Conventional suburban development houses were generally larger than their smart growth
counterparts.
• Smart growth houses posted higher prices per square foot than their conventional suburban
counterparts.
• Houses in conventional suburban developments generally had larger lots than their smart
growth counterparts.
• Smart growth houses were generally newer than their conventional suburban counterparts.
• Property taxes and homeowners' association dues were generally comparable between smart
growth and conventional suburban houses.
Yet there are also a number of interesting revelations within these broad conclusions:
• Smart growth communities generally offer larger lots for townhouses than do their
conventional suburban counterparts, and they can include single-family house lots of
comparable size, despite their overall emphasis on compact site design. Indeed, in nearly half
of the projects surveyed, living area in smart growth houses was the same as or larger than in
its conventional suburban counterpart.
• Higher prices per square foot for smart growth projects means that, when compared to a
conventional suburban house of identical size, a consumer premium is reflected in the resale
price for the smart growth product. Given the careful consideration in this study of other
factors such as taxes, homeowners' association fees, and size variables, this premium can be
seen as a valuation of the smart growth project's design and site characteristics.
• On average, smart growth houses tended to be newer than their conventional suburban
counterparts, possibly reflecting a market shift away from conventional suburban
development toward building communities that reflect smart growth principles.
• In many instances, the comparative analysis was limited to single-family detached housing
units because the conventional development counterpart had no attached housing. Yet the
smart growth housing outperformed the conventional comparable even with mixed housing
types sharing the same blocks and streets. Some parts of the real estate industry have
suggested that homebuyers do not want to live in neighborhoods with different types of
housing or different price points (which translates to having different types of people living in
the neighborhood). This finding suggests that plenty of homebuyers want to live in this type
of diverse neighborhood and that home prices are not negatively affected by such a strategy.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 17
-------
Exhibit 7: Valuing Sustainable Urban ism in the United Kingdom
Smart growth projects are not limited to the United States. TND Neighborhoods, an online resource that
tracks smart growth projects in the United States and abroad, noted in 2008 that Australia, Canada, and the
United Kingdom each had more than 10 smart growth projects, with another 22 projects in eight other
countries.17 Proponents abroad are examining whether such projects generate housing price premiums and
hold their value over time compared to conventional development. To further this research, the Prince's
Foundation for the Built Environment, Savills, and the English Partnership published Valuing Sustainable
Urbanism, A Report Measuring and Valuing New Approaches to Residentially Led Mixed Use Growth in
2007. The principles and characteristics that define sustainable urbanism are similar to the smart growth
principles.
The authors claim that urban places hold their value and perform better in market cycles than
unidentifiable, homogenous places, stating: "Our own observations, and those of property market
specialists, are that the most value accrues to the timeless places, where astonishing levels of mixed use and
density are achieved, although they would not be built today... .These are also places that keep value
through lean periods and recover their premium quicker. ... By comparison, there are places whose
character and identity have been compromised to the extent that their homogeneity offers no market
differential, and this has a suppressant effect on their market performance... [I]n the prosperity of recent
times, [such places] are not necessarily trapped in unbreakable cycles of poverty but have become the
'nowhere' places lacking the means to place a value on identity in a fickle market."
Similar to this study, Valuing Sustainable Urbanism focuses on historic sales valuations of residential
housing units over time, on a £ per square foot basis. The authors examine three case studies, each
containing one sustainable urban project, one conventional (standard) suburban project, and one traditional
(old) urban neighborhood in the town center. The analysis finds higher land values, higher housing
premiums, and higher rates of appreciation associated with sustainable urbanism.
The authors find that sustainable urbanism is not only a more viable economic alternative than conventional
development, but that its design is better equipped to meet the housing necessary to accommodate projected
growth rates.
The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, Savills pic, and The English Partnership. Valuing
Sustainable Urbanism: A Report Measuring and Valuing New Approaches to Residentially Led Mixed Use
Growth. 2007. www.princes-foundation.org/files/0707vsureport.pdf.
17 TND Neighborhoods. Web page. The Town Paper, www.tndtownpaper.com/neighborhoods.htm.
Accessed on September 26, 2008.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 18
-------
Section III: Next Steps
This report finds that housing units in smart growth communities are strong market comparables in local
housing markets and that their price per square foot and resale premiums are sustained over time. In the
future, others may wish to reexamine the performance of these developments, apply the same methodology
to other projects, or identify additional methods of analysis. This section offers additional insight and other
opportunities to those interested persons considering expanding this research.
EPA recommends gathering more robust data for more projects and longer resale histories because such
data sets would paint a fuller and more accurate picture of smart growth developments' resale appreciation
performance. With more mature smart growth developments, deeper sales transaction histories, and more
conventional suburban developments with which to contrast them, a clearer picture of how they are valued
by the market over time can emerge. Future studies might also consider an approach that would track the
sales of specific smart growth properties and comparable conventional properties over time. This type of
longitudinal study could compare all homes with a certain floor plan in one community with another floor
plan of similar square footage in another community. Such a study would require site visits, property tours,
and a long enough study window to allow the homes to be resold multiple times.
Other study efforts could return to this data set and repeat the study using the same projects, tracking from
2005 to the present. A variation on this approach would be to use the projects in this study to conduct a
micro-study on how resales performed during the housing downturn that started after this report's study
window. Many news articles18 have suggested that housing projects with transportation choices (including
walking and biking), particularly those in more central metropolitan locations, held their values better than
conventional suburban developments in greenfield locations that are wholly dependent on automobile use.
Such a study would validate those hypotheses.
A velocity or "time on market" study would also be useful to developers and builders seeking to build new
smart growth developments. This type of study would provide insight into how quickly developers and
builders could sell lots and houses against debt repayment obligations.
The results from the King Farm, Kentlands, and Lakelands developments show that having multiple smart
growth developments in the same market does not diminish their market performance. Future research
could extend this analysis to other markets with multiple smart growth developments.
Finally, while this study limited its project selection to greenfield projects, both smart growth and
conventional suburban, future efforts could also include a third project category for comparative purposes,
such as an existing in-town or inner-ring suburban neighborhood in the town where the other market
comparable projects are located, as was included in Valuing Sustainable Urbanism.
This study provides a basis for developers and local decision-makers to pursue a growth strategy that
encourages more housing units in smart growth, new urbanist, or traditional neighborhood developments.
This study shows indications of the strong financial performance of housing values in smart growth
developments and the economic benefits they can deliver for homeowners, investors, and local
governments, in addition to the many environmental and community benefits documented in other research.
18 See Ruben, Barbara. "Stagnant Market Has Ups, Downs Across Region." Washington Post. April 24,
2008. See also Gopal, Prashant. "Unraveling the Suburban Fringe." Business Week. July 12, 2008.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 19
-------
Appendix
This appendix provides information on 17 case studies using data compiled from 36 greenfield projects: 18
smart growth developments and 18 conventional suburban developments. These 36 projects produced 21
separate comparisons of housing resale appreciation, including 17 single-family detached and four
townhouses. In 10 of the comparisons, the smart growth communities showed higher resale appreciation. In
six of the comparisons, the conventional suburban communities showed higher resale appreciation. In two
comparisons, communities showed equivalent performance, and in three cases, inadequate data meant that
no conclusion could be reached.
EPA contracted with Economics Research Associates (ERA) to compile and complete these case studies.
Each case study includes project descriptions, a summary of the data collected, and an analysis of the study
results. In almost all case studies, a locally based real estate agent with extensive local knowledge was
hired by ERA to provide project descriptions, select market-comparable conventional suburban
developments, and obtain Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data. If a local real estate agent or MLS was not
available, other real estate service providers were hired to collect this information. Real estate agents and
real estate service providers played no part in analyzing sales data, nor was the purpose for the data
collection known to them.
ERA compiled and analyzed the data and produced its conclusions to EPA in 2005. The property
summaries describing the projects and the construction status occurred in 2006. EPA collected the website
links to the case study projects, where available, in 2008.
Comparative Case Studies Summarized
Smart Growth Development
Case Studies
1 Abacoa
2 Afton Village
3 Amelia Park
4 Belmont Bay Phase II
5 Birkdale Village
6 Celebration
7 Fairview Village
8 Haile Village Center
9 I'On
10 Kentlands and Lakelands
Kentlands and Lakelands
1 1 King Farm
King Farm
King Farm
King Farm
12 Middleton Hills
13 Mount Laurel
14 Orenco Station
1 5 Southern Village
16 Town of Tioga
17 Vermillion
Location
Jupiter, FL
Concord, NC
Fernandina Beach, FL
Woodbridge, VA
Huntersville, NC
Kissimmee, FL
Fairview, OR
Gainesville, FL
Mount Pleasant, SC
Gaithersburg, MD
Gaithersburg, MD
Rockville, MD
Rockville, MD
Rockville, MD
Rockville, MD
Middleton, WI
Birmingham, AL
Hillsboro, OR
Chapel Hill, NC
Newberry, FL
Huntersville, NC
Type of Homes
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Townhouses
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Single-Family Detached
Conventional Suburban
Development Comparables
The Isles and Egret Landing
Laurel Park
Breakers at Ocean Reach
Belmont Bay Phase I
Hampton Ridge
Hunter's Creek
Lakeview Estates
Sterling Place
Belle Hall
Quince Orchard Park
Quince Orchard Park
Park Overlook
Park Overlook
Quince Orchard Park
Quince Orchard Park
Northlake
Forest Parks
Jones Farm
Lake Hogan
Cambridge Forest
McGinnis Village
Higher
Rates
CSD
n/a
CSD
CSD
SGD
Equiv.
SGD
n/a
CSD
SGD
CSD
SGD
SGD
SGD
SGD
Equiv.
n/a
CSD
SGD
SGD
SGD
Notes:
"CSD " is an abbreviation for conventional suburban development.
"SGD " is an abbreviation for smart growth development.
"n/a " indicates insufficient data points to draw a conclusion about performance.
"Equiv. " indicates equivalent performance, such that a determination about better performance could not be made
•with confidence.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
20
-------
Case Study 1: Abacoa
Abacoa is a smart growth community in Jupiter, Florida. It did not have any residential resales in 1998 or
2000. As such, resales in Abacoa and its counterpart communities were pulled for consecutive years from
2001 to 2004. Two comparable conventional suburban communities were selected: Egret Landing, which is
also in Jupiter, and The Isles in nearby Palm Beach Gardens. Both of the comparable communities have
single-family houses only, while Abacoa has some townhouses. Since the broker was unable to find a
counterpart community with townhouses, the analysis considers single-family houses only.
Project Websites
Abacoa: http://www.abacoa.com/
The Isles: http://www.lifetimerealtv.com/divostacomm/isles.htm
Egret Landing: http://www.egretlanding.com/
Smart Growth Community Description: Abacoa
Project Summary
Abacoa is a 2,055-acre master-planned community that was designed using smart growth principles.
Construction began in 1998, and the first residents moved into the development in early 1999. Upon
completion, it will include 5,800 residential units in a variety of building types, retail space, office space, a
hotel with conference facilities, and several parking garages. According to the developer, the community
experienced a rapid increase in value between 2000 and 2005, with many home values increasing by 100
percent.
Location
The community is just two miles from the Atlantic Ocean. By car, both Interstate 95 and the Florida
Turnpike are five to ten minutes from Abacoa, and the community is approximately 15 to 20 minutes north
of Palm Beach International Airport. Abacoa's Town Center, which features restaurants, bars, galleries, and
retail space, is a short walk or bike ride from most homes in the development. Abacoa is in the Jupiter
School District, which is A-rated according to GreatSchools.org. Two new public schools were being
constructed in the community at the time this summary was written in 2006.
Home Characteristics
Abacoa's single-family homes all use concrete block construction with poured-concrete second-story
floors. The townhouses are constructed using poured-concrete walls and floors. All roofs are composite
shingle. The development's single-family detached homes have two-car garages, and the townhouses have
garages for either one car or two cars. The community's homes have front porches and alley-access
garages.
Community Amenities
Each of the three subdivisions has amenities that include a clubhouse, pool, open green space, and a
playground. At the time of this study (2005), in the Newhaven subdivision, the homeowners' association
fees were $2,152 annually for single-family detached homes and $1,740 annually for townhouses and
included outside lawn maintenance for each home, as well as basic cable television. In The Island
neighborhood, annual homeowners' association fees were $2,500 for a single-family detached home and
$2,240 for a townhouse. In Charleston Court, association fees were $1,640 annually. Membership to the
Abacoa Golf Club, which is semi-private and allows residents to either become members or pay for
individual games, is not included in the homeowners' dues.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 21
-------
The community has 10 subdivisions, most of which were still under construction in 2006. Three of its
residential subdivisions had home resales as far back as 2001: Newhaven, The Island, and Charleston
Court. Data on resales from these three neighborhoods were analyzed. When completed, these three
subdivisions will contain approximately 600 single-family detached residences. The Island at Abacoa
contains 176 single-family homes and 50 townhouses. According to the broker, The Island is the most
distinctive and exclusive of the community's subdivisions because of its size and because it is surrounded
by the Abacoa Golf Course, the only course in the development. The Charleston Court neighborhood offers
townhouses and is the only neighborhood besides The Island that has some homes with views of the golf
course. Newhaven is a neighborhood with 505 Victorian-style homes and tree-lined streets.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: The Isles
Project Summary
The Isles contains residences only and does not include commercial space. Homes in the community were
constructed and sold in 2000, with homeowners moving in as early as 2001. Home types include attached
single-story homes, which are called patio homes, as well as single-family detached dwellings. The
developer asserts that the attached patio homes are competitive with small single-family detached homes
rather than townhouses, despite the fact that they have a common wall. The homes in the community have
experienced a rapid appreciation in value since construction, similar to the homes in Abacoa.
Location
The community is two minutes from Interstate 95 and five minutes from the Florida Turnpike by car.
Nearby is Downtown at the Gardens, a new commercial center that is larger, more conveniently located to
The Isles, and more successful than Abacoa's Town Center. It contains shops, restaurants, entertainment
venues, and a high-end, national-chain grocery store. The Isles is in the Palm Beach Gardens School
District, which is rated as "very good" but is not ranked as highly as the school system in Jupiter.
Home Characteristics
The Isles was developed by the same homebuilder as Abacoa and uses the same concrete block
construction as in Abacoa. The roofs, however, are barrel tile rather than composite shingle. Most of the
units are waterfront homes that overlook one of the community's eight lakes. There are three floor plans
available in The Isles, the smallest of which is a two-bedroom, two-bath, attached patio home. The other
two floor plans have three and four bedrooms respectively, which is more typical of single-family detached
dwellings. All homes are one story and have two-car garages. There are no townhouses in The Isles.
Community Amenities
The community includes a large heated pool, four tennis courts, a fitness center, and a meeting room. The
homeowners' association dues range from $1,800 to $2,600 annually, depending on the size of the home.
Fees include landscaping maintenance of the front and back yards, community security, and basic cable.
The community design includes sidewalks that are wider than the standard four- to six-foot width found in
most residential developments.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Egret Landing
Project Summary
Egret Landing is a Mediterranean-style neighborhood on 248 acres. The site contains over 30 acres of
manmade lakes. In 1995, development began on the community, which will contain 654 single-family
detached homes at build-out. The project is marketed as a "family-oriented" community. Egret Landing is
the oldest community of the three in this study. Therefore, it has experienced the highest appreciation rates,
since development began in 1995 when prices were low. From 2000 to 2005, according to the broker, the
neighborhood has doubled in value.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 22
-------
Location
The community is one mile north of Abacoa. Its residents can access both Interstate 95 and the Florida
Turnpike as easily as can residents of Abacoa. Commercial amenities and beaches are just six minutes
away. Egret Landing is in the Jupiter School District, which is A-rated.
Home Characteristics
A variety of builders worked in Egret Landing and offered a wide selection of floor plans and elevations.
The homes in Egret Landing have concrete block construction. Some second floors are wood frame. All of
the community's homes have garages for two or three cars and roofs that are barrel or "S" tile. Streets are
organized in cul-de-sacs. There are no townhouses offered at Egret Landing.
Community Amenities
The amenities in Egret Landing include a pool, a clubhouse, a basketball court, tennis courts, a fitness
room, and a media center. At the time this study was conducted in 2005, the homeowners' association
charged $900 annually. The fees include all lawn maintenance and club facilities.
Resale Performance Comparison: Abacoa, The Isles, and Egret Landing
The chart that follows provides summary information of the data gathered for this study. The Isles and
Egret Landing both had a higher CAGR of sales price per square foot during the time period studied than
Abacoa. While Abacoa experienced a 10 percent annual increase in price per square foot, The Isles and
Egret Landing achieved 16 percent and 15 percent yearly increases, respectively. The communities had a
good number of records, making the conclusion reliable. A total of 156 previously owned single-family
homes were sold in Abacoa from the beginning of 2001 through the end of 2004. In The Isles, 60 single-
family homes were sold in 2002 through 2004, including several attached patio homes.19 Egret Landing
contained 183 resold homes in 2001 through 2004. When averaged, the home sizes in Abacoa were slightly
larger than The Isles and slightly smaller than Egret Landing. The smart growth community had smaller
lots. Egret Landing had significantly lower homeowners' association fees. The homes in Abacoa were
younger than homes in Egret Landing but somewhat older than those in The Isles. Therefore, the top
performers are the two conventional suburban communities.
Top Performer: Conventional suburban developments
19 For The Isles, data were not available for 2001, which means all conclusions on the community are
drawn from data in only three years.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 23
-------
SMART G ROWTH SF HOM ES
ABACOA
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOAFees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SO FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SO FT
2001 (N = 17)
Average Minimum Maximum
$307,635 $222,800 $415,000
2,251 1,720 2,704
7,410 $5,227 $8,712
2000 1999 2001
1 0 2
$4,037 $709 $6,541
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,596 $520 $1,908
$138 $116 $195
$137
$136
2002 (N = 25)
Average Minimum Maximum
$338,528 $220,000 $519,000
2,351 1,410 3,495
7,329 5,227 9,563
1999 1998 2001
3 1 4
$5,078 $1,040 $7,922
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,805 $1,340 $1,948
$145 $118 $193
$144
$139
2003 (N = 49)
Average Minimum Maximum
$344,684 $235,000 $550,000
2,160 1,294 3,495
7,423 5,663 10,890
2000 1998 2001
325
$5,114 $1,040 $8,653
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,907 $648 $2,188
$161 $131 $205
$160
$157
2004 (N = 65)
Average Minimum Maximum
$412,802 $245,000 $625,000
2,313 1,294 3,495
7,405 7,405 7,405
2000 1998 2002
426
$5,803 $1,157 $9,051
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$2,051 $1,812 $2,340
$181 $144 $255
$178
$173
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
5%
5%
2%
10%
11%
11%
13%
2%
12%
12%
10%
20%
31%
31%
28%
34%
10%
9%
8%
10%
CONVENTIONAL SF HOMES
THE ISLES
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOAFees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 0)
Average Minimum Maximum
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
2002 (N = 2)
Average Minimum Maximum
$323,500 $285,000 $362,000
2,251 1,995 2,507
7,800 7,800 7,800
2002 2002 2002
000
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,896 $1,884 $1,908
$144 $143 $144
$144
$144
2003 (N = 35)
Average Minimum Maximum
$306,768 $237,500 $435,000
1,830 1,520 2,507
6,000 6,000 6,000
2002 2002 2003
1 - 1
$1,366 $698 $3,992
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,837 $1,604 $2,100
$168 $143 $186
$168
$170
2004 (N = 23)
Average Minimum Maximum
$377,239 $272,500 $510,000
1,943 1,520 2,507
9,889 7,581 12,197
2002 2001 2003
2 1 3
$3,776 $568 $5,683
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,953 $1,764 $2,220
$194 $176 $225
$194
$194
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
17%
17%
18%
-5%
16%
16%
14%
23%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
16%
16%
16%
8%
CONVENTIONAL SF HOMES
EGRET LAN DING
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOAFees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 44)
Average Minimum Maximum
$296,577 $199,000 $412,000
2,563 1,750 3,424
9,562 7,405 19,602
1998 1995 2000
3 1 6
$4,231 $1,640 $6,911
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,045 $620 $1,516
$117 $100 $153
$116
$115
2002 (N = 55)
Average Minimum Maximum
$342,919 $210,000 $525,000
2,638 1,751 4,013
10,409 7,840 20,000
1998 1994 2002
408
$5,292 $1,768 $7,647
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,098 $740 $1,300
$131 $104 $175
$130
$130
2003 (N = 40)
Average Minimum Maximum
$392,706 $290,000 $500,000
2,716 1,815 3,863
10,203 7,405 15,246
1999 1995 2002
4 1 8
$5,756 $2,242 $8,557
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,101 $1,100 $1,140
$147 $118 $179
$145
$146
2004 (N = 44)
Average Minimum Maximum
$458,011 $330,000 $590,000
2,689 1,792 3,499
9,556 1,307 13,504
1999 1994 2003
5 1 10
$5,622 $1,968 $7,278
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$1,100 $1,100 $1,100
$172 $134 $234
$170
$171
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
12% 12% 17% 48% 15%
12% 11% 18% 47% 14%
13% 12% 17% 48% 14%
16% 15% 17% 54% 16%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
24
-------
Case Study 2: Afton Village
Afton Village is a relatively young smart growth community in Concord, North Carolina. It did not have
any residential resales before 2003. To generate sufficient data about price per square foot of houses in the
community, resales in Afton Village and its comparable community were pulled for consecutive years
beginning in 2003 and ending in 2005. To obtain MLS records and qualitative data, a real estate broker
with extensive local knowledge was hired. Afton Village is a mixed-use neighborhood that has more
townhouses than single-family detached dwellings. One community was deemed appropriately comparable
for the case study evaluation: Laurel Park. Laurel Park is one mile from Afton Village and contains only
single-family detached houses. There are no nearby comparable communities for townhouses. Another
mixed-use community was breaking ground in early 2006 but was too young to compare to Afton Village.
Consequently, only single-family detached houses were considered in this case study.
Project Websites
Afton Village: http://www.aftonvillage.com/
Laurel Park: http://www.niblockhomes.com/default.aspx?niblock=26&obild=14
Smart Growth Community Description: Afton Village
Project Summary
Afton Village is a smart growth community of 180 acres outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, with office
space, 150,000 square feet of retail, 525 residential units, schools, and recreational amenities. Afton Village
contains a variety of dwelling types, including single-family detached homes, duplexes, cottages, lofts,
townhouses, apartments, and live/work units. The first single-family detached homes were constructed in
1999.
Location
Afton Village is adjacent to Interstate 85, approximately seven miles from the center of Concord and 20
miles from downtown Charlotte. Afton Village's school-aged residents have access to Cabarrus County
elementary, middle, and high schools, which are considered desirable when compared with other regional
public schools.
Home Characteristics
The residences in Afton Village are constructed by numerous custom builders, but the community's homes
all have certain unifying characteristics. The houses were designed with historical southeastern residences
in mind and have either brick or long-lasting fiber-cement siding facades. All roofs are constructed of
architectural shingles. The single-family detached dwellings in the community have two-car garages, which
are accessed through rear alleys. Most of Afton Village's houses have front porches that are eight feet deep,
enough for homeowners to use them as functioning outdoor rooms.
Community Amenities
Afton Village's Main Street is walking distance from most of the community's houses. The Main Street
includes a supermarket, library, post office, bakery, dentist's office, and other retail establishments. Afton
Village's residents have access to a community pool, tennis court, and park within walking distance of their
homes. The community also contains a new YMCA, although membership fees must be paid in addition to
homeowners' association dues. Community design principles incorporate sidewalks throughout the
neighborhood that are wider than the typical four- to six-foot-wide sidewalks.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 25
-------
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Laurel Park
Project Summary
Laurel Park is one mile from Afton Village. The community's first homes were constructed in 2001. It is
not a mixed-use community and includes only single-family detached residences. Some homes, called patio
homes, are single story. The patio homes are considered competitive with small single-family detached
dwellings because both unit types do not share any common walls.
Location
The community is near Interstate 85, off the same exit as Afton Village. It is also 20 miles from downtown
Charlotte and approximately seven miles from Concord. Laurel Park is very close to the supermarket and
the other amenities along Main Street in Afton Village, but those amenities are not easy to access on foot
from Laurel Park. Laurel Park's school-aged residents attend the same desirable Cabarrus County
elementary, middle, and high schools as Afton Village's children.
Home Characteristics
Laurel Park's homes use a typical suburban site layout, with each home having a street-facing, two-car
garage. The lots for homes in Laurel Park are slightly larger than those on which single-family detached
units sit in Afton Village. The community is considered comparable in terms of construction quality,
although construction materials differ for siding and roofing. Many homes have shutters, and some contain
porches.
Community Amenities
The community has a playground and two swim and tennis clubs. Laurel Park also has a scenic pond with a
pavilion, which serves as a community focal point. Laurel Park residents also use the YMCA at Afton
Village.
Resale Performance Comparison: Afton Village and Laurel Park
In 2003, 2004, and 2005, Afton Village had 11 resales, with three homes resold in the first year of
investigation, four in the second, and four in the third. Laurel Park had 13 resales in the same time frame,
two in 2003, two in 2004, and nine in 2005. The data indicate that Afton Village's resold single-family
detached dwellings had a CAGR of 0 percent, while the CAGR of homes in Laurel Park was -2 percent.
There are too few records to determine a top performer between the two communities. Investigation in
future years may reveal more records from which conclusions can be drawn.
Top Performer: None. The number of resales in both communities is insufficient to draw a conclusion.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 26
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
AFTON VILLAGE
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
Average
$227,000
2,197
5,953
1999
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
$240
$105
$103
$105
2003 (N = 3)
Minimum
$192,500
1,723
5,227
1999
3
n/a
n/a
n/a
$240
$97
Maximum
$270,000
2,783
6,969
2000
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
$240
$112
Average
$256,875
2,433
7,034
2000
4
#DIV/0!
n/a
n/a
$240
$109
$106
$114
2004 (N = 4)
Minimum
$228,500
1,983
5,487
1999
3
$0
n/a
n/a
$240
$88
Maximum
$321,000
3,628
9,583
2001
5
$0
n/a
n/a
$240
$118
Average
$210,125
2,020
n/a
2000
6
n/a
n/a
n/a
$405
$105
$104
$107
2005 (N= 4)
Minimum
$165,000
1,533
n/a
1999
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
$240
$85
Maximum
$247,500
2,462
n/a
2001
6
n/a
n/a
n/a
$900
$119
2003-2004 2004-2005 2003-2005 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
4%
2%
9%
13%
-4% 0%
-1% 1%
-6% 2%
-18% -7%
0%
0%
1%
-4%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
LAUREL PARK
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
Average
$229,950
2,455
7,187
2002
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
$118
$94
$94
$94
2002-2003
% change of price per square foot 2%
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft 5%
% change of median price/sq ft 2%
% change of sales prices 42%
2003 (N = 2)
Minimum
$224,900
2,440
6,534
2002
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
$118
$91
2003-2004
-6%
-7%
-6%
-14%
Maximum
$235,000
2,469
7,840
2002
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
$118
$96
Average
$326,355
3,326
13,503
2003
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
$900
$96
$98
$96
2002-2004 CAGR
-4% -2%
-2% -1%
-4% -2%
22% 11%
2004 (N = 2)
Minimum
$223,000
2,716
7,840
2002
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
$900
$82
Maximum
$429,709
3,936
19,166
2004
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
$900
$109
Average
$281,378
3,079
11,761
2002
3
n/a
n/a
n/a
$451
$90
$91
$90
2005 (N = 9)
Minimum
$191,000
2,227
6,098
2001
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
$450
$74
Maximum
$430,000
4,006
21,780
2004
4
n/a
n/a
n/a
$456
$107
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
27
-------
Case Study 3: Amelia Park
Amelia Park is an award-winning, master-planned greenfield development in Fernandina Beach, Florida.
Breakers at Ocean Reach is a development of single-family detached dwellings that was selected as an
appropriate market comparable. Its homes were built beginning in 1997 and are comparably sized.
Although Amelia Park includes townhouses and other attached dwellings, the surrounding area lacked a
comparable community with townhouses. Therefore, only single-family detached houses were measured in
this study. The necessary MLS data came from a Florida-based company specializing in real estate market
information. When selecting the comparable community, local brokers with extensive local experience
were consulted.
Project Websites
Amelia Park: http://www.ameliapark.com/
Breakers at Ocean Reach: No website found.
Smart Growth Community Description: Amelia Park
Project Summary
Amelia Park is a mixed-use community of 100 acres. The project's lead designer is a national leader in
traditional neighborhood developments. A local homebuilder was responsible for the community's
residential units. Construction on the community began in 1998. The community includes offices, retail,
residences, schools, and recreational amenities. Amelia Park's 400 homes include different types of
residences, such as custom homes, bungalows, and townhouses.
Location
Amelia Park is approximately 35 miles northeast of Jacksonville, Florida, just one mile from the Atlantic
Ocean. The closest major interstate is Interstate 95, which is 15 miles from the development. Amelia Park
is served by the Amelia Island School District.
Home Characteristics
Amelia Park's homes are different from many conventional suburban homes because the community allows
and even encourages certain commonly discouraged home modifications. For instance, residents are
allowed to build apartments and home offices above their garages to encourage neighborhood diversity.
Properties inhabited by owners and tenants are intermixed throughout the community. The homes also have
front porches that are deep enough to be used as outdoor rooms and garages that are accessed through rear
alleys. Most homes have siding and shutters.
Community Amenities
Amelia Park's Town Center, which contains more than 50,000 square feet of commercial space, a multi-
purpose meeting hall, and several office and civic buildings, is walking distance from the community's
homes and a five-minute walk from the community's geographical center. Some of the community's
amenities include sidewalks, gridded streets, and pedestrian walkways. Within walking distance of most
homes are Amelia Park's new YMCA, an eight-acre lake with recreational uses, and a Montessori school
that educates students from kindergarten through fifth grade.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Breakers at Ocean Reach
Project Summary
Breakers is one of two subdivisions in Ocean Reach and contains more expensive homes than the other
subdivision. It is a conventional suburban community that was constructed beginning in 1997. It contains
only single-family homes.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 28
-------
Location
The community is approximately one mile from the Amelia Park development, 35 miles northeast of
Jacksonville, and less than one mile from the Atlantic Ocean. Interstate 95, approximately 15 miles away,
is the closest major highway. Several office and retail shopping centers are within two miles of the
development. The community is not within walking distance of these amenities. The community's school-
aged residents attend Amelia Island schools.
Home Characteristics
The homes in Breakers at Ocean Reach are typical suburban dwellings. Most are stucco and include front-
facing, two-car garages. Some homes have screened-in pools, and lot sizes are large enough to
accommodate such an amenity behind virtually every home. The homebuilder is one of the largest in the
nation, with more than 50 years of construction experience.
Community Amenities
The community is built around a lake, similar to Amelia Park. Most homes are on curvilinear streets or cul-
de-sacs. Some streets have sidewalks and some do not. There are no recreational amenities in the
community. The new YMCA at Amelia Park is considered a draw for Breakers residents, as it is a very
short drive away.
Resale Performance Comparison: Amelia Park and Breakers at Ocean Reach
Both communities have healthy appreciation rates. Amelia Park's price per square foot CAGR between
2001 and 2004 was 10 percent, slightly less than the 11 percent CAGR achieved by homes in Breakers at
Ocean Reach. The communities' resale numbers were modest. From 2001 through 2004, there were 47
single-family detached homes resold in Amelia Park and 28 in Breakers at Ocean Reach. The square
footages of homes in Amelia Park were similar to those in Breakers on average, but the homes in Amelia
Park had much greater variability in size of interior space. The homes in Breakers were slightly older on
average than those in the smart growth community. Since data had to be obtained from a private company,
numbers on lot sizes and homeowners' association fees were not available. Qualitative evidence gathered
from brokers indicates that lot sizes tend to be smaller in Amelia Park. Their nearly identical annual
appreciation rates reveal that Breakers at Ocean Reach outperformed the smart growth counterpart by a
very slim margin.
Top Performer: Conventional suburban development
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 29
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
AMELIA PARK
Sales Price
Square Footage (Effective Adjusted)
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 9)
Average Minimum Maximum
$274,811 $157,500 $390,000
2,993 1,887 4,605
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1999 2000
2 1 2
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$91 $79 $99
$103
$94
2002 (N = 7)
Average Minimum Maximum
$243,500 $175,500 $409,000
2,282 1,887 3,680
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1999 2000
323
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$105 $93 $123
$107
$103
2003 (N = 18)
Average Minimum Maximum
$251,839 $136,800 $425,000
2,287 1,589 3,680
n/a n/a n/a
2001 1999 2003
204
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$110 $59 $129
$110
$113
2004 (N = 13)
Average Minimum Maximum
$289,338 $209,000 $400,000
2,386 1,709 2,918
n/a n/a n/a
2001 1999 2004
305
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$122 $92 $148
$121
$119
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004
16% 5% 11% 34%
3% 3% 10% 17%
10% 10% 6% 27%
-11% 3% 15% 5%
CAGR
10%
5%
8%
2%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
BREAKERS AT OCEAN REACH
Sales Price
Living Area in SF (EffectiveAdjusted)
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 7)
Average Minimum Maximum
$223,314 $76,400 $271,000
2,623 2,304 2,967
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1997 1999
324
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$87 $26 $105
$85
$95
2002 (N = 4)
Average Minimum Maximum
$247,250 $235,000 $270,000
2,682 2,308 2,930
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1997 1998
445
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$93 $82 $102
$92
$94
2003 (N = 10)
Average Minimum Maximum
$281,900 $235,000 $325,000
2,631 2,276 2,877
n/a n/a n/a
1997 1997 1998
656
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$107 $96 $119
$107
$106
2004 (N = 7)
Average Minimum Maximum
$307,357 $262,000 $377,500
2,580 2,304 2,789
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1997 1999
546
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$119 $103 $149
$119
$114
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
7% 15% 11% 38% 11%
8% 16% 11% 40% 12%
-1% 13% 7% 20%
11% 14% 9% 38% 11%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
30
-------
Case Study 4: Belmont Bay
Belmont Bay is located in Woodbridge, Virginia. It is an unusual development because it contains both a
smart growth neighborhood and a conventional suburban neighborhood. The development's first phase is a
residential area that was designed using conventional suburban development standards. Construction was
completed on the first dwellings as early as 1995. The second phase of development is the smart growth
neighborhood, which was planned as a mixed-use neighborhood using smart growth design techniques. The
smart growth neighborhood had its first homes constructed in 2000 and its first resales in 2002. Resales
from 2002, 2003, and 2004 were analyzed for this case study. The homes in both phases are predominantly
townhouses, so the comparison looks only at townhouses. To obtain MLS data and qualitative data about
the community, a broker specializing in Belmont Bay was selected. Because the two neighborhoods make
up the same development, the community description covers both projects, except where differences
between the smart growth neighborhood and the conventional suburban arise.
Project Website
Belmont Bay: http://www.belmontbay.com/
Community Description: Belmont Bay, Smart Growth and Conventional Suburban Phases
Project Summary
Belmont Bay is a 352-acre community that was still being constructed when the resale analysis was
completed in 2005. The first phase of construction, which includes the townhouses of the conventional
suburban development neighborhood, comprises 120 acres. The smart growth phase is 75 acres, with the
remaining 130 acres set aside for parks and open space, an 18-hole golf course, and the Occoquan Bay
National Wildlife Refuge. Belmont Bay fronts the Occoquan River. The smart growth neighborhood fronts
Belmont Bay Harbor, a 158-slip marina, which will anchor the neighborhood's planned town center.
Location
Belmont Bay is approximately 20 miles southwest of Washington, D.C., in Woodbridge, Virginia. The two
neighborhoods in Belmont Bay are served by the same schools, and Belmont Elementary School is
equidistant from both neighborhoods. The Belmont Bay community is within a few blocks of shopping,
offices, and bus transportation. The Virginia Rail Express (VRE) has a stop close to the community. The
conventional suburban development phase area is six blocks from the VRE station, and the smart growth
phase area is one mile away.
Home Characteristics
Many of the homes in the conventional suburban neighborhood have views of the river and the golf course
but have no direct access to the river. The conventional neighborhood also contains many higher-end
single-family detached homes, which were not included in the comparison because the smart growth
community contains predominantly townhouses and condominiums. The smart growth community's
townhouses tend to have more open floor plans but smaller square footages than the conventional suburban
development homes. The exteriors of the units stand out, as owners may choose from a variety of brick
color choices. Windows run three across and have non-working shutters. Gabled roofs with dormer
windows and tarpaper shingle roofs are standard. Townhouses front the sidewalks and are close to the
streets. Parking is in rear alleys and typically garaged. Some streets apply a stamped brick paver instead of
poured asphalt. On-street parking is common in the smart growth neighborhood. Narrow streets and small
blocks make this a very walkable neighborhood.
The townhouses in the conventional suburban neighborhood have less variety of brickwork, and the doors
and windows are not symmetrically organized to the facade. Units tend to be set back from the street and
provide front-loaded automobile access. The neighborhood has sidewalks, although the streets are wider
and follow a cul-de-sac pattern.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 31
-------
Community Amenities
The two neighborhoods of Belmont Bay have very different amenities and consequently serve different
demographic groups and lifestyles. The conventional suburban development portion of Belmont Bay has a
swimming pool, tennis courts, and a tot lot and has limited access to the river and marina. The smart
growth neighborhood has easy access to the marina and riverfront. It also has an 18-hole golf course. The
community's restaurant and the area in which the developer is planning to have retail storefronts are
walking distance from homes in the smart growth community. Both communities receive snow clearing,
trash removal, landscaping, and professional management through the homeowners' association.
Resale Performance Comparison: Two Neighborhoods in Belmont Bay
The average price per square foot of homes in the conventional suburban neighborhood of Belmont Bay
appreciated 22 percent annually, a greater CAGR than that of the smart growth neighborhood, which was
18 percent. The fact that the homes are in the exact same location speaks to their comparability. Yet there
were few resales within the smart growth area in 2002 and 2003, increasing the odds that a different picture
of annual growth rates may emerge if there are more resales in future years. In the conventional suburban
neighborhood, 76 homes were sold in 2002, 2003, and 2004. In the same years, just 41 homes were sold in
the smart growth neighborhood, and about half of those sales were in 2004. In the smart growth
neighborhood, the average home size was slightly larger and sales prices were generally higher. The
analysis determined that the conventional suburban development neighborhood is the top performer in this
comparison.
Top Performer: Conventional suburban development phase in Belmont Bay
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 32
-------
SMART GROWTH TOWNHOUSES
BELMONT BAY
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SO FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SO FT
2002 (N
Average
= 7)
Range
$340,331 $290,920 - $384,000
2,255
1,948
2001
1
$4,215
$3,960
$255
$641
$154
$151
$149
1,804-2,660
1,481 -2,195
2000 - 2002
0.5-2
$3,905 - $4,486
$3, 669 -$4,21 5
$236 - $271
$432 - $744
$132 -$179
2003 (N
Average
= 7)
Range
$397,557 $350,000 - $422,000
2,701
2,538
2002
1
$4,636
$4,356
$280
$690
$151
$147
$153
1,786-3,328
2,195-3,171
2001 - 2002
1 -2
$4,042 - $5,223
$3,797 - $4,908
$244 -$31 5
$660 - $720
$122 -$196
2004 (N
Average
= 27)
Range
$471,748 $365,000 - $545,000
2,247
2,238
2002
2
$4,315
$4,054
$261
$661
$215
$210
$213
1,728-3,328
1,372-3,746
2001 - 2004
0.5-3
$3,736 - $5,306
$3,510 -$4,986
$226 - $321
$600 - $720
$140 -$260
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sqft
% change of median price/sqft
% change of sales prices
-2%
-2%
2%
17%
42%
43%
40%
19%
40%
39%
43%
39%
18%
18%
19%
18%
CONVENTIONAL TOWNHOUSES
BELMONT BAY
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2002 (N
Average
= 18)
Range
$273,91 7 $235,000 - $330,000
1,836
2,222
1998
4
$3,762
$3,534
$227
$578
$151
$149
$149
1,600-2,880
1,599-2,910
1996-2001
1 -6
$3,364 -$4,622
$3,160 -$4,343
$203 - $279
$372 - $792
$111 -$173
2003 (N
Average
= 25)
Range
$307,700 $256,000 - $350,000
1,773
2,089
1998
5
$3,683
$3,461
$222
$691
$174
$174
$176
1,600-1,984
1,599-3,180
1995-2001
2-8
$3,328 - $3,960
$3, 127 -$3,721
$201 - $239
$432 - $960
$159 -$195
2004 (N
Average
= 33)
Range
$387,445 $329,900 - $455,000
1,741
2,074
1999
5
$3,654
$3,434
$221
$711
$224
$222
$222
1,440-1,986
1,599-3,036
1995-2001
3-9
$3,300 - $4,028
$3, 100 -$3,785
$1 99 - $243
$660 - $732
$176 -$268
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sqft
% change of median price/sqft
% change of sales prices
15%
16%
18%
12%
29%
28%
26%
26%
48%
49%
49%
41%
22%
22%
22%
19%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
33
-------
Case Study 5: Birkdale Village
Birkdale Village is a smart growth development in Huntersville, North Carolina, a rapidly growing suburb
of Charlotte. Hampton Ridge, also in Huntersville, was selected as the conventional suburban community
to compare with Birkdale Village. The first residential units in Birkdale Village were completed in 1999,
while dwellings in Hampton Ridge were constructed as early as 1996. The only housing for sale that is
common to both communities is single-family detached houses, although Birkdale also includes rental
apartments.
Project Websites
Birkdale Village: http://www.birkdalevillage.net/
Hampton Ridge: http://hampton-ridge.com/
Smart Growth Community Description: Birkdale Village
Project Summary
Birkdale Village is a 52-acre development outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, designed using smart
growth principles. It is pedestrian-oriented and has a grid street system. It has a mix of uses and includes
parks and open spaces and a town center with 360,000 square feet of commercial space, structured parking
facilities, and several hundred apartments above the retail storefronts. The retail space in the community
includes a mix of national chains and local retailers and is frequented by residents of the surrounding
communities in the northern portion of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. According to a project
synopsis generated by the Urban Land Institute, the community was achieving residential, retail, and office
rents that were significantly above market averages in 2005.20
Location
Birkdale Village is approximately 15 miles north of Charlotte. The community is five minutes west of
Interstate 77 by car. It is five minutes away from Lake Norman, a state park with boating, camping, fishing,
swimming, and hiking. The recreational areas of Blyth Landing and Jetton Park, as well as two grocery
stores, are also a five-minute drive from Birkdale Village. The community is three minutes from the
Birkdale Health Club and 35 minutes from the airport. Torrence Creek Elementary, Badley Middle, and
Hopewell High schools service the community and are approximately seven, nine, and thirteen minutes
from the town center, respectively. The high school is considered to be of very good quality. The
elementary and middle schools are good.
Home Characteristics
Although there are approximately 120 townhouses in Birkdale Village, the comparison focused on the
single-family detached housing, of which there are about 350 units. The single-family homes in Birkdale
Village have fiber cement siding and front porches. Home styles include one-story bungalows and two-
story, traditionally styled homes. Some houses have detached two-car garages while others have attached
two-car garages. The garages are typically behind the residences with alley access.
Community Amenities
Birkdale Village's residents have access to a swimming pool, tennis courts, and walking trails. In addition,
most homes are within walking distance of the amenities of the town center, including shopping,
restaurants, and a 16-screen movie theater.
20 Development Case Studies Database. "Birkdale Village." Urban Land Institute.
http://casestudies.uli.org/. Accessed April 3, 2007.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 34
-------
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Hampton Ridge
Project Summary
Hampton Ridge has 237 single-family detached homes in a conventional suburban development
community that was developed by four major builders (one national production builder and three local
builders). The community was nearing build-out during the time of this study in 2005.
Location
Hampton Ridge is accessed from the same exit as Birkdale Village off of Interstate 77 and is approximately
one mile east of the highway. According to the broker, one major drawback of the community is that there
are only two entrances, both of which are on a major road. Approximately five minutes away by car is a
shopping center anchored by national big-box tenants and a grocery store, with a few restaurants, a bank,
and a gas station. Lake Norman is approximately 15 minutes away, and the airport is about 35 minutes
away. The website for Hampton Ridge includes movie listings at the Birkdale Village cinema, indicating
that residents travel there for entertainment. Hampton Ridge is in the same school district as Birkdale
Village and is approximately the same distance from the schools.
Home Characteristics
The homes in Hampton Ridge are typical suburban single-family detached dwellings of two stories with
attached two-car garages. They have vinyl siding, although some homes have brick facades. Hampton
Ridge's houses generally do not have front porches.
Community Amenities
The community includes a swimming pool and two walking trails. The neighboring development has a
tennis court, which Hampton Ridge residents use.
Resale Performance Comparison: Birkdale Village and Hampton Ridge
Birkdale Village had a higher CAGR of sales price per square foot during the time periods studied than its
conventional suburban comparable. Birkdale Village saw prices per square foot increase at a rate of 5
percent per year, while in Hampton Ridge, prices per square foot rose 2 percent per year. The communities
had an ample number of records to draw a conclusion; Birkdale Village had 92 homes resold from 2001
through 2004, while Hampton Ridge had 65 resales in the same years. On average, the homes in Birkdale
Village were smaller and had lots that were approximately half the size of those found in Hampton Ridge.
By 2004, the average price per square foot in the smart growth community was $ 119, while in the
conventional suburban development community, the average price was $86 per square foot. The houses in
Hampton Ridge were a few years older than those in Birkdale Village. Overall, the qualities of the two
communities made them comparable.
Top Performer: Smart growth community
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 35
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
BIRKDALE VILLAGE
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 2)
Average Minimum Maximum
$167,500 $140,000 $195,000
1,639 1,287 1,990
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1999 1999
222
$2,015 $1,657 $2,373
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$367 $350 $384
$103 $98 $109
$102
$103
2002 (N = 11)
Average Minimum Maximum
$190,720 $149,400 $217,000
1,871 1,405 2,300
7,415 4,356 15,028
2000 1999 2001
2 1 3
$2,032 $1,751 $2,229
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$440 $384 $648
$102 $93 $118
$102
$101
2003 (N = 36)
Average Minimum Maximum
$217,365 $156,000 $318,000
1,953 1,288 3,120
7,841 3,180 17,424
2000 1999 2002
3 1 4
$2,081 $1,642 $2,642
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$430 $225 $480
$113 $90 $128
$111
$115
2004 (N = 43)
Average Minimum Maximum
$219,038 $149,600 $284,000
1,884 1,298 2,735
6,993 3,485 19,166
2001 1999 2003
3 1 5
$1,998 $1,556 $2,650
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$443 $108 $496
$119 $96 $143
$116
$122
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot -1%
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft 0%
% change of median price/sq ft -2%
% change of sales prices 14%
11%
9%
14%
14%
5%
4%
6%
1%
15% 5%
14% 4%
18% 6%
31% 9%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
HAMPTON RIDGE
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 15)
Average Minimum Maximum
$202,747 $160,750 $259,900
2,513 1,885 3,137
12,106 8,799 20,473
1998 1996 2000
3 1 5
$2,196 $1,882 $2,642
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$332 $210 $456
$81 $72 $92
$81
$80
2002 (N = 14)
Average Minimum Maximum
$198,246 $170,000 $225,000
2,516 2,065 2,973
11,347 9,583 13,939
1999 1997 2001
4 1 5
$2,177 $1,884 $2,442
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$328 $210 $360
$79 $69 $89
$79
$80
2003 (N = 13)
Average Minimum Maximum
$198,046 $173,000 $226,000
2,444 1,750 3,068
12,052 9,583 19,166
1998 1997 2000
536
$2,172 $1,877 $2,471
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$347 $312 $360
$82 $74 $99
$81
$81
2004 (N = 23)
Average Minimum Maximum
$207,839 $167,000 $244,500
2,447 1,758 3,053
12,622 7,971 24,394
1999 1996 2003
92 1 1998
$2,202 $1,888 $2,457
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$350 $216 $480
$86 $73 $99
$85
$85
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
-2% 4% 4% 5% 2%
-2% 3% 5% 5%
0% 1% 6% 7%
-2% 0% 5% 3% 1%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
36
-------
Case Study 6: Celebration
Celebration is a smart growth development in northern Osceola County, Florida, a part of the Orlando
metropolitan area that grew rapidly in the early 2000s. To select a comparable community, access the MLS
system, and provide local qualitative information, a broker familiar with the market in and around
Celebration was selected. Hunter's Creek, a high-end conventional suburban development project in nearby
Windermere, Florida, was selected as the comparable community for the case study. The comparable
community is not in Osceola County because of the lack of high-quality residential development occurring
in the county and the distinctive nature of the development at Celebration. Despite this difference, they are
true market counterparts. Residential units in both communities were completed in 1997. Celebration
includes townhouses, although the broker was unable to find a comparable townhouse community. As such,
the case study presented below analyzes data on single-family detached home resales in 1998, 2000, 2002,
and 2004.
Project Websites
Celebration: http://www.celebration.fl.us/
Hunter's Creek: http://www.hunterscreek.net/
Smart Growth Community Description: Celebration
Project Summary
Celebration was designed and developed by the Walt Disney Company. It was envisioned as a small
southeastern town with a strong sense of community, a mix of uses, and an architectural style common in
the 1940s in Florida. The community features several residential neighborhoods, each planned around a
public area. At build-out, the development will have approximately 5,000 housing units, including rentals,
on 4,900 acres, surrounded by a 4,700-acre protected greenbelt.
Location
Celebration is in Osceola County, approximately 20 miles south of downtown Orlando and just a few miles
south of Walt Disney World. It has easy access to shopping, the airport, and regional jobs through Interstate
4 and Toll Road 417. In 2006, the schools servicing Celebration were Celebration K8 School, rated A for
elementary and middle schools, and Celebration High School, rated C. The tax rate is slightly lower in
Osceola County than in nearby Orange County.
Home Characteristics
Celebration's houses have traditional southeastern exteriors with interiors. The homes have front porches
and front yards. Most of the homes have well-lit rear alleyways, which are used for services and garage
access. Architectural styles include Victorian, French Colonial, Plantation, Charleston Single, and Spanish
Mission Revival.
Community Amenities
Celebration provides a wide variety of amenities for residents. The community boasts five pools, four
soccer fields, and a baseball field. It also has natural preserves and walking trails winding through its
neighborhoods. Florida Hospital owns and operates a 60-acre health care facility in Celebration, which
includes a 60,000-square-foot fitness center open to residents. The Celebration Golf Club is an 18-hole
public course with a clubhouse and a youth practice range. In addition, Celebration has an 18-acre town
center that is a short walk or bike ride from most homes in the community. It is built around a lake and
includes shops, restaurants, a movie theater, offices, apartments, a bank, a post office, and a hotel. Most of
the shops are along a wide promenade that ends at the lakefront.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 37
-------
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Hunter's Creek
Project Summary
Hunter's Creek was developed by one of the largest private land developers in the country and is comprised
of 3,870 housing units in 45 neighborhoods on 4,000 acres. It was built around a natural creek and includes
a 600-acre conservation area.
Location
Hunter's Creek is 12 miles south of downtown Orlando. It is close to Interstate 4 and Toll Road 417, which
grant access to stores, the airport, and local employment centers. Three elementary schools, two middle
schools, and two high schools cover different sections of Hunter's Creek. The school system that services
Hunter's Creek is rated A for elementary and middle schools, which are in the community, and rated C for
the high schools, which is a short drive away. The tax rate is slightly higher in Hunter's Creek than in
Celebration because Hunter's Creek is in Orange County.
Home Characteristics
Most of the houses in Hunter's Creek include two-car, attached garages facing the street, but the largest
homes in the community have garages that accommodate three or more cars. Some homes have screened
porches, screened in-ground pools, and irrigation systems. The homes are built with block and stucco, and
the roofs are shingled.
Community Amenities
Hunter's Creek contains softball fields; soccer fields; six parks; and courts for basketball, racquetball,
tennis, and volleyball. A picnic area and playground also are available for residents. Vista Park, the newest
and largest community park, offers more than 20 acres of recreational opportunities, including a bike path.
The community is home to the semi-private Hunter's Creek Golf Club, which opened in 1986.
Resale Performance Comparison: Celebration and Hunter's Creek
Celebration and Hunter's Creek had the same CAGR of 6 percent per year between 1998 and 2004. In
Celebration, there were 341 resales, and in Hunter's Creek, there were 631 resales. These very large
numbers indicate that the conclusions drawn from the data are reliable indicators of the true appreciation
over time in the communities. On average, the homes in the two communities were the same age and had
nearly identical lot sizes. However, the average square footage of all homes resold in Celebration was
larger than the average for Hunter's Creek. This is not unusual, as many case studies reveal comparable or
larger square footages in smart growth communities. Additionally, the average home sales price in
Celebration in 2004 was more than twice the average in Hunter's Creek in the same year. Accordingly, the
prices per square foot tended to be higher in Celebration. Despite these differences, the characteristics of
the developments indicate that they are competitive with each other, which may explain their identical
appreciation rates.
Top Performer: None. Tie between the conventional suburban and smart growth communities.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 38
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
CELEBRATION
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
1998(N=2)
Average Minimum Maximum
$272,500 $230,000 $315,000
2,494 2,494 2,494
n/a n/a n/a
1997 1997 1997
1 1 1
$1,578 $956 $2,200
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$126 $126 $126
$126
$126
2000 (N = 56)
Average Minimum Maximum
$366,406 $203,500 $680,000
2,679 1,604 4,506
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1996 2000
304
$4,264 $1,218 $8,234
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$641 $404 $1,584
$137 $102 $192
$139
$136
2002 (N = 82)
Average Minimum Maximum
$413,894 $192,000 $1,135,000
2,826 1,244 5,650
8,638 2,475 18,460
1998 1996 2002
406
$5,704 $768 $15,680
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$844 $652 $3,520
$144 $103 $219
$146
$140
2004 (N= 201)
Average Minimum Maximum
$512,934 $249,000 $2,650,000
2,838 1,289 8,100
8,096 1,350 15,301
2000 1996 2004
408
$6,192 $743 $21,511
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$929 $572 $8,888
$182 $128 $353
$181
$180
1998-2000 2000-2002 2002-2004 1998-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
8%
11%
7%
34%
5%
5%
3%
13%
26%
23%
29%
24%
44%
43%
43%
88%
6%
6%
6%
11%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
HUNTER'S CREEK
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
1998 (N = 16)
Average Minimum Maximum
$167,463 $106,500 $272,000
2,119 1,310 3,166
7,474 5,000 11,700
1997 1997 1998
1 0 1
$1,546 $170 $5,000
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$581 $180 $1,184
$78 $65 $99
$79
$76
2000 (N = 95)
Average Minimum Maximum
$191,581 $115,000 $365,000
2,198 1,438 3,857
7,684 4,648 17,424
1998 1997 2000
203
$1,999 $372 $5,708
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$477 $20 $1,184
$87 $61 $113
$88
$87
2002 (N= 201)
Average Minimum Maximum
$200,153 $123,000 $340,000
2,219 1,133 3,758
7,214 610 11,163
1999 1997 2002
305
$2,641 $486 $4,962
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$466 $20 $1,812
$91 $53 $128
$91
$91
2004 (N= 31 9)
Average Minimum Maximum
$254,042 $150,000 $525,000
2,284 1,410 4,293
8,020 5,000 15,000
2000 1997 2004
407
$3,159 $140 $6,821
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$447 $4 $2,200
$112 $59 $153
$111
$112
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
1998-2000 2000-2002 2002-2004 1998-2004
11% 5% 24% 44%
11% 3% 23% 41%
15% 5% 23% 48%
14% 4% 27% 52%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
39
-------
Case Study 7: Fairview Village
Fairview Village is a smart growth community in Fairview, Oregon. A broker based in Fairview was
selected to identify a market competitor, gather MLS data, and give detailed project descriptions for a full
understanding of the two communities. Lakeview Estates was selected as the conventional suburban
community for this analysis. While Fairview Village has some attached and multifamily dwelling units,
they were not included in this case study because there is no community nearby that serves as a market
counterpart. The study was conducted in 2005 and examines only single-family detached dwellings.
Construction on the developments began around the same time. In Lakeview Estates, only resold homes
without a lake view were included in the analysis because the broker attests that buyers seeking a lake view
would not consider any homes that did not have that particular amenity. Thus Fairview Village was not a
true comparable for those buyers.
Project Websites
Fairview Village: http://www.fairviewvillage.com/
Lakeview Estates: No website found.
Smart Growth Community Description: Fairview Village
Project Summary
Fairview Village is a 93-acre, mixed-use community being developed by a regional homebuilder, which
will contain more than 600 households at build-out. Single-family detached homes, townhouses,
apartments, and live/work units can be found in the development. A primary goal of the project is to create
a community where connections between people can develop easily. To this end, Fairview Village is
designed to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly. The site layout and home designs were modeled after
historic garden communities such as Shaker Heights outside of Cleveland, Ohio.
Location
The development is along the southern border of Fairview's historic residential center. It has easy access to
Interstate 84 and is 14 miles from downtown Portland. The Portland International Airport is 11 miles away.
Fairview Village is serviced by Portland-area public transit and the Reynolds School District. The
community has one elementary school and one preschool within its boundaries.
Home Characteristics
Designs for single-family detached homes in Fairview Village were inspired by Portland's historic
neighborhoods. Styles include Traditional Craftsman, Queen Anne, and Tudor. Despite this broad range of
styles, there is some cohesiveness in the community, as virtually all of the homes have old-world styling
and covered front porches. The homes' garages are detached and are behind each property, accessed via
alleys. According to the broker, lot sizes within Fairview Village tend to be smaller than those in typical
suburban developments. The community has numerous homeowners' associations, each taking care of their
respective buildings and maintaining their public areas.
Community Amenities
Retail storefronts, offices, and civic institutions are in the development. Stores include national big-box
retailers, which are at the project's perimeter yet are still integrated with the pedestrian-friendly nature of
the community. Fairview Village has several public parks. Additionally, it contains Fairview City Hall, a
library, a post office, and an elementary school.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 40
-------
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Lakeview Estates
Project Summary
Lakeview Estates is a conventional suburban development community with homes constructed as early as
1994. The price range and average square footages of the homes in the development are nearly identical to
those of Fairview Village, making it an excellent market comparison.
Location
The development is two miles south of Fairview Village and within a five-minute drive of the amenities in
Fairview Village, such as the post office, shops, and city hall. Lakeview Estates is near the Columbia River,
which has boating and other water sports. A public boat ramp is one mile from the community. Lakeview
Estates is in the same school district as Fairview Village, Reynolds School District.
Home Characteristics
The subdivision's lot sizes are described as standard for a conventional suburban development in this
market. Most homes have attached, street-facing, two-car garages, but some have garages that can
accommodate three cars.
Community Amenities
Homes in Lakeview Estates have access to the lake via a public park. The lake can be used for recreational
activities, including boating. The community does not have any other significant amenities that affect home
prices.
Resale Performance Comparison: Fairview Village and Lakeview Estates
Fairview Village's home prices per square foot increased 7 percent annually between 2001 and 2004,
exceeding Lakeview Estates' CAGR of 6 percent. There were 41 resales in Fairview Village during the
years studied and 103 resales in Lakeview Estates. The homes in both communities were comparable in
terms of living area, year constructed, property taxes, and annual homeowners' association dues.
Qualitative evidence from the realtor indicates smaller lot sizes in Fairview Village, a common trade-off for
the conveniences found in a smart growth community. The price per square foot was slightly higher in the
smart growth community in all years studied, making Fairview Village the top performer by a small
margin.
Top Performer: Smart growth community
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 41
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
FAIRVIEW VILLAGE
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 5)
Average Minimum Maximum
$189,400 $159,000 $237,000
1,721 1,260 2,238
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1996 1999
325
$2,594 $2,265 $3,272
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$258 $135 $600
$112 $101 $126
$114
$114
2002 (N = 12)
Average Minimum Maximum
$212,914 $153,000 $349,000
1,738 1,179 2,985
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1996 2000
426
$2,727 $1,926 $4,269
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$241 $120 $660
$123 $110 $140
$124
$121
2003 (N = 13)
Average Minimum Maximum
$272,742 $196,750 $419,500
2,115 1,540 3,172
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1996 2002
4 1 7
$3,109 $2,159 $5,280
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$242 $110 $600
$129 $114 $139
$129
$129
2004 (N = 11)
Average Minimum Maximum
$230,190 $169,500 $347,950
1,697 1,151 2,470
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1996 2002
528
$2,610 $1,926 $3,388
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$256 $120 $720
$137 $113 $162
$136
$138
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004
10% 5% 6% 23%
8% 4% 5% 19%
7% 7% 7% 21%
12% 28% -16% 22%
CAGR
7%
6%
7%
7%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
LAKEVIEW ESTATES
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 13)
Average Minimum Maximum
$186,162 $129,900 $245,000
1,796 1,472 2,278
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1996 2000
3 1 5
$2,799 $1,922 $3,678
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$126 $100 $204
$103 $87 $120
$104
$106
2002 (N =19)
Average Minimum Maximum
$199,353 $149,000 $280,000
1,858 1,256 2,732
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1995 2001
4 1 7
$2,822 $1,582 $3,928
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$552 $300 $624
$108 $96 $127
$107
$106
2003 (N = 29)
Average Minimum Maximum
$210,883 $135,900 $279,900
1,814 1,284 2,385
n/a n/a n/a
2000 1996 2002
3 1 7
$2,706 $1,858 $3,553
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$457 $75 $1,104
$116 $91 $135
$116
$115
2004 (N = 42)
Average Minimum Maximum
$209,430 $140,000 $360,000
1,714 1,247 2,891
n/a n/a n/a
2000 1994 2003
5 1 10
$2,595 $1,562 $5,763
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$572 $108 $1,284
$122 $94 $159
$122
$121
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
5% 7% 5% 18% 69
15%
12%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
42
-------
Case Study 8: Haile Village Center
Haile Village Center is a 50-acre, mixed-use neighborhood at the core of Haile Plantation, a 1,700-acre
development in Alachua County, Florida. While Haile Plantation was envisioned as a smart growth
community, in application only the Village Center has been developed with the walkable, gridded streets;
small lot sizes; and small setbacks that characterize such communities. For this reason, only Haile Village
Center was considered in this study. Due to changes in the MLS system, historical sales records were
unavailable from traditional real estate agents. Consequently, a Florida-based company specializing in real
estate market information was selected to pull data on the communities and determine an appropriate
market comparable. The conventional suburban development community selected for the comparison is
Sterling Place, which started construction in 1998. Haile Village Center contains a mix of residential
building types. Only single-family detached homes were used for this study, due to the lack of available
comparable communities for multifamily dwellings.
Project Websites
Haile Village Center: http://www.haileguide.com/
Sterling Place: No website found.
Smart Growth Community Description: Haile Village Center
Project Summary
Haile Village Center is only a half-mile long north to south, which means residents have easy access to the
amenities at the village's core. The main goal at Haile Plantation is creating a place with a sense of
community through a blend of 200 distinctive homes, diverse residents, natural trails, and recreational
amenities in a mixed-use setting.
Location
Haile Village Center is four miles southwest of downtown Gainesville and five miles from the University
of Florida. It is near Interstate 75.
Home Characteristics
The single-family detached homes in Haile Village Center were constructed as early as 1996. The houses
have columned porches with crawl spaces, verandas, high ceilings, and extensive wood detail, similar to
traditional Southern cottages found in older Florida cities. Certain lots permit homeowners to construct
apartments above their garages or operate businesses, including bed-and-breakfast inns. Some home sites
are reserved for custom homes, which can be designed and built by the architect and builder of the owner's
choice.
Community Amenities
The amenities in Haile Village Center are designed to facilitate social interaction and community spirit.
Residents can visit the weekly farmers' market or walk or bike to the community's playgrounds and trails.
Within a short walk of most homes in the development, the Village Center provides medical services, a
market, a cafe, a bank, a post office, and several boutique shops. Additional recreational facilities are
available for an added fee through the Haile Plantation Golf and Country Club, which has tennis courts, a
swimming pool, and a golf course. The community has many social groups for residents, including a book
club, garden club, and bridge club. At the heart of Haile Village Center are the Meeting Hall and Plaza,
which serve as gathering places for weddings, parties, and conferences.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Sterling Place
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 43
-------
Project Summary
Sterling Place was developed as a standard suburb by a regional developer that is emerging as a leader in
green building. Single-family detached homes were constructed as early as 1998. The community's street
patterns, which combine curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs, are similar to those found in most American
suburbs.
Location
The development is walking distance from A-rated Talbot Elementary School and a park. It is
approximately seven miles northeast of downtown Gainesville, eight miles from the University of Florida,
and two miles from the Gainesville Regional Airport. The nearest highway is 13 miles from the
development. Shopping centers are less than two miles from Sterling Place.
Home Characteristics
The homes in Sterling Place have large lawns and front-facing two-car garages on cul-de-sac streets. Some
homes have rear screened-in porches, and some units have pools. Most of the houses include luxury
amenities such as high ceilings, fireplaces, and Jacuzzi tubs in the master bathrooms. The majority of the
community's homes have siding exteriors.
Community Amenities
Limited information is available about this community's amenities. Streets do not have sidewalks along
both sides. Sterling Place is close to a grocery-anchored shopping center and three parks.
Resale Performance Comparison: Haile Village Center and Sterling Place
From 2001 through 2004, Haile Village Center had just one resale. In the same time period, Sterling Place
had 17 resales. There are too few records to determine a trend of price appreciation in Haile Village Center,
so a top performer cannot be declared in this case study. Future investigation of Haile Village Center in
later years or analysis of homes in Haile Plantation beyond the Village Center may yield sufficient resales
for a full analysis.
Top Performer: None. The number of resales in the smart growth community is insufficient to draw a
conclusion.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 44
-------
SMART GROWTH SF HOMES
HAILE VILLAGE CENTER
Sales Price
Square Footage (Effective Adjusted)
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 0)
Average Minimum Maximum
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
2002 (N = 0)
Average Minimum Maximum
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
2003 (N = 0)
Average Minimum Maximum
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
2004 (N = 1)
Average Minimum Maximum
$118,000 $118,000 $118,000
1,085 1,085 1,085
996 996 996
1996 1996 1996
888
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$109 $109 $109
$120
$109
2001 -2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001 -2004 CAG R
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
CONVENTIONAL SF HOMES
STERLING PLACE
Sales Price
Living Area in SF (EffectiveAdjusted)
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 3)
Average Minimum Maximum
$218,000 $192,000 $234,000
2,752 2,549 2,865
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1998 1999
323
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$79 $75 $82
$79
$80
2002 (N = 4)
Average Minimum Maximum
$221,225 $209,900 $235,000
2,688 2,535 2,901
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1998 2000
324
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$82 $79 $85
$82
$83
2003 (N = 9)
Average Minimum Maximum
$237,978 $195,000 $326,300
2,639 2,401 2,982
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1998 2000
435
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$90 $81 $109
$90
$89
2004 (N = 1)
Average Minimum Maximum
$265,000 $265,000 $265,000
2,499 2,499 2,499
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1998 1998
666
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$106 $106 $106
$106
$106
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001 -2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001 -2004 CAG R
4% 9% 18% 34% 10%
4% 10% 18% 34% 10%
4% 7% 19% 32% 10%
1% 8% 11% 22% 7%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
45
-------
Case Study 9: /'On
FOn is in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, a small city approximately seven miles northeast of Charleston. A
local broker familiar with FOn and its surrounding developments was selected to help identify a market
comparable, gather MLS data, and give detailed project descriptions for a full understanding of the two
communities. The conventional suburban community selected for the comparison is Belle Hall, which is 11
miles from downtown Charleston. Both communities contain only single-family detached homes.
Project Websites
FOn: http://www.ionvillage.com/
Belle Hall: http://bellehallplantation.com/
Smart Growth Community Description: I'On
Project Summary
FOn is a 243-acre, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented development. It had been under construction for
four years at the time of this case study. The first homes in FOn were completed in 1998, with 850 units
expected upon build-out. The developers aimed to establish a built environment that reinforces local
character, generates a sense of community, and provides high-quality homes.
Location
FOn is next to Route 17, which provides easy access to downtown Charleston. In addition, it is close to
both Interstate 526 and Interstate 26, which head to North Charleston, Daniel Island, and Interstate 95. The
community has one bus stop that connects it to the Charleston metropolitan area. The schools that service
the community, James B. Edwards Elementary, Moultrie Middle, and Wando High School, received a score
of "excellent" in the 2004 South Carolina State Report Card.
Home Characteristics
Each home in FOn is individually designed using the community's urban design guidelines and is
constructed by one of 21 approved independent builders. With lot sizes to accommodate a variety of home
styles and sizes, the builders provide homes ranging from 950 square feet to more than 6,500 square feet
for a wide range of individual tastes. The homes are built with quality and sustainability in mind and have
an architectural style that is appropriate to the region, which is referred to as "the Lowcountry." According
to the broker, homes typically are constructed with materials that "age gracefully," such as wood siding.
Only single-family detached homes are provided in the community, although the original plans called for
attached homes and multifamily units.
Community Amenities
The neighborhood has been designed to provide public access to the community's natural and manmade
amenities. Linear parks, playgrounds, a lakefront performance area, and a small commercial area are all
available in FOn. The development also has many paths that front the lake and marshes, allowing public
access to the natural spaces in and around the community. Commercial and civic structures throughout the
community include schools, a grocery store, a salon, several restaurants, law offices, and professional
suites. The developer created FOn Trust, a nonprofit organization, to help foster civic and cultural life in
the neighborhood and throughout the region. The trust has hosted numerous events, such as free symphony
concerts, garden tours and shows, guest speakers, wine festivals, outdoor movies, and art shows.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Belle Hall
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 46
-------
Project Summary
At 583 acres and with more than 1,800 homes, Belle Hall is an established development in Mt. Pleasant
consisting of seven subsections with different price ranges and home styles. The design of Belle Hall flows
from the smaller, lower-end homes closer to the entrance to the higher-priced homes in the back of the
development along the marsh. Belle Hall's first homes were constructed in 1993. Although many of the
subsections are built out, a few still had new construction occurring in 2005, such as the Evian and Hibben
subdivisions.
