Daybreak Wins Community of the Year

The National Association of Home Builders has awarded Daybreak Community of the Year for 2010. The Best in American Living Awards (BALA) is an organization that recognizes those who have achieved superior levels of creativity and innovation in their designs for residential development on a macro and micro scale. Judging is conducted by an expert panel of builders, design professionals, marketing professionals, land planners, interior designers and editors. The judging criteria for community of the year:

•Exterior design/curb appeal
•Site Plan
•Construction quality/cost efficiency
•Product sales success

As you can see one of the best indicators of winning the award is product sales success. As the Daybreak community was ranked as the sixth best selling master planned community in the United States for 2009 by RCLCO (Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC, it is no surprise that they were in good standing to win this award.

Daybreak also received the 2010 BALA Platinum Award for Suburban Smart Growth Community. This award is judged on the following criteria:

•Protect and provide access to the natural environment
•Incorporate a mix of land uses
•Use land in an efficient and innovative manner
•Encourage multiple transportation options
•Be pedestrian-scaled and pedestrian-friendly
•Provide housing choices
•Respect local traditions
•Utilize infill opportunities
•Deliver a genuine experience of place
•Create jobs and affect the economic environment

With Daybreak's commercial center, TRAX, mix of housing options and new urban design, a platinum award in this category is no surprise.

On a side note, while this is not exactly braking news I will be catching up on events that concern Daybreak that have happened in during my long break.

Daybreak's New Community

The South Jordan City Council has just approved an addition to a plan submitted by Kennecott Land to build an “Active Adult Community” here in Daybreak. The Daybreak Active Adult Community will have marketing that will target the 50 years and older demographic group, but will not be totally exclusive to that age group. I expect we will start to see the “Daybreakish” advertising for this community sometime this year. An advertisement featuring a husband and wife with gray hair riding bikes around the lake possibly with an “empty nester” caption displayed somewhere prominently.

In my opinion this part of the development will fuel growth and compliment the existing Daybreak community. The plan is for the Daybreak Active Adult Community to be located West of Oquirrh Lake and North of the new Rio Tinto Corporate Center. It will be nice to see some houses on that side of the lake as for years it has just been mounds of earth and construction equipment. The homes seem to be of the parkside variety that Holmes Homes and Richmond American Homes are building in Eastlake. This is logical considering that the targeted group will probably like not having to take care of a yard.

Considering the principles of New Urbanism this new development will bring further age diversity to a community that some consider to be "plagued with children." The current real estate market has been hindered by the tightening of credit standards and lack of affordability in the Salt Lake Valley. However, this particular demographic is most likely not constrained by these factors. This demographic has probably been living in a McMansion in which they have a considerable amount of equity if they do not own it completely. They are tired of having a 4500 sq ft house to take care of along with the burden of high utility costs. They want a simpler life in a community that has plenty of amenities. This trend has been proven and documented in numerous publications both journalistic and academic.

The size of this group is also astonishing. Developing this part of Daybreak now will probably keep Daybreak sales up and will increase their market share in a time when many developers are struggling to stay solvent. I think one of the best benefits of this move will be the generational diversity mix here in Daybreak. Many neighborhoods are built and then populated by people of the same age, socioeconomic status, and stage in life. These neighborhoods are stable for awhile until this demographic experiences a change. Maybe all of the kids have grown and moved on to college or other pursuits. All of a sudden the neighborhood that was once full of kids seems empty. Maybe all of the residents get to the point where they can buy a better house and the permanent nature of a residential neighborhood all of a sudden turns into one in which half of the homes are now rentals. Within a couple of years you see the landscaping and general upkeep of the neighborhood deteriorate.

This type of thing can be prevented if the neighborhood contains a good mix of residents. Many might say that designating a specific area of Daybreak just for the "old fogies" is actually segregating them. I would have to agree with this point of view to a certain extent. However, unlike many active adult communities, this new development looks like it will be integrated with everything else in Daybreak. It will be without walls and fences to keep the young "whipper snappers" out. Overall, mixing generations in a neighborhood is a good thing. This Active Adult Community is a big step in that direction.

Utah Obesity and Daybreak

The University of Utah recently released a study that compares rates of obesity with where people live. This study concluded that people who live in older neighborhoods are significantly thinner than residents of the newer suburbs. Most of these older neighborhoods were built before 1950, but considering the amount of building during the depression and the war, you will find that many of these neighborhoods had homes built in the first and second decade of last century. It was during this time that mixed-use communities were still legal before the separate zoning of commercial and residential. A prime example is the Yale / Harvard area of Salt Lake City. With village centers at 13th South and 17th East, 15th South and 15th East, and another nearby at 9th South and 9th East, most people can walk to the necessities of life. Schools are right in the middle of the neighborhood as well.

This study adds to the growing amount of literature linking obesity to non-walkable suburbs. People find it easy to say Americans are lazy and gluttonous, but the fact is that many U.S. communities simply are not designed for walking. Utah suburbs discourage walking because they are not very safe for pedestrians. Simple attributes such as sidewalks or traffic calming devices are not present. Another discouraging factor is when walking in a cul-de-sac you literally have to walk through a maze of secondