Sometimes to build something decent you have to go through a really painful exercise of re-writing the local zoning code.

You could limit your brain damage to negotiating a re-write of the zoning code for just your site.  Lots of municipalities have rules for this on their books which allow for greater flexibility in site planning in return for higher quality design.  You can rewrite the rules for your site to you if you apply for something called a Planned Development Permit (PD) or Planned Unit Development (PUD).  This extra step can be frustrating if what you are proposing to build is completely in line with the town's big picture policy documents like the General Plan or the Comprehensive Plan,  it's just out of sync with the more specific Zoning Code of Development Standards.  Being inline with the big picture but out of line with the small-bore rules is tough.  The staff gets nervous and you get a heightened level of attention and scrutiny while the folks building schlocky snout houses, McMansions and regrettable strip retail get a pass because they are doing what the small bore rules in the zoning code require.

If you get your rewrite of the rules adopted as a PD or PUD you may be surprised when the local fire marshal shows up and tells you that they are removing the parking from the curb in front of your project.  And that's what's wrong with the PD/PUD.  It is a half measure that puts the developer/builder through a protracted negotiation with the staff and planning commission that still leaves room for a stunning and arbitrary decision by the fire marshall or the public works director after the project is built.

If you want greater certainty, build in places that already have the code in place that allows what you want to build as-of-right.  If the local zoning is messed up and out of whack with the big picture policies of your town, push to get the zoning code and the development standard brought in line, particularly if you intend to build more than one project in a place that you care about.  The best place to find the open source tools needed to rewrite a zoning code so that you can build walkable urbanism is The Center for Applied Transect Studies (CATS).  While that is certainly an extremely geeky name, they are providing Excellent Free Stuff from Smart People.  You can download the latest version of the SmartCode (Version 9.2).  The SmartCode is a framework that is already in place in many communities along with a host of interesting SmartCode modules you can use in addition to the base SmartCode.  All this great free stuff is available for download as  PDF documents and in editable files for Excel, Adobe InDesign, and Word.

http://transect.org/

There are also a ton of great photographs , drawings and diagrams.  It is a great resource that deserves your attention.

A 17 minute video on Urban Transect Theory https://vimeo.com/40099153.  There are lots of other Transect videos up on YouTube.  Please post comments with your favorites.

If you know Architect and urbanist Stephen A. Mouzon, you probably know what I mean.  He's a guy who has a lot of great ideas and observations to share and it seems like his mind is always running three paragraphs ahead of his mouth.  It can be real work to talk shop with Steve.  But I find that more often than not, it is completely worth the effort required.

In 2007 Steve published A Living Tradition - Architecture of the Bahamas.  I think this book was a real breakthrough for it's introduction of a framework for thinking about the pieces of a building.  On all the common building elements from the wall base, to door and windows, to porch columns and eaves, Steve starts out by stating WE DO THIS BECAUSE and then give the reason why those piece of the building need to be arranged and ordered in a certain way.  Then he illustrates a spectrum from  the basic to the fancy, his vernacular to classical spectrum with line drawings showing three levels of treatment; Organic, Median, and Refined for each element.  Below each example he lists what matters and what doesn't matter in the delivery of each example. Then you get 12 very nice color photos showing how that element shows up in real life in buildings in the Bahamas.

This approach to picking a consistent level of grammar for your building, deciding how plain or how fancy you want to build and staying within that zone is excellent.  I hope that Steve will post a comment letting folks know where they can get ahold of this book in hardcopy or in an e-book version.  (Powell's and Amazon show the book as out of stock, etc.)

A Living Tradition is a very ambitious book covering a lot of territory.  It covers some topics in much greater detail than others.  Steve continues to make me crazy with his habit of inventing proper nouns for pretty much everything he is trying to explain.  I mean the guy cannot help but Capitalize Stuff, which I find more than a little distracting.  It would bother me more if what he had to say was not so thought provoking.

Andrew Frey frequently reminds rookie developers to make their decision to proceed with a project or not, in light of the Capitalization Rate (Cap Rate) that existing projects are currently selling for in their local market. Let's unpack that a bit.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalizationrate.asp

Andrew recommends that the Return on Project Costs for your new construction project needs to be at least 2 points above the Cap Rate for the purchase of existing buildings that have no construction risk, no leasing risk and no refinance risk.  

Here is some other advice for Small Developer/Builders from my favorite recovering attorney and practicing small developer:

Andrew Frey: Start with a market study.  Your equity and debt will do their own underwriting, and you want to be one step ahead of them.   For example, if new construction only makes economic sense when local rents hit $2 per SF per month, you have to have a really solid case that rents are already at that level or will be soon.

If the market for existing small rental buildings is around a "6 cap" (existing annual NOI / purchase price = 6% capitalization rate) and your proposed building will only generate a 6% annual return (future annual NOI / total development budget), then you are taking on risk without return AND it will be hard to make the balloon payment on your construction loan (can't re-fi or sell).

Try to do your first project in a prototypical way, i.e. on a typical small lot with plans that can be re-used.  Small development already suffers from lack of economies of scale (for an individual project), but you can achieve economies over the course of several projects (soft costs go to zero, hard costs get more accurate).  Re-inventing the wheel for every small site is really expensive."

A subsequent exchange between Dallas planner/urban designer Patrick Kennedy and developers Frank Starkey and Monte Anderson went like this:

Frank Starkey: Monte, don't you implicitly "have a really solid case that rents are there or will be soon" (because of your value-added place making approach)?

Patrick Kennedy: I don't think there are comps in the areas Monte Anderson typically operates. He is the pioneer.

Frank Starkey: True. So that's the limit of applying Andrew's advice on the frontier, where there is no demonstrable "market". Two important but very different contexts and approaches: a) established (but hopefully rebounding) markets as Andrew describes and b) moribund locations like where Monte works. (Of course, his efforts transform the latter into the former, at which point the calculus changes.). Thoughts?

Monte Anderson: In the early days of the areas I work, I am always looking for the butcher, the baker or the candle stick maker who will do a project that is more suited for their use and not the investment initially. And yes John, I would like to do more deals that fit this model that Andrew Frey initially talked about. Also, I look for a neighborhood with good bones and one that is somewhat close to something else that is having success. If the streets are not good there is usually little hope unless the city is willing to make those expensive changes. It is a painful way to develop and the return is over a longer period, 10 years or more.

A heads up for folks attending CNU23 in Dallas next month,  Andrew Frey and Monte Anderson will be joining me for a CNU202 Session on Wednesday morning at 9:00AM titled Understanding the Numbers and Asking for Money.  Monte and Andrew are really sharp guys.  I am looking forward to the Session.

http://www.cvent.com/events/cnu-23-meeting-the-demand-for-walkable-places/custom-18-88c3ac768b424fcf88e1f4dd6a7c2d3b.aspx