Location
The development is close to Interstate 526, which gives residents easy access to Interstate 26, North
Charleston, and Daniel Island. It is adjacent to the Jones Center, a Mt. Pleasant recreational facility with
athletic fields, an indoor swimming pool, and a basketball court. A few shops and restaurants are within
walking distance of the homes in Belle Hall. The community is in the Belle Hall Elementary School
District and shares the same high school as FOn. Belle Hall Elementary School, like most of the other
schools in Mt. Pleasant, received a score of "excellent" in the 2004 South Carolina State Report Card.
Home Characteristics
The community offers single-family detached dwellings of two types: tract homes and custom-built houses.
Most of the tract houses have vinyl siding, asphalt shingle roofs, and attached two-car garages. The custom-
built homes have strict architectural guidelines related to materials and design to attract high-end
homeowners.
Community Amenities
In addition to the city facilities located nearby, Belle Hall has its own clubhouse, two swimming pools, a
basketball court, and a play park. The community also has ponds for fishing and tennis courts.
Resale Performance Comparison: I'On and Belle Hall
Belle Hall, the conventional suburban development, had a CAGR of 12 percent between 2001 and 2004,
which exceeded the 10 percent CAGR of homes in FOn. During the years studied, there were 174 resales
in Belle Hall and 72 resales in I'On. The homes in Belle Hall were on average several years older than
those in the smart growth development. Residential properties in I'On were typically larger but had much
smaller lots. In addition, the average sales price in 2004 in I'On was nearly twice that of Belle Hall. The
price per square foot was significantly higher in the smart growth community in all years studied.
Top Performer: Conventional suburban development community
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 47
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
I'On
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N =4)
Average Minimum Maximum
$413,000 $280,000 $589,000
2,299 1,550 2,967
6,389 2,613 11,325
1999 1998 2000
2 1 3
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$400 $400 $400
$180 $156 $199
$180
$182
2002 (N = 9)
Average Minimum Maximum
$486,333 $350,000 $765,000
2,670 1,928 3,650
6,804 5,227 8,712
1999 1998 2001
3 1 4
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$467 $400 $500
$181 $154 $210
$182
$182
2003 (N = 30)
Average Minimum Maximum
$525,987 $303,500 $850,000
2,657 1,540 3,958
7,066 2,614 13,068
2000 1998 2002
3 1 5
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$500 $500 $500
$198 $160 $254
$198
$191
2004 (N = 29)
Average Minimum Maximum
$593,606 $355,000 $900,000
2,514 1,520 3,900
6,029 2,178 10,890
2000 1998 2003
4 1 6
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$500 $500 $500
$238 $191 $313
$236
$229
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
1% 9%
1% 9%
0% 5%
18% 8%
20%
19%
20%
13%
32%
31%
26%
44%
10%
10%
8%
13%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
Belle Hall
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 86)
Average Minimum Maximum
$197,561 $151,000 $600,000
1,903 1,300 3,711
11,191 6,969 30,926
1997 1993 1999
428
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$373 $315 $395
$104 $74 $162
$106
$101
2002 (N = 67)
Average Minimum Maximum
$225,287 $158,500 $730,000
1,983 1,328 3,750
11,424 6,098 27,442
1996 1993 2000
629
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$395 $250 $500
$111 $85 $195
$114
$109
2003 (N = 59)
Average Minimum Maximum
$226,875 $164,900 $577,000
1,976 1,300 3,716
10,135 7,405 19,950
1997 1993 2000
6 3 10
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$417 $330 $500
$115 $98 $155
$115
$115
2004 (N = 62)
Average Minimum Maximum
$292,411 $182,700 $825,000
1,996 1,300 5,000
12,453 6,969 32,669
1998 1993 2003
7 1 11
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$427 $125 $500
$144 $101 $223
$147
$141
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
7% 4% 25% 39% 12%
7% 1% 28% 38% 11%
8% 5% 22% 40% 12%
14% 1% 29% 48% 14%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
48
-------
Case Study 10: Kentlands and Lakelands
Kentlands and Lakelands are two smart growth communities in Gaithersburg, Maryland, part of the greater
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. These two master-planned communities were developed separately,
with different developers and builders, but they are adjacent and share one town center. Many of the
residential and commercial streets in one project continue into the other project without interruption. To the
casual visitor, it is sometimes difficult to determine where one project ends and the other begins. A local
broker was selected to provide MLS data. The conventional suburban community for comparison is Quince
Orchard Park, which is across the street from the two smart growth communities. Houses were built
beginning in 1990 in Kentlands, 1995 in Lakelands, and 1996 in Quince Orchard Park. All three
communities contain single-family detached houses and townhouses. Therefore, it was possible to examine
sales performance for both types of housing for the years 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Project Websites
Kentlands: http://www.kentlandsusa.com/
Lakelands: http://www.lakelands.org/
Quince Orchard Park: http://www.quinceorchardpark.com/
Smart Growth Community Description: Kentlands
Project Summary
Kentlands, on 352 acres, is one of the first master-planned smart growth communities ever developed. The
project provides a broad mix of housing types, including live-work units, senior housing, in-law quarters
above garages, and apartments. There are also commercial, religious, and civic uses in the project.
Kentlands is a walkable community, with narrow streets, small blocks with many intersections, alleys, and
pedestrian paths, making it easy for people to get around by car, bike, or foot. A primary goal of the project
is to give residents convenient access to goods, services, recreation, and jobs without having to drive.
Location
Kentlands is approximately 22 miles from Washington, D.C. It is bounded by Great Seneca Highway,
Quince Orchard Road, and Darnestown Road. Kentlands is three miles from the intersection of 1-270 and I-
370.1-270 is the primary north-south highway in Montgomery County and provides direct access to 1-495,
the Washington Beltway. A Montgomery County Ride On bus provides local service to and from the Shady
Grove Metro Station, which is about seven miles from Kentlands. Rachel Carson Elementary School is in
Kentlands, Lakelands Park Middle School is in Lakelands, and the local public high school, Quince
Orchard, is less than a mile from the development.
Home Characteristics
There are over 2,000 residential units at Kentlands, ranging from single-family detached homes to rental
housing above rear garages. Within this range are townhouses, cottages, brownstones, live-work units,
condominiums, senior housing, and rental apartment units. The architectural styles at Kentlands range from
Federalist and Colonial to Victorian and Craftsman. Materials are appropriate to their respective style and
include stone, brick, wood, and siding. Although the housing stock may look custom built, it was
constructed by local production builders. The single-family detached lot sizes vary from 1,000 square feet
to over 12,000 square feet, with unit sizes ranging from 1,200 square feet to 4,500 square feet. The
townhouse lots range from 1,000 square feet to over 8,000 square feet, but typically are 3,000 square feet.
Unit size ranges from 1,000 square feet to almost 3,500 square feet. Single-family and townhouse garages
are typically in the rear of the lots and accessed by alleys.
Community Amenities
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 49
-------
Kentlands has numerous parks, tot lots, plazas, nature trails, and lakes, as well as clubhouses with
swimming and other recreational activities. A church sits across the street from Rachel Carson Elementary
School, and the city of Gaithersburg operates an arts center and a 99-seat theater in one of the converted
barns original to the property. There is a town center with a first-run movie theater, national and local
restaurants, shops, two full-service grocery stores, and other national big-box retailers. Live-work units
contain an eclectic mix of merchants and professional offices. All of these amenities are walkable from
anywhere in Kentlands. Similarly, as Lakelands and its streets integrate with Kentlands, the amenities in
Lakelands are also a short walk from Kentlands.
Smart Growth Community Description: Lakelands
Project Summary
Lakelands is a 343-acre master-planned community that incorporates most, if not all, of the smart growth
principles. Lakelands offers more than 1,600 residential units in a wide variety of housing types, along with
parks and other open spaces and a town center. The community has small blocks with many streets
intersections and rear alleys. This arrangement allows people to walk or drive to school, work, and other
neighborhood destinations. The project broke ground in 1995.
Location
Lakelands is approximately 22 miles from Washington, D.C. It fronts both Great Seneca Highway and
Darnestown Road. Like Kentlands, Lakelands is three miles from both 1-370 and 1-270, the primary north-
south highway in Montgomery County. 1-270 provides direct access to 1-495, the Washington Beltway.
Although no bus service runs through Lakelands proper, the Kentlands' Ride On bus that provides local
service to and from the Shady Grove Metro Station is less than a half mile from the town center. Lakeland
students attend Rachel Carson Elementary School in Kentlands, Lakelands Park Middle School in
Lakelands, and Quince Orchard High School, which is almost a mile and a half from Lakelands.
Home Characteristics
Lakelands offers a wide variety of housing types and price points. Although the architectural detailing of
the housing does not equal that of Kentlands, many architectural styles adorn the traditional homes with
front porches, side yards, and detached garages. There are also apartment buildings, apartments over
garages, and double-stacked townhouses. Much of the housing material is brick and production siding.
Almost all of the housing was built by national production builders. The single-family lots range from
1,000 square feet to over 10,000 square feet, while unit sizes range from less than 1,000 square feet to
almost 4,500 square feet. The townhouse lots range from less than 1,000 square feet to about 3,400 square
feet. Unit sizes range from 1,400 square feet to almost 3,000 square feet.
Community Amenities
Unlike conventional developments comprised of subdivisions, Lakelands is a collection of neighborhoods
that offer amenities for the entire community. The Muddy Branch Creek Natural Preserve bounds the
property on the east and offers trails, lakes, and wetlands. The city of Gaithersburg operates the Lakelands
Park, a regional park with baseball and soccer fields. Next to the city park is the Lakelands Park Middle
School, a synagogue, and a public playground operated by Lakelands. Lakelands has a corner store in a
residential neighborhood a few blocks from the town center. There is also a clubhouse with swimming and
other activities. Lakelands has numerous squares, plazas, greens, and playgrounds, as well as art work
sponsored by the city's art program. All of these amenities are accessible by car or on foot from anywhere
in Lakelands. Because the streets in Lakelands integrate with Kentlands, the public amenities in Kentlands
are also a short walk from Lakelands.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Quince Orchard Park
Project Summary
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 50
-------
Quince Orchard Park is a master-planned suburban community divided into two sections: a 200-acre
corporate office park and a 100-acre residential community with more than 500 housing units. While the
office buildings have large surface parking lots fronting the buildings, it is possible for residents to walk or
bike to the office buildings if they choose. The residential section has several smart growth elements
incorporated into the project, most likely due to the popularity and proximity of Kentlands and Lakelands.
Unlike most suburban residential communities that separate housing types by pods and cul-de-sacs, Quince
Orchard Park has made an effort to create a network of small blocks and intersecting streets. Small parks,
lakes, trails, tot lots, and recreational facilities are found throughout the project. At the time of this survey
in 2005, both the residential section and the office section still had available parcels for development. The
office park intends a total build-out of 1.45 million square feet of commercial space.
Location
Quince Orchard Park is across the street from Kentlands and Lakelands on Great Seneca Highway. It is the
same distance to Washington D.C., 1-270,1-370, and the 1-495 Beltway as the two smart growth
communities. Although no bus service runs through Quince Orchard Park, the Kentlands' Ride On bus that
provides local service to and from the Shady Grove Metro Station is about three-quarters of a mile from the
community. Residents of Quince Orchard Park are also in the school districts of both Lakelands Park
Middle School in Lakelands and Quince Orchard High School. The community elementary school is
Diamond Elementary School.
Home Characteristics
The residential units are single-family houses of various sizes, townhouses, and double-stacked
townhouses. Built as early as 1996, most of the housing units have brick on just the front, with siding
around the rest of the house, or siding is used on all sides. Some units have porches and rear garages. Most
single-family detached units have garages in the front of the house. The single-family detached houses sit
on lots that range in size from 2,100 square feet to over 4,600 square feet. The houses range in size from
1,500 square feet to almost 3,000 square feet. The townhouses sit on lots of 1,500 square feet to 3,000
square feet, while the unit sizes range from 1,500 square feet to 2,300 square feet.
Community Amenities
In addition to having an office park, Quince Orchard Park has a generous amount of amenities that enhance
the residential portion of the project. There are numerous playgrounds and tot lots, trails, lakes, a
community center with a swimming pool, and other recreational facilities throughout the community. The
Muddy Branch Creek Natural Preserve bounds Quince Orchard Park on the east side and include Lake
Halcyon, a reservoir that offers fishing. In addition to the internal amenities at Quince Orchard Park, the
community is almost immediately across the street from the Kentlands and Lakelands town center. Many
sales and marketing brochures for housing in Quince Orchard Park list the town center and other public
amenities at Kentlands and Lakelands as benefits of living in Quince Orchard Park.
Resale Performance Comparison: Kentlands. Lakelands, and Quince Orchard Park
The single-family homes in Kentlands appreciated with a CAGR of 16 percent per year, compared to 17
percent in Lakelands and 13 percent in Quince Orchard Park. Kentlands had 121 resales in 2000, 2002, and
2004, and Lakelands had 50 resales in the same years. Quince Orchard Park had 31 resales in 2002 and
2004 only. The CAGR for the conventional community is thus based on limited data. The homes were
comparable in average square footage and lot size. Kentlands is a bit older than the other communities. The
single-family homes in Kentlands received the highest price per square foot of all the developments in
these studies.
The townhouses in Quince Orchard Park appreciated 14 percent annually, while Kentlands and Lakelands
appreciated 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively. There were 120 townhouses that were resold in
Kentlands in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In the same years, Lakelands had 115 resales, and Quince Orchard
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 51
-------
Park had 63. These numbers are large enough to make a confident conclusion about the top performer in
the study. The lot sizes and square footages are similar, although Lakelands' lots tend to be smaller than the
other two communities. The homeowners' association fees were comparable to each other. Again,
Kentlands is a bit older than the other two communities and captured a higher average price per square foot.
Top Performer: Smart growth communities for single-family detached homes
Conventional suburban development community for townhouses
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 52
-------
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$4,255
$2,698
$589
$724
$176
$207
$168
$3,677
$2,283
$498
$600
$150
$5,157
$3,197
$698
$756
$216
$4,427
$2,790
$613
$786
$225
$234
$223
$672
$341
$144
$756
$182
$5,304
$3,315
$724
$816
$271
2000-2002 2002-2004 2000-2004
% change of price per square foot n/a 27% n/a
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft n/a 13% n/a
% change of median price/sq ft n/a 33% n/a
% change of sales prices n/a 39% n/a
CAGR
13%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
53
-------
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
$3,986
$2,404
$525
$660
$142
$140
$148
$3,558
$2,103
$459
$660
$106
$5,056
$3,115
$680
$660
$155
$4,200
$2,580
$563
$770
$179
$205
$183
$3,231
$2,095
$457
$600
$132
$4,991
$3,072
$670
$900
$221
$4,042
$2,541
$555
$841
$245
$242
$248
$2,775
$1,800
$393
$756
$179
$5,056
$3,115
$680
$1,272
$283
2000-2002 2002-2004 2000-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot 26% 37% 72% 14%
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft 46% 18% 72% 15%
% change of median price/sq ft 24% 35% 68% 14%
% change of sales prices 46% 30% 89% 17%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
54
-------
Case Study 11: King Farm
King Farm is a master-planned, smart growth community in Rockville, Maryland, a city in the greater
metropolitan region of Washington, D.C. It is the focus of two different comparative property examinations
in this case study. A local broker was selected to gather MLS data for both parts of this case study. There
were no conventional master-planned, suburban communities to compare to King Farm in the city of
Rockville of equal size, age of housing, or price point. However, other comparative opportunities were
examined, and peer reviewers of this publication accepted the comparative exercises in this case study.
King Farm is across the street from the Shady Grove Metro station, and the project is considered a transit-
oriented development, meaning it is centered around a transit center. Though not as dense as transit-
oriented projects in urban infill locations, King Farm's relationship to the Metro station is analogous to an
old streetcar suburb found in northern and midwestern cities. Also adjacent to the Metro station is Park
Overlook, a conventional suburban community. Although Park Overlook is older than King Farm, this
property comparison provides a good opportunity to examine housing sales in communities next to transit.
In addition to the transit-focused comparison, King Farm provides a location-based housing comparison.
King Farm is in Rockville, six miles closer to Washington, D.C., than the city of Gaithersburg, although
both municipalities are in Montgomery County. Municipal jurisdiction aside, both cities are in the same
housing market, so it is possible to compare King Farm to Quince Orchard Park, the conventional suburban
property selected in Case Study 10. (For community information about Quince Orchard Park, please refer
to the description in Case Study 10.)
The transit comparison in this case study is the only instance in this study in which age of housing between
the two comparative projects is mismatched. Construction at King Farm began in 1996, and homes built as
early as 1998 were available for study. Houses examined in Park Overlook were built between 1967 and
1987. Because both communities have single-family detached housing and townhomes, both housing types
were examined independently of each other.
A local broker with access to the regional MLS system was hired to provide data on resales during the time
period. Due to the smart growth community's young age, data were available only for 2002 through 2004.
Project Websites
King Farm: http://www.kingfarm.org/
Park Overlook: http://www.parkoverlook.org/
Quince Orchard Park: http://www.quinceorchardpark.com/
Smart Growth Community Description: Kins Farm
Project Summary
King Farm is a 440-acre, master-planned community made up of five neighborhoods, each with its own
defined center focusing on a prominent amenity, such as a park, a village center, or a community center.
All of the neighborhoods seamlessly connect with one another through an integrated street network of
narrow streets and small blocks. Residents, employees, and visitors can access any location in King Farm
by foot, bike, or car, including the Shady Grove Metro station across the street from the project. Houses
have detached garages with alleys running up the middle of most blocks. There are approximately 3,200
housing units of all types, including single-family homes, rentals, and condominiums, mixed with 125,000
square feet of neighborhood retail shops, including a national grocer, and 3,000,000 square feet of office
space. About half of this office space had been built at the time of this study. The walk from the town
center to the Metro station is approximately 10 minutes. King Farm has land set aside for an elementary
school and a middle school, although neither school had been built at the time of this study. Housing close
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 55
-------
to the street, on-street parking, picket fences, sidewalks, and street trees combine to make the public realm
safe, inviting, and interesting.
