Civano rides the storm

The Tucson new urbanist community pushes forward in the wake of a builder pullout, a search for a new development partner, and mixed reviews from local environmentalists. As Kermit the Frog would say, it ain’t easy being green. That’s the case with Civano, the Tucson, Arizona, community that combines principles of sustainability with new urbanist design. After a very promising start, Civano has been buffeted by setbacks and change. And the project has come under criticism from some environmental activists who contend that its location on an undeveloped desert site is unsustainable. A year ago, the 820-acre Civano looked like it would quickly become a star of the New Urbanism — selling 97 units from April through August of 1999, a much faster pace than expected. Single homes were starting at a relatively affordable $95,000. A mixed-use neighborhood center had been built, and relatively attractive streetscapes and homes were under construction. Several businesses had located in Civano, and builders were required to meet stringent standards for water and energy use. Major problems arose when RGC Homes, builder of the fastest selling and least expensive homes in Civano, abruptly pulled out of the project. RGC had sold about 60 of its interesting looking, adobe-style homes, but completed only four homes and left nine others partly built, according to Lee Rayburn, director of design and planning at Civano. When news of this pullout appeared in the press this past spring, the other builders suffered losses in sales, he added. Rayburn told the Arizona Daily Star that RGC had cash flow problems, adding: “I suspect that there may also be problems in building homes in a way that was profitable.” Like other builders in the project, RGC was adopting new architectural styles and complying with some fairly stringent environmental standards. For example, homes are required to have water recycling systems, to reduce energy use by 50 percent and potable water use by 65 percent. These and other performance standards — 40 percent reduction in automobile pollution, 20 percent “affordable” housing, the availability of alternative construction and energy technologies — were required by the city, which spearheaded the project and contributed funding for infrastructure. The builder problems have been limited to RGC. The other builders in Civano — KE&G Homes, TJ Bednar, and Solar Built — have been successful and are sticking with the project, Rayburn says. Sales are beginning to bounce back and are now at about 8/month, close to the 8.5/month called for in the proforma, Rayburn reports. Two more builders now are joining the project — ContraVest and Doucette Homes. Change of leadership in the works Also earlier this year, developer Kevin Kelly sold out his 16 percent share to the primary investor, Fannie Mae. Now Fannie Mae is looking for a new development partner, which has some residents worried that new urbanist principles might be sacrificed. According to recent news reports, one of Arizona’s biggest developers of conventional suburban projects — Diamond Ventures — is negotiating to acquire a share of Civano. Rayburn counters that both Fannie Mae and the city — which signed a binding developer’s agreement with Civano — are committed to maintaining a new urbanist approach. “Fannie Mae has made very clear that the look and feel of Civano’s first neighborhood need to continue throughout the project,” he says. “Surveys of buyers show that the number one reason people are moving to Civano is the streetscapes resulting from the new urbanist tenets.” Sustainability Despite all of Civano’s environmental performance standards, it has still been subject to criticism from local environmentalists. Because of the project’s location 15 miles from Tucson’s downtown core, Civano has been labeled “sprawl” by a local politician, some activists in the Sierra Club, and others. Civano has also drawn praise from environmentalists, but the mixed reviews rankle the developers, new urbanists like Andres Duany who was one of the designers, and residents. “Civano’s pattern is as compact, mixed-use, and as environmentally friendly as the market will tolerate,” says Duany. Resident Scott Calhoun adds, “I see what they mean about the distance from downtown, but that argument gets a little old. To work on this scale, the developer could not do infill.” Furthermore, Civano’s design does reduce automobile use, Calhoun claims, at least in his household. “My wife has worked in Civano for a year. She’s a landscape designer at the nursery (one of the project’s several businesses). Civano’s job creation aspect has kicked in. We were able to eliminate one car.” Rayburn adds that the developers would love to do infill, but the site was selected by the city in the 1970s. He adds that Civano has convinced developers that urban, infill projects are viable. “We broke the mold, and really showed there is a market for this type of neighborhood,” he says. “Now other developers have put together infill projects downtown” with similarities to Civano. Ron Koenig, of the city’s Sustainable Communities Program, argues that the sprawl criticism made more sense 20 years ago. “Seventy percent of the city’s building permits are now being pulled at a greater distance from the downtown core than Civano.” Lisa Stage, a local environmental activist, says that Civano would probably fall within an urban growth boundary (UGB), if a referendum requiring UGBs passes in Arizona this November. Because Civano is in such an early stage — only about 120 homes out of 2,700 have been sold — judging just how effectively the project will reduce automobile usage is difficult. Also, plans have been made to provide bus transit once Civano becomes large enough to justify new routes. The larger question raised by Civano is to what extent new urbanists can count on support from environmental activists. Many environmentalists continue to focus on location of development — i.e. infill or not — as the primary criterion in deciding whether to label a particular project as environmentally beneficial or not. New urbanists would argue that the urban form is at least as important — and that a project like Civano deserves support despite its greenfield location. Economic viability Just as important is the question of economic sustainability. The builders — with the exception of RGC — are reportedly making money on Civano, but the developer is not. Part of the reason may lie in the fact that Civano is in the early stage of buildout. But the developer is also spending about $5,000 extra per lot to meet the environmental and new urbanist standards, Rayburn says. Systems for use of reclaimed water cost $1,500/home, he explains, and “we’re spending four times as much for landscaping as we normally would do.” The latter expense is largely due to an extensive native plant reclamation effort. With some ingenuity and dialog with the regulators, some of these costs can be reduced, Rayburn adds. For example, the developers could save money by employing landscaping techniques to reduce water usage on private lots, and only installing pipes for reclaimed water usage in public areas, he says. Landscaping costs could be cut to, say, three times conventional costs without compromising the project, he adds. “I’m pretty confident that with a little help we can show that Civano is an economically sustainable model.” City officials view their infrastructure subsidy as an investment. John Laswick of the Sustainable Communities Program claims that the city’s $3 million direct upfront costs will be paid back from fees and tax revenue from Civano in six years, with a net income stream thereafter. And that doesn’t count the social and environmental benefits, he adds. The town center also may take a while to achieve full economic viability. It has been highly beneficial in demonstrating that Civano is different from typical subdivisions, and some of the businesses, such as an accounting office, have been successful, according to Rayburn. The privately run cafe, however, will likely need subsidization for a period of time, he says. The cafe provides a place for prospective homebuyers to relax and recharge between touring houses and could be considered a marketing investment, he adds.