Location
King Farm is in the city of Rockville, the second largest city in Maryland after Baltimore. The project is
slightly more than three miles from Rockville's downtown and is 18 miles northwest of Washington, D.C.
The property is bounded by Rockville Pike on the east and 1-270 on the west side. Both the northern and
southern arterial streets that frame the community provide access to 1-270. Along with the Shady Grove
Metro station across the street, this access makes King Farm ideally situated in the D.C. metropolitan
market. Private shuttle service is available at different locations in King Farm to transport riders to and
from the Metro station. Two school districts cover King Farm, depending on the housing location. The
northern school cluster comprises Rosemont Elementary, Gaithersburg Middle, and Gaithersburg High.
The southern school cluster includes College Gardens Elementary, Julius West Middle, and Richard
Montgomery High.
Home Characteristics
All of the houses are positioned towards the front of the lot, and detached garage parking is accessed by
rear alleys, even for townhouses. Some different types of housing share the same block, and many different
housing types front the same street. The community has 825 single-family detached units and 425 single-
family attached units. The architectural style in King Farm adheres to the local styles, including Cape Cod,
Federal, and Colonial. The housing material is primarily brick and manufactured siding. Detached houses
in this study were built from 1998 to 2002. They range in size from 1,600 square feet to 3,700 square feet,
on lots between 1,700 and 8,900 square feet. Both national and local homebuilders were involved in the
construction.
Community Amenities
King Farm has a town center with shops, restaurants, services, and a grocery store situated around a village
green. There is an office park, a private shuttle to the Metro station, a community center, and 140 acres of
open space and parks that range in size and use from tot lots and ballfields to natural settings with ponds
and streams.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Park Overlook
Project Summary
Park Overlook is a planned community of approximately 180 acres. The project is comprised of pods of
townhouses and detached housing on cul-de-sacs, all connected to a collector road leading into and out of
the community. With its mature trees, Park Overlook is a leafy suburban enclave. The townhouses and
detached housing are separated from one another, but they share a community center, along with other
amenities.
Location
Park Overlook is in Derwood, a small municipality of about 5,000 people next to Rockville. Park Overlook
is slightly more than three miles from Rockville's downtown and 18 miles from Washington, D.C. The
community is bounded by 1-370, Redland Road, and Crabbs Branch Way and is about a 15-minute walk
from the Shady Grove Metro station. Abutting Park Overlook is another conventionally planned suburban
community. The schools covering Park Overlook are Candlewood Elementary, Shady Grove Middle, and
Gaithersburg High.
Home Characteristics
Park Overlook's townhouse facades are brick and contain elements of Federal and Contemporary
architectural styles. The single-family detached houses are two stories, some with small porches. The
facades are typically brick and manufactured siding. The houses and townhouses are set back from the
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 56
-------
street and have driveways leading to a garage in front of the houses and townhouses. Some of the pods
have reserved and guest parking in the center. Due to the community's age, the trees and shrubs around the
collector street are mature and lush. The detached housing ranges in size from 1,200 square feet to 2,550
square feet on lots from 12,000 square feet to 36,000 square feet. The townhouses range from 1,050 square
feet to 1,500 square feet on lots of 1,400 square feet to 2,400 square feet.
Community Amenities
Park Overlook has a number of amenities both inside and outside the project. The community has small
playgrounds and tot lots. There is also a community center with swimming and other recreational activities.
In addition, the development includes Blueberry Hill Park, a 20-acre recreational park featuring tennis
courts and ballfields and operated by Montgomery County. On the other side of Redland Road is Crabbs
Branch Stream Valley Park, a 138-acre park consisting of green space, streams, and recreational space.
Also less than a mile from Park Overlook and abutting Crabbs Branch Park is the Needwood Golf Course,
a public golf course offering one 18-hole course and an executive course. A neighborhood shopping center
anchored by the area's largest regional grocery store is less than a mile from the project.
Resale Performance Comparison: Kins Farm and Park Overlook
King Farm's single-family detached homes had a CAGR of 29 percent per year, which far exceeded the 19
percent CAGR of Park Overlook. King Farm had 38 home resales in 2002, 2003, and 2004, while Park
Overlook had just nine resales in the same years. It is difficult to determine whether these communities are
truly comparable because of the small number of resales in Park Overlook, the larger average home size
and smaller average lot size in King Farm, and the older age of Park Overlook's homes.
The townhouses in King Farm appreciated by 22 percent annually, which is greater than the 20 percent
appreciation in Park Overlook. King Farm had 74 resales in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and Park Overlook had
65. There are several issues with using these communities as comparables. Park Overlook's lot sizes and
home sizes are generally smaller than those in King Farm. Additionally, as mentioned above, the homes in
Park Overlook are more than 20 years older than those in King Farm. The homeowners' association fees
were comparable to each other.
Despite this information, the communities may be considered market comparables in terms of location,
making the smart growth community the top performer for both the townhouses and single-family detached
dwelling units.
Top Performer: Smart growth community for single-family detached homes
Smart growth community for townhouses
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 57
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
KING FARM
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2002 (N = 15)
Average Minimum Maximum
$572,846 $498,000 $629,900
3,330 2,660 3,735
5,990 4,683 7,203
2000 1998 2000
224
$7,285 $6,355 $8,365
$4,209 $3,673 $4,820
$919 $802 $1,052
$749 $708 $960
$173 $155 $221
$172
$169
2003 (N = 6)
Average Minimum Maximum
$630,833 $560,000 $695,000
2,876 2,662 3,328
5,701 3,520 8,913
2000 1999 2002
3 1 4
$7,046 $6,370 $8,042
$4,096 $3,725 $4,662
$894 $813 $1,017
$744 $708 $780
$220 $196 $250
$219
$221
2004 (N = 17)
Average Minimum Maximum
$735,321 $520,000 $880,000
2,609 1,612 3,434
5,201 1,745 8,110
2000 1998 2002
42 6
$6,694 $4,709 $8,422
$3,889 $2,680 $4,885
$849 $585 $1 ,066
$817 $780 $828
$287 $228 $353
$282
$266
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2002-2003
27%
28%
31%
10%
2003-2004
30%
28%
20%
17%
2002-2004
66%
64%
58%
28%
CAGR
29%
28%
26%
13%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
PARK OVERLOOK
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2002 (N = 3)
Average Minimum Maximum
$318,167 $268,000 $400,000
1 ,935 1 ,320 2,552
20,015 17,746 23,092
1973 1967 1985
29 17 35
$4,073 $3,522 $4,965
$2,421 $2,130 $2,868
$1,286 $1,131 $1,523
$384 $384 $384
$171 $139 $217
$164
$157
2003 (N = 4)
Average Minimum Maximum
$387,250 $300,000 $459,000
1,850 1,320 2,552
21,699 14,142 36,245
1980 1967 1986
23 17 36
$4,456 $3,890 $5,089
$2,532 $2,370 $2,778
$1,344 $1,258 $1,475
$488 $384 $540
$214 $180 $240
$209
$218
2004 (N = 2)
Average Minimum Maximum
$376,500 $308,000 $445,000
1,576 1,220 1,932
14,076 2,400 25,752
1976 1967 1985
28 19 37
$3,543 $2,892 $4,194
$2,085 $1,601 $2,569
$1,107 $850 $1,364
$592 $592 $592
$241 $230 $252
$239
$241
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
25% 13% 41% 19%
27% 14% 45% 21%
39% 11% 54% 24%
22% -3% 18% 9%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
58
-------
SMART GROWTH TOWNHOMES
KING FARM
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOAFees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2002 (N = 12)
Average Minimum Maximum
$374,317 $300,000 $441,000
1,860 1,560 2,537
1,999 1,480 2,822
2000 1999 2001
2 1 3
$4,814 $4,095 $5,846
$2,738 $2,291 $3,375
$598 $500 $737
$739 $708 $780
$204 $166 $234
$201
$205
2003 (N = 23)
Average Minimum Maximum
$418,400 $350,000 $525,000
1,705 1,400 2,516
1,825 1,280 3,938
2001 2000 2002
2 1 3
$4,833 $4,179 $6,203
$2,751 $2,343 $3,603
$600 $51 1 $786
$783 $780 $816
$249 $194 $311
$245
$244
2004 (N = 39)
Average Minimum Maximum
$551,886 $450,000 $680,000
1,876 1,400 2,984
2,054 1,308 3,779
2001 1999 2002
325
$5,192 $4,273 $6,603
$2,973 $2,401 $3,851
$649 $524 $840
$814 $780 $840
$302 $203 $368
$294
$307
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
22%
22%
19%
12%
21%
20%
26%
32%
48%
46%
50%
47%
22%
21%
22%
21%
CONVENTIONAL TOWNHOMES
PARK OVERLOOK
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOAFees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2002 (N = 23)
Average Minimum Maximum
$231,191 $170,000 $280,000
1 ,354 1 ,220 1 ,520
1,579 1,400 2,400
1985 1984 1987
17 15 18
$2,862 $2,437 $3,298
$1 ,577 $1 ,303 $1 ,859
$837 $692 $987
$603 $60 $720
$171 $139 $189
$171
$177
2003 (N = 20)
Average Minimum Maximum
$268,318 $228,750 $311,000
1,352 1,220 1,572
1,697 1,400 2,400
1986 1984 1987
17 16 19
$2,876 $2,524 $3,269
$1,585 $1,354 $1,841
$816 $256 $977
$612 $588 $780
$199 $183 $225
$198
$199
2004 (N = 22)
Average Minimum Maximum
$308,991 $274,900 $344,000
1 ,253 1 ,060 1 ,520
1,623 1,400 2,400
1985 1984 1987
19 17 20
$2,767 $2,502 $3,169
$1,515 $1,339 $1,775
$804 $71 1 $942
$610 $600 $732
$247 $224 $280
$247
$250
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
17% 24% 45% 20%
16% 24% 44% 20%
13% 25% 41% 19%
16% 15% 34% 16%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
59
-------
Resale Performance Comparison: Kins Farm and Quince Orchard Park
Between 2002 and 2004, King Farm's single-family detached homes had a CAGR of 29 percent, which
was significantly more than the 13 percent CAGR of Quince Orchard Park. In the years studied, King Farm
and Quince Orchard Park had 38 and 31 home resales, respectively. Homes in King Farm were larger on
average than those in Quince Orchard Park, but the sales prices per square foot and homeowners'
association annual dues were comparable. The smart growth community is clearly the top performer in the
comparison of single-family detached homes.
The townhouses in King Farm appreciated 22 percent annually, a greater rate than in Quince Orchard Park,
which saw a 17 percent yearly increase from 2002 to 2004. King Farm had 74 resales in 2002, 2003, and
2004. In 2002 and 2004, Quince Orchard Park had 55. Square footages and homeowners' association fees
are comparable in the two communities.
Top Performer: Smart growth community for single-family detached homes
Smart growth community for townhouses
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
KING FARM
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SO FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SO FT
2002 (N = 15)
Average Minimum Maximum
$572,846 $498,000 $629,900
3,330 2,660 3,735
5,990 4,683 7,203
2000 1998 2000
224
$7,285 $6,355 $8,365
$4,209 $3,673 $4,820
$919 $802 $1,052
$749 $708 $960
$173 $155 $221
$172
$169
2003 (N = 6)
Average Minimum Maximum
$630,833 $560,000 $695,000
2,876 2,662 3,328
5,701 3,520 8,913
2000 1999 2002
3 1 4
$7,046 $6,370 $8,042
$4,096 $3,725 $4,662
$894 $813 $1,017
$744 $708 $780
$220 $196 $250
$219
$221
2004 (N = 17)
Average Minimum Maximum
$735,321 $520,000 $880,000
2,609 1,612 3,434
5,201 1,745 8,110
2000 1998 2002
42 6
$6,694 $4,709 $8,422
$3,889 $2,680 $4,885
$849 $585 $1,066
$817 $780 $828
$287 $228 $353
$282
$266
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
27%
28%
31%
10%
30%
28%
20%
17%
66%
64%
58%
28%
29%
28%
26%
13%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
QUINCE ORCHARD PARK
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2002 (N = 12)
Average Minimum
$372,946
2,164
3,129
2000
3
$4,255
$2,698
$589
$724
$176
$207
$168
$338,900
1,568
2,492
1997
0
$3,677
$2,283
$498
$600
$150
Maximum
$420,000
2,532
4,418
2002
5
$5,157
$3,197
$698
$756
$216
2003 (N = 0)
Average Minimum Maximum Average
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$518,900
2,343
3,070
1999
5
$4,427
$2,790
$613
$786
$225
$234
$223
2004 (N = 19)
Minimum Maximum
$419,900
1,970
2,126
1997
1
$672
$341
$144
$756
$182
$620,000
2,876
4,668
2003
7
$5,304
$3,315
$724
$816
$271
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2002-2004 CAGR
27% 13%
13% 6%
33% 15%
39% 18%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
60
-------
SMART GROWTH TOWNHOMES
KING FARM
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOAFees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SO FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SO FT
2002 (N = 12)
Average Minimum Maximum
$374,317 $300,000 $441,000
1,860 1,560 2,537
1,999 1,480 2,822
2000 1999 2001
2 1 3
$4,814 $4,095 $5,846
$2,738 $2,291 $3,375
$598 $500 $737
$739 $708 $780
$204 $166 $234
$201
$205
2003 (N = 23)
Average Minimum Maximum
$418,400 $350,000 $525,000
1,705 1,400 2,516
1,825 1,280 3,938
2001 2000 2002
2 1 3
$4,833 $4,179 $6,203
$2,751 $2,343 $3,603
$600 $511 $786
$783 $780 $816
$249 $194 $311
$245
$244
2004 (N = 39)
Average Minimum Maximum
$551,886 $450,000 $680,000
1,876 1,400 2,984
2,054 1,308 3,779
2001 1999 2002
325
$5,192 $4,273 $6,603
$2,973 $2,401 $3,851
$649 $524 $840
$814 $780 $840
$302 $203 $368
$294
$307
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
22% 21% 48% 22%
22% 20% 46% 21%
19% 26% 50% 22%
12% 32% 47% 21%
CONVENTIONAL TOWNHOMES
QUINCE ORCHARD PARK
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
Average
$354,616
1,994
2,380
1999
3
$4,200
$2,580
$563
$770
$179
$205
$183
2002 (N = 30)
Minimum
$297,000
1,520
1,543
1996
0
$3,231
$2,095
$457
$600
$132
Maximum
$399,900
2,319
3,928
2002
6
$4,991
$3,072
$670
$900
$221
2003 (N = 0) 2004 (N = 25)
Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$459,352
1,901
2,019
2000
4
$4,042
$2,541
$555
$841
$245
$242
$248
$360,000
1,519
437
1996
1
$2,775
$1,800
$393
$756
$179
$540,000
2,325
3,007
2003
8
$5,056
$3,115
$680
$1,272
$283
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2002-2004 CAGR
37% 17%
18% 8%
35% 16%
30% 14%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
61
-------
Case Study 12: Middleton Hills
Middleton Hills is in Middleton, Wisconsin, a small city eight miles from downtown Madison. The
community's first homes were completed in 1998, and resales began in 2000. A broker based in Middleton
who has extensive knowledge about the residential real estate market in the area was hired to select a
comparative community, gather the MLS data, and provide qualitative information about the communities.
Northlake, a conventional suburban community with homes constructed as early as 1997, was selected as
the comparative community. The study examines resales in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Middleton Hills contains
some condominium units, which were resold starting in 2004. As there were data for only one year, a
comparative condominium development was not sought out. Single-family detached dwellings were the
sole housing type analyzed for this study.
Project Websites
Middleton Hills: http://www.middletonhills.com/ehi/mhills/
Northlake: http://www.northlakeneighborhood.com/
Smart Growth Community Description: Middleton Hills
Project Summary
Middleton Hills is a mixed-use development designed as a walkable community. The development contains
325 single-family detached homes and 100 condominiums. The community's streets are narrow, making
them attractive to pedestrians. Of the project's 149 acres, 44 acres are reserved for parks, open lots, and
wooded trails.
Location
Middleton Hills is adjacent to the 600-acre Pheasant Branch Creek Nature Preserve. It is near Lake
Mendota, the airport, and the Middleton Business Park. Children residing in Middleton Hills attend schools
in the Middleton School District.
Home Characteristics
Every home in Middleton Hills is custom built, but the community has a cohesive feel due to its
architectural regulations and landscaping restrictions. Acceptable architectural styles for homes are Prairie,
Craftsman, or Bungalow. Only natural products, such as wood, stone, or stucco siding, may be used on the
exteriors. Each home must use several colors in the design and must have a front porch. Additionally, yards
can include only plantings that are indigenous to the area. The homes have access to their two-car garages
along rear alleys. The lots in the community are small, generally ranging from 4,800 square feet to 9,000
square feet, but sell for prices similar to those of a one-acre parcel in a more rural subdivision. There are
design guidelines covering architectural styles and quality of construction materials and finishings. Interior
spaces are usually higher end, often with fine woodwork and custom kitchens.
Community Amenities
Middleton Hills includes numerous public green spaces. The neighborhood has restaurants, coffee shops, a
large grocery store, and a dry cleaner. The residents' mail is delivered to one central location, which
encourages residents to walk around the community. The homeowners' association fee a for single-family
detached home is $225 per year.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 62
-------
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Northlake
Project Summary
Northlake is a typical suburban community that was established in the late 1990s. It is on Middleton's
northern edge and contains approximately 300 units, all single-family detached homes on slightly less than
150 acres. The neighborhood layout resembles a wagon wheel, with a road circling around the perimeter
and streets and cul-de-sacs coming off of that road. The community is family-oriented and seems to draw
many corporate relocations.
Location
Northlake is a true suburban bedroom community, with all shopping and services a drive away. There is a
city park close by, and the Pheasant Branch Creek Nature Preserve is approximately two miles east of the
development. The neighborhood is served by Middleton School District, the same district attended by
children of Middleton Hills.
Home Characteristics
The lot sizes in Northlake range from one-third to one-half acre. While there are some covenants for
development in the community, they are not nearly as restrictive as in Middleton Hills. Northlake prohibits
fences and swimming pools, and it has minimum square footage requirements for the homes. Generally,
home sizes range from 2,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet. The homes have garages that accommodate
at least three cars. Some of the houses have decorative brick or stone facades on the front elevation, but
most are vinyl or aluminum sided. There are a good number of custom homes in the area, but many of the
lots were purchased by higher-volume builders. All of the homes have higher-end architectural features.
Community Amenities
The community is on the suburban edge of development next to farm land, the Pheasant Branch
Conservancy, and Orchid Heights Park. Homeowners' association fees are approximately $ 100 per year.
Resale Performance Comparison: Middleton Hills and Northlake
Middleton Hills and Northlake had the same CAGR of 7 percent between 2000 and 2004. In Middleton
Hills, there were 22 resales in 2000, 2002, and 2004 combined, while in Northlake there were 36 resales in
the same years. These numbers are modest, indicating that any differences in appreciation over time may
become more apparent as more homes in the communities change hands. The homes in Northlake are
generally larger than the dwellings in the smart growth community. However, the homes in the smart
growth neighborhood are slightly newer, tend to sell at higher prices, and sell for more per square foot than
those in the conventional suburban community. The qualitative and quantitative data gathered for this study
indicate that the communities are competitive and have identical appreciation rates.
Top Performer: None. Tie between the conventional suburban development and smart growth
communities.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 63
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD Homes
MIDDLETON HILLS
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2000 (N = 3)
Average Minimum Maximum
$255,367 $206,000 $334,100
2,003 1,536 2,512
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1998 1999
1 1 2
$6,089 $5,362 $7,295
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$225 $225 $225
$127 $115 $134
$127
$133
2002 (N = 6)
Average Minimum Maximum
$332,817 $272,000 $417,000
2,544 1,700 3,300
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1998 2000
324
$6,892 $5,991 $7,585
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$225 $225 $225
$135 $110 $160
$131
$137
2004 (N = 13)
Average Minimum Maximum
$470,108 $292,000 $650,000
2,875 1,768 $3,950
n/a n/a n/a
2001 1998 2003
3 1 $6
$7,576 $4,956 $10,495
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$225 $225 $225
$166 $139 $198
$164
$165
2000-2002 2002-2004 2000-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot 6% 23% 30% 7%
change of weighted avg price/sq ft 3% 25% 28% 6%
change of median price/sq ft 3% 21% 24% 6%
change of sales prices 30% 41% 84% 16%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
NORTHLAKE
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2000 (N = 6)
Average Minimum Maximum
$287,800 $206,900 $339,000
3,049 2,179 3,551
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1998 1999
1 1 2
$6,592 $4,780 $7,267
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$100 $100 $100
$95 $88 $107
$94
$95
2002 (N = 11)
Average Minimum Maximum
$349,891 $296,000 $415,500
3,042 2,300 4,000
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1997 2001
3 1 5
$6,984 $6,114 $8,810
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$100 $100 $100
$117 $0 $0
$115
$117
2004 (N = 19)
Average Minimum Maximum
$371 ,41 1 $290,000 $436,000
3,063 2,419 3,750
n/a n/a n/a
1999 1997 2003
5 1 7
$6,694 $5,701 $7,799
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$100 $100 $100
$122 $100 $149
$121
$122
2000-2002 2002-2004 2000-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot 23% 5% 29% 7%
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft 22% 5% 28% 6%
change of median price/sq ft 23% 5% 29% 7%
change of sales prices 22% 6% 29% 7%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
64
-------
Case Study 13: Mount Laurel
Mount Laurel is approximately 15 miles southeast of central Birmingham in Shelby County, Alabama.
Mount Laurel's residential units were built as early as 2001. Forest Parks was selected as the comparable
community. Its oldest homes date to 1998. Due to the youth of Mount Laurel, there were no resales in the
community before 2003. Consequently, this study compared resales from 2003, 2004, and 2005. Both
developments contain single-family detached homes only.
Project Websites
Mount Laurel: http://www.mtlaurel.com/
Forest Parks: No website found.
Smart Growth Community Description: Mount Laurel
Project Summary
Mount Laurel is a development that has tried to replicate qualities of small-town life through the
application of smart growth principles. At build-out, it will comprise 6,000 acres with retail, civic uses, and
a blend of residential products that will include townhouses, single-family detached residences, apartments,
and live/work spaces. This study focused on the first 442-acre phase containing 550 single-family houses.
Location
Mount Laurel is approximately 30 minutes by car from downtown Birmingham. It is near Oak Mountain
State Park, and four golf courses and country clubs are in its immediate vicinity. The community includes
one public and one private elementary school and is near the Chelsea Middle and High schools.
Home Characteristics
Homes in Mount Laurel can be one of several architectural styles: Craftsman, Charleston, or Cottage. The
community's design team must approve all other types of home plans. Most of the homes are on small lots
of less than half an acre. There are alleys throughout the community and fences for privacy. Most of the
homes have detached two-car garages that are connected to the houses by covered walkways. Some of the
garages have studio space above.
Community Amenities
Mount Laurel has three parks and an 11-acre lake for fishing. It has a community pool, hiking trails, and
red brick sidewalks. Tennis courts are under construction, and a golf course may be added in the future.
The development has a town center, which will total 160,000 square feet of commercial space at build-out.
The town center has two markets, a hardware store, a fitness club, a bookstore, and several dining
establishments. There are also dentist and physician practices in the center. The homeowners' association
fee is $ 1,000 per year, which covers the maintenance of all common areas, including the pool, lake, tennis
courts, streetlights, and sidewalks. The community has its own fire department.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Forest Parks
Project Summary
Forest Parks is a conventional suburban community southeast of Mount Laurel in Sterrett, Alabama. It
contains approximately 300 multi-level homes on half-acre lots.
Location
Since the community is immediately south of Mount Laurel, it has identical access to central Birmingham
and amenities in the southeastern portion of the metropolitan area. School-aged children that reside in
Forest Parks attend either Mount Laurel or Chelsea Elementary and Chelsea Middle and High schools.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 65
-------
Home Characteristics
Most of the homes have brick-side exterior on all sides of the house. There are some dwellings that have a
combination of brick and vinyl siding exteriors. All of the homes have attached two-car garages either in
the basement or on the main level with entrances on the side or back of the home. None of the garages face
the street.
Community Amenities
There are cement sidewalks and landscaped common areas. Homeowners' association fees are $175 yearly.
This fee covers maintenance and landscaping of the common areas. There are no common recreational
facilities in Forest Parks.
Resale Performance Comparison: Mount Laurel and Forest Parks
This case study was unusual because Mount Laurel reported very few resales. There were just seven resales
in 2003, 2004, and 2005 combined. The compararble community had a 51 resales. From the data gathered,
it appears that the CAGR for Mount Laurel is -2 percent, while the conventional suburban community has a
CAGR of 9 percent. The number of resales within Mount Laurel is simply too small to draw any
conclusions.
Top Performer: None. The number of resales in the smart growth community is too small to draw a
conclusion.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 66
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
MT LAUREL
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
Average
$389,000
2,888
5,126
2001
2
$1,109
n/a
n/a
n/a
$135
$135
$135
2003 (N = 1)
Minimum
$389,000
2,888
5,126
2001
2
$1,109
n/a
n/a
n/a
$135
Maximum
$389,000
2,888
5,126
2001
2
$1,109
n/a
n/a
n/a
$135
Average
$359,875
2,994
5,400
2002
3
$1,676
n/a
n/a
n/a
$119
$120
$120
2004 (N = 4)
Minimum
$280,000
2,477
4,644
2001
2
$1,121
n/a
n/a
n/a
$113
Maximum
$550,000
4,422
6,804
2002
3
$2,342
n/a
n/a
n/a
$125
Average
$348,750
2,686
n/a
2002
3
$1 ,472
n/a
n/a
n/a
$129
$130
$129
2005 (N = 2)
Minimum
$287,500
2,462
n/a
2001
2
$1,472
n/a
n/a
n/a
$117
Maximum
$410,000
2,910
n/a
2003
4
$1,472
n/a
n/a
n/a
$141
2003-2004 2004-2005 2003-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
-11%
-11%
-11%
-7%
8%
8%
8%
-3%
-4%
-4%
-4%
-10%
-2%
-2%
-2%
-5%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
FOREST PARKS
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2003 (N = 16)
Average Minimum Maximum
$257,228 $193,000 $304,900
3,232 2,415 3,861
20,340 16,000 30,420
1999 1998 2000
435
$1,069 $727 $1,227
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$80 $65 $96
$80
$80
2004 (N = 13)
Average Minimum Maximum
$254,215 $206,000 $317,500
2,873 2,198 3,882
20,403 15,500 34,000
2000 1997 2004
4 - 7
$874 $665 $1 ,220
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$86 $76 $102
$105
$87
2005 (N = 22)
Average Minimum Maximum
$278,400 $206,900 $407,000
2,943 1,867 4,042
21,982 10,800 36,240
1999 1997 2002
638
$1,116 $736 $2,155
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$95 $78 $115
$95
$94
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2004 CAGR
8% 10% 18% 9%
31% -10% 19% 9%
8% 8% 17% 8%
-1% 10% 8% 4%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
67
-------
Case Study 14: Orenco Station
Orenco Station is inHillsboro, Oregon, approximately 15 miles from downtown Portland. The community
includes single-family detached homes, townhouses, and condominiums and had its first homes completed
in 1997. A local broker was selected and Jones Farm, a conventional suburb in the immediate vicinity with
single-family detached homes built as early as 1997, was identified as the market comparable. Home
resales were analyzed for the years 2000, 2002, and 2004. The broker attempted to gather data for 1998, but
there were no resales in that year. The broker was unable to find a townhouse community to compare with
Orenco Station's townhouses. This study thus includes data on single-family detached dwellings only.
Project Websites
Orenco Station: http://www.orencostation.net/
Jones Farm: http://ionesfarmhoa.org/
Smart Growth Community Description: Orenco Station
Project Summary
Orenco Station is a 190-acre master-planned development with a commercial town center, a light-rail
station, and five acres of parks. The project anticipates 1,850 housing units upon full build-out, distributed
in lofts, condominiums, townhouses, cottages, row homes, and live-work units.
Location
Orenco Station is connected with downtown Portland by the light-rail line and is across the street from a
major employer. It is west of the Hillsboro airport and has easy access to Route 26, from which the entire
metro area can be accessed. The project is served by West Union Elementary School, Poynter Middle
School, and Liberty High School. There are wetlands and two public parks nearby.
Home Characteristics
Lot sizes in Orenco Station tend to be small, between 3,000 square feet and 4,000 square feet, and homes
resemble the cottages, bungalows, and contemporary houses found in Hillsboro and Portland. The two
primary demographic groups that are drawn to the community are empty nesters, who generally prefer
single-story floor plans, and young professionals without children, who prefer the high-end condominiums.
Community Amenities
One major amenity for the development is the town center, which provides retail, restaurant, and
entertainment opportunities within walking distance of the residential areas. Another major amenity is the
TriMet MAX Blue Line light-rail station located at the entrance of the project. The light rail provides a
direct link between Portland and Hillsboro. The community has a new high school within its boundaries.
While the school had not been operational long enough to be rated during the 2005 study, the broker asserts
that most buyers have the impression that it will be better than the older high school.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Jones Farm
Project Summary
Jones Farm is a conventional suburban development that contains 470 single-family detached homes in six
subdivisions. The project layout provides an interconnected street and block network with a central park
that connects to a regional wetlands preserve.
Location
Jones Farm is very close to Orenco Station and is also across the street from the same major employer. It is
immediately northwest of the Hillsboro airport and a few minutes' drive from shops and restaurants. Two
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 68
-------
city parks and preserved wetlands are nearby. The development is a short drive from the light-rail station at
Orenco Station. The Jackson School District serves the community.
Home Characteristics
The houses in Jones Farm tend to be family-oriented and have three or four bedrooms. Various builders
have constructed the community. As a result, the quality of construction varies dramatically. Some homes
were built with lower-end finishes such as vinyl siding, laminate counters, and low-end carpet. Other
homes feature high-end finishes both inside and outside. Many households are families with wage earners
that work for firms in technology and related industries. The lower-end homes are often used as rental
properties, which the broker believes devalues the community.
Community Amenities
Jones Farm provides extensive park and green space areas throughout the community, including one park
with a large play area for children. The community does not have any retail or commercial amenities within
its boundaries.
Resale Performance Comparison: Orenco Station and Jones Farm
Orenco Station's CAGR between 2000 and 2004 was 2 percent, less than that of Jones Farm, which was 3
percent. The communities had a moderate number of resales. In Orenco Station, 25 homes were resold in
2000, 2002, and 2004. In Jones Farm, 71 homes were resold in the same years. On average, the
communities were nearly identical in terms of square footages, lot sizes, house ages, and homeowners'
association fees. Yet Orenco Station's resales cost substantially more per square foot than those of Jones
Farm in all years for which data were evaluated. According to the broker, Orenco Station's single-level
homes that appeal to empty nesters have continually appreciated in value. The multi-story homes that
appeal to young professionals fluctuate in value according to the health of the local economy and the health
of the adjacent office employer. The characteristics of the two developments indicate that they are well-
matched comparables. Despite their nearly identical appreciation rates, the conventional suburban
community is the top performer by a very slight difference in CAGR.
Top Performer: Conventional suburban development community
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 69
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
ORENCO STATION
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SO FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SO FT
2000 (N = 3)
Average Minimum Maximum
$269,267 $220,900 $301,900
1,864 1,427 2,225
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1998 1998
222
$2,390 $2,273 $2,596
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$312 $312 $312
$146 $136 $155
$144
$147
2002 (N = 12)
Average Minimum Maximum
$267,346 $191,250 $339,000
1,752 1,208 2,294
3,955 3,360 4,356
1999 1998 2001
3 1 4
$2,745 $2,000 $3,282
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$474 $276 $1,464
$154 $139 $169
$153
$153
2004 (N = 10)
Average Minimum Maximum
$303,950 $226,500 $360,000
1,966 1,463 2,400
4,519 3,485 6,970
1999 1998 2001
536
$3,057 $2,715 $3,370
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$518 $480 $552
$155 $148 $177
$155
$154
2000-2002 2002-2004 2000-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
5%
6%
4%
-1%
1%
1%
1%
14%
7%
7%
5%
13%
2%
2%
1%
3%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
JONES FARM
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2000 (N = 6)
Average Minimum Maximum
$214,608 $199,900 $234,950
2,056 1,882 2,542
6,011 5,663 6,534
1997 1997 1998
323
$2,257 $2,046 $2,597
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$468 $412 $672
$105 $90 $111
$104
$107
2002 (N = 20)
Average Minimum Maximum
$213,173 $154,500 $278,500
1,926 1,215 2,695
5,953 2,613 9,583
1998 1996 2000
426
$2,314 $500 $3,018
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$673 $226 $1,944
$112 $95 $128
$111
$111
2004 (N = 45)
Average Minimum Maximum
$226,072 $165,000 $330,000
1,883 1,222 2,695
4,853 2,484 11,761
1999 1997 2001
537
$2,508 $1,722 $3,582
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$524 $240 $1,272
$120 $101 $141
$120
$120
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2000-2002 2002-2004 2000-2004 CAGR
7% 8% 15% 3%
6% 8% 15% 4%
4% 8% 13% 3%
-1% 6% 5% 1%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
70
-------
Case Study 15: Southern Village
Southern Village is a smart growth development in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Construction of the
community's residences began in 1995. A residential real estate broker who has substantial experience with
the local real estate market was hired to select Southern Village's market counterpart, gather MLS data, and
provide community descriptions. Lake Hogan Farms was selected as the comparable conventional suburban
community. Its homes were constructed as early as 1996. Resales in consecutive years from 2001 through
2004 were examined. Southern Village contains some attached dwelling units. Although Lake Hogan
Farms has townhouses under construction, there is no development that functions as a market counterpart
for the townhouses. As such, this case study considers only single-family detached houses.
Project Websites
Southern Village: http://www.southernvillage.com/
Lake Hogan Farms: http: //www. lake ho ganfarms. info/
Smart Growth Community Description: Southern Village
Project Summary
Southern Village is a 312-acre mixed-use development with 1,200 housing units that was designed to
mirror historic walking communities and has a gridded street network. At the time of this study, it was the
best-selling development in the Raleigh/ Durham/ Chapel Hill region. The community was developed by a
local developer and designed by a regional design firm. Both are award-winning firms based in North
Carolina with more than 20 years of experience.
Location
Southern Village is three miles south of downtown Chapel Hill. It is 14 miles from Durham, 20 miles from
Raleigh-Durham International Airport, and 35 miles from central Raleigh. Several highly ranked higher
education institutions are nearby, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke
University. Southern Village is in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District, which often ranks as one
of the best school districts in the nation.
Home Characteristics
Homes in Southern Village have been designed with a diversity of sizes, prices, and architectural styles.
The homes feature high-quality finishes. Many homes have front porches to encourage neighbor
interaction. Rear alleys are used for mail delivery, garage access, and trash collection.
Community Amenities
The community contains numerous retail and service businesses, including a grocery store, bookstore,
fitness center, bank, and a movie theater with stadium seating. Other amenities include multiple restaurants,
an elementary school, and a middle school. The community has a playground, bike and jogging trails, and a
small lake for fishing and recreation. A swim and racquet club membership can be purchased for an
additional fee.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Lake Hosan Farms
Project Summary
Lake Hogan Farms is a 300-acre conventional suburban community in Carrboro, North Carolina.
According to the broker, this is the one neighborhood that buyers who are considering Southern Village
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 71
-------
also typically want to view. The project has single-family houses and townhouses as large as 3,000 square
feet. The community has curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs.
Location
Lake Hogan Farms is five miles northwest of downtown Chapel Hill. It is 15 miles from downtown
Durham, 25 miles from Raleigh-Durham International Airport, and 40 miles from central Raleigh. The
neighborhood is served by Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, the same district used by children residing
in Southern Village.
Home Characteristics
Lake Hogan Farms contains homes of similar quality to Southern Village. The development includes a
range of home sizes, from small-lot detached courtyard homes to larger-lot estate-style homes. However, in
Lake Hogan Farms, the homes are segregated by home type and price point, not integrated with one another
like the homes are in Southern Village. Lake Hogan Farms' homes have front-facing garages and are being
constructed by multiple builders, including two local homebuilders and one large regional production
homebuilder.
Community Amenities
While there are currently no commercial amenities in Lake Hogan Farms, the community's recreational
amenities are comparable to those in Southern Village. The community includes 95 acres of open space.
Lake Hogan Farms' residents have access to playgrounds, biking and jogging trails, and a lake for fishing
that is larger than the one in Southern Village. There is also a swim and tennis club that residents can use.
Resale Performance Comparison: Southern Village and Lake Hogan Farms
Between 2001 and 2004, 186 resales occurred in Southern Village, with prices per square foot appreciating
8 percent annually. In Lake Hogan Farms, the CAGR of homes resold was 4 percent, which was calculated
through analysis of 54 home sales records. The communities' homes were similar in age and square foot
ranges and averages, especially in the last two years of the case study. Lot sizes tended to be larger in the
conventional suburban community. The homes started out at nearly identical prices per square foot,
indicating that their resale performance will be an accurate measure of appreciation over time. As Southern
Village's CAGR substantially exceeds that of Lake Hogan, Southern Village is the obvious top performer
in this case study.
Top Performer: Smart growth community
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 72
-------
SMART GROWTH SF HOMES
SOUTHERN VILLAGE
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 30)
Average Minimum Maximum
$324,663 $240,000 $490,000
2,576 1,859 3,669
7,496 $3,920 $16,988
1997 1995 2000
4 1 6
$3,561 $2,176 $4,921
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$198 $108 $1,440
$126 $106 $145
$126
$125
2002 (N= 41)
Average Minimum Maximum
$359,310 $263,500 $590,000
2,724 1,870 4,343
7,371 4,356 18,295
1998 1995 2001
4 1 7
$4,742 $2,038 $11,266
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$141 $108 $168
$132 $106 $171
$132
$134
2003 (N =61 )
Average Minimum Maximum
$401,332 $276,000 $580,000
2,829 1,874 4,180
8,038 4,356 16,553
1999 1995 2002
4 1 8
$4,863 $3,261 $8,033
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$216 $120 $1,908
$142 $114 $183
$142
$143
2004 (N = 54)
Average Minimum Maximum
$467,850 $300,000 $875,000
2,962 1,806 5,000
7,759 1,742 15,246
1999 1995 2002
529
$5,289 $3,305 $11,368
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$225 $159 $950
$158 $119 $231
$158
$152
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
5%
5%
7%
11%
7%
8%
7%
12%
11%
11%
7%
17%
26%
25%
22%
44%
8%
8%
7%
13%
CONVENTIONAL SF HOMES
LAKE HOGAN
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 7)
Average Minimum Maximum
$379,857 $250,000 $587,000
2,981 1,940 3,550
16,366 6,098 35,719
1998 1996 1998
435
$5,679 $3,989 $7,517
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$650 $648 $660
$127 $92 $175
$127
$132
2002 (N = 6)
Average Minimum Maximum
$309,250 $260,000 $425,000
2,358 2,002 2,793
11,761 6,534 15,246
1999 1996 2000
426
$4,807 $3,799 $6,187
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$660 $660 $660
$131 $115 $157
$131
$129
2003 (N = 15)
Average Minimum Maximum
$392,960 $244,500 $665,000
2,855 1,726 4,250
16,350 5,227 41,382
2000 1996 2002
3 1 7
$5,497 $3,520 $8,866
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$660 $660 $660
$137 $121 $162
$138
$138
2004 (N = 26)
Average Minimum Maximum
$471,915 $267,500 $860,000
3,200 1,746 4,817
17,476 5,227 46,609
2001 1996 2003
3 1 8
$6,175 $3,785 $11,906
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$660 $660 $660
$145 $113 $197
$147
$145
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
3% 5% 6% 14% 4%
3% 5% 7% 16% 5%
-2% 7% 5% 10% 3%
-19% 27% 20% 24% 8%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
73
-------
Case Study 16: Town of Tioga
Town of Tioga is an award-winning smart growth development in Newberry, Florida. Residential
construction began in the development in 1997. The community contains single-family detached
residences. Rental units are found in the town center, which was under construction in 2005. Due to
changes in the regional MLS system, brokers could not provide the needed MLS records. Consequently, to
obtain the quantitative data for this study, a Florida-based real estate data provider was selected. Qualitative
data were provided by real estate brokers that partnered with the Florida-based real estate firm. Cambridge
Forest was selected as an appropriate conventional suburban counterpart. Cambridge Forest contains
single-family detached homes, which were constructed beginning in 1992. Due to the youth of Town of
Tioga, data were gathered for resales in consecutive years from 2001 through 2004.
Project Websites
Town of Tioga: http://www.townoftioga.com/
Cambridge Forest: No website found.
Smart Growth Community Description: Town ofTiosa
Project Summary
Town of Tioga is a 280-acre development envisioned as a walkable community with 573 housing units of
various types. Developers have sought to use land and resources more efficiently than in conventional
suburban developments by preserving open space and mixing commercial and residential land uses.
Location
Town of Tioga is five minutes west of Interstate 75. It is ten miles west of central Gainesville and six miles
from the University of Florida. Town of Tioga's school-aged children attend Hidden Oak Elementary,
Kanapaha Middle School, and Buchholz High School.
Home Characteristics
Six local builders were selected by the developer to build the project. The builders were chosen for their
attention to detail and reputation for exceptional craftsmanship and have slightly different styles, which are
reflected in homes. The housing styles convey an old Southern charm that showcases Plantation,
Charleston Singles, and Caribbean-style homes. Common elements of the community's homes include
exteriors made of siding and usable front porches, sweeping balconies, and grand verandas. Some homes in
Town of Tioga have partial brick facades.
Community Amenities
The homes in the community are a short walk from Tioga Town Center, which contains a mix of stores and
service businesses including restaurants, a bookstore, a fitness center, a bank, and a preschool. Town of
Tioga is also home to a playground, lighted tennis and basketball courts, and a community pool. The town
hall is another amenity, as it is used as a meeting space for community events and parties hosted by
residents. Tioga Creek, which affords residents easy access to nature, runs through the town. Pedestrian-
friendly paths are the norm throughout the community.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: Cambridge Forest
Project Summary
Cambridge Forest is a community comprised of single-family detached houses on approximately 110 acres,
four miles from Town of Tioga, that was designed and built with conventional suburban standards. Cul-de-
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 74
-------
sacs off ring roads surround two small lakes in the center of the project. There are no sidewalks in the
project.
Location
The location of Cambridge Forest is comparable to Town of Tioga. It is ten miles from central Gainesville
and seven miles from the University of Florida. It is within a short drive of major shopping opportunities,
including a shopping center with neighborhood retailers, national anchors, and national big-box retailers.
Like Town of Tioga, the project is located within the Alachua County Public School District but, as
multiple school zones cover the project, local brokers could not identify the exact public schools associated
with Cambridge Forest.
Home Characteristics
Homes in Cambridge Forest have large setbacks. Most homes are single story, and some have small front
porches and private swimming pools. Upscale home features are the norm, including specialty flooring and
security systems. Two-car garages are standard, and most of them can be accessed from the side of the
house, making the garage more hidden than is typical in suburban developments. Cambridge Forest is part
of a program that conducts research to improve energy efficiency in new and existing houses. The
community is thus on the cutting edge of energy efficiency, which is an amenity for residents because their
energy costs are typically lower than in standard suburban dwellings.
Community Amenities
Cambridge Forest has few amenities. Houses are nestled between mature trees that add privacy to each
house. Although there are no sidewalks in the project, there are several walking paths leading to the two
lakes in the center of the project.
Resale Performance Comparison: Town ofTiosa and Cambridge Forest
The CAGR of price per square foot for homes sold between 2001 and 2004 was 9 percent in Town of
Tioga, larger than the 8 percent CAGR found in Cambridge Forest in the same time frame. The analysis
included 33 resales in Town of Tioga and 53 in Cambridge Forest. On average, Cambridge Forest's homes
were older, slightly larger, and selling at somewhat higher price points. Thus buyers in Town of Tioga were
able to obtain smaller homes for less money at similar prices per square foot. Though by a slight difference,
the smart growth community is the top performer for this case study.
Top Performer: Smart growth community
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 75
-------
SMART GROWTH SF HOMES
TOWN OF TIOGA
Sales Price
Square Footage (Effective Adjusted)
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SOFT
2001 (N = 3)
Average Minimum Maximum
$261,833 $240,000 $277,500
2,984 2,694 3,274
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1997 1999
324
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$85 $82 $89
$88
$85
2002 (N = 7)
Average Minimum Maximum
$260,500 $202,000 $310,000
3,156 2,512 3,922
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1997 2000
425
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$86 $76 $106
$83
$84
2003 (N = 9)
Average Minimum Maximum
$334,744 $282,900 $415,000
3,268 2,532 4,081
n/a n/a n/a
2000 1997 2002
3 1 6
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$103 $85 $118
$102
$108
2004 (N = 14)
Average Minimum Maximum
$338,529 $248,000 $516,000
3,134 2,204 4,677
n/a n/a n/a
2001 1997 2003
3 1 7
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$112 $92 $144
$108
$113
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004
1% 20% 8% 31%
-6% 24% 5% 23%
-1% 28% 4% 32%
-1% 29% 1% 29%
CAGR
9%
7%
10%
9%
CONVENTIONAL SF HOMES
CAMBRIDGE FOREST
Sales Price
Living Area in SF (EffectiveAdjusted)
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 9)
Average Minimum Maximum
$306,811 $232,000 $408,000
3,301 2,819 4,119
n/a n/a n/a
1996 1992 1999
529
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$90 $77 $99
$93
$90
2002 (N = 14)
Average Minimum Maximum
$322,571 $259,100 $420,000
3,331 2,756 3,833
n/a n/a n/a
1998 1994 2003
4-18
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$97 $68 $117
$97
$97
2003 (N = 12)
Average Minimum Maximum
$396,875 $299,500 $540,000
3,543 2,900 4,406
n/a n/a n/a
2000 1992 2002
3 1 11
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$111 $103 $123
$112
$110
2004 (N = 8)
Average Minimum Maximum
$399,675 $302,900 $535,000
3,497 2,679 4,749
n/a n/a n/a
1997 1992 2002
7 2 12
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$114 $105 $126
$114
$113
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004
9% 15% 3% 28%
4% 16% 2% 23%
8% 13% 3% 25%
5% 23% 1% 30%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
76
-------
Case Study 17: Vermillion
Vermillion is a smart growth development in Huntersville, North Carolina, in the Charlotte metropolitan
area. Vermillion's first dwellings were constructed in 1999. A broker with extensive knowledge about
Vermillion and its market comparables was chosen to select a comparable community, gather MLS data on
residential resales, and describe the characteristics of the communities that would affect home values.
McGinnis Village, a development of single-family homes that were constructed as early as 1998, was
selected as the conventional suburban development market comparable. Due to the age of the two
communities, data were gathered on resales from 2001 through 2004. The lack of townhouse market
counterparts means that only single-family detached dwellings are considered in this study.
Project Websites
Vermillion: http://www.newvermillion.com/
McGinnis Village: No website found.
Smart Growth Community Description: Vermillion
Project Summary
The 350-acre Vermillion community is a traditional walkable neighborhood with modern conveniences. At
the time of this study, only Phase One, which contains 130 townhouses and 50 single-family homes on
approximately 30 acres, had been completed. Additional phases of development will include 31,000 square
feet of office and retail in a mixed-use program. A bus stop is also planned.
Location
The development is a short walk or bike ride from historic downtown Huntersville. It is one mile from
Interstate 77, which provides access to regional amenities. Shopping opportunities include a regional
shopping mall as well as the shops at Birkdale Village. Vermillion's homes pay Mecklenburg County taxes
and Huntersville town taxes. Blythe Elementary School, Bradley Middle School, and North Mecklenburg
High School all service the community.
Home Characteristics
Multiple builders are constructing the community. The architectural style and building materials are
consistent throughout the development, using contemporary and traditional styles, with brick and fiber
cement siding. Many homes have porches with columns.
Community Amenities
Sidewalks are continuous throughout the development, creating a neighborhood that is pedestrian friendly.
Mailboxes are in a central location to encourage walking and a greater sense of community among
residents. The town square includes a neighborhood restaurant surrounded by townhouses and live/work
units. The community also includes several miles of wooded forests, multiple playgrounds, an outdoor
pavilion, a pool, and neighborhood gathering places.
Conventional Suburban Community Description: McGinnis Village
Project Summary
McGinnis Village is an approximately 40-acre community featuring single-family detached homes
designed and built according to conventional suburban development standards. It contains approximately
70 homes, many of which are on cul-de-sacs.
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 77
-------
Location
McGinnis Village is close to job opportunities, including the Lowe's Motor Speedway, national banking
headquarters, and shopping centers. The project is within walking distance of shopping; however, there are
no sidewalks connecting the community with the retail center. The property tax rates and schools that
service the community are identical to those of Vermillion.
Home Characteristics
The homes in McGinnis Village range from 1,800 square feet to 3,000 square feet and are on lots sized
between one-third and one-half acre. The houses have two-car garages with front entries. Homes have
shutters and are constructed in full brick, full vinyl siding, or vinyl siding with brick facades. Some of the
homes have small front porches.
Community Amenities
The development has a community pool, but no other major amenities.
Resale Performance Comparison: Vermillion and McGinnis Village
The CAGR of average price per square foot of homes in Vermillion between 2001 and 2004 was just 1
percent. That rate of increase, though slight, was greater than that of McGinnis Village, which saw a 0
percent CAGR over the course of the same years. Vermillion had 92 resales, while its market comparable
had just 22. On average, McGinnis Village's resold homes were older, larger in square footage and lot size,
and slightly higher in price. Thus sellers in Vermillion were able to obtain higher prices per square foot.
Despite the nearly identical appreciation rates, the smart growth community is the top performer by a very
slight difference in CAGR.
Top Performer: Smart growth community
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth 78
-------
SMART GROWTH SFD HOMES
VERMILLION
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 2)
Average Minimum Maximum
$175,667 $149,500 $227,500
1,884 1,496 2,404
n/a n/a n/a
2000 2000 2000
1 1 1
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$240 $240 $240
$93 $86 $100
$93
$95
2002 (N = 11)
Average Minimum Maximum
$199,800 $181,000 $233,500
2,047 1,748 2,216
6,534 4,356 8,712
2000 1999 2001
2 1 3
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$273 $240 $340
$98 $82 $107
$98
$106
2003 (N = 36)
Average Minimum Maximum
$164,620 $140,900 $195,000
1,756 1,502 2,072
4,888 4,356 5,227
2002 1999 2003
204
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$324 $240 $360
$94 $81 $106
$94
$94
2004 (N = 43)
Average Minimum Maximum
$168,279 $124,500 $242,500
1,751 1,214 2,591
7,260 4,356 17,424
2001 1999 2004
305
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$320 $240 $360
$97 $84 $112
$96
$97
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004
5% -4% 3% 4%
5%
12%
14%
-4% 3% 3%
-11% 3% 3%
-18% 2% -4%
CAGR
1%
1%
1%
-1%
CONVENTIONAL SFD HOMES
McGinnis Village
Sales Price
Living Area in SF
Lot Size in Square Feet
Year Built
Age of Home when sold
Annual Property Tax Amount
County/State
Special Assessments
Annual HOA Fees
PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT
WEIGHTED AVG PRICE PER SQ FT
MEDIAN PRICE PER SQ FT
2001 (N = 4)
Average Minimum Maximum
$166,850 $165,500 $167,900
2,202 2,140 2,245
9,910 9,148 10,890
1999 1998 2000
2 1 3
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$402 $372 $432
$76 $75 $77
$76
$75
2002 (N = 3)
Average Minimum Maximum
$179,067 $162,500 $197,000
2,424 2,193 2,686
9,293 9,148 9,583
1998 1998 1998
444
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$347 $200 $420
$74 $73 $74
$74
$74
2003 (N = 5)
Average Minimum Maximum
$191,480 $154,900 $210,000
2,629 2,150 2,886
11,500 9,148 18,731
1999 1998 2000
435
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$423 $420 $432
$73 $71 $75
$73
$73
2004 (N = 10)
Average Minimum Maximum
$201,790 $171,000 $232,000
2,677 2,309 2,900
11,932 9,100 19,602
1999 1998 2000
546
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
$544 $430 $840
$75 $69 $84
$75
$75
% change of price per square foot
% change of weighted avg price/sq ft
% change of median price/sq ft
% change of sales prices
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2001-2004 CAGR
-2% -1% 3% -1% 0%
-3% -1% 4% 0% 0%
-2% -2% 3% 0% 0%
7% 7% 5% 21%
Market Acceptance of Smart Growth
79
------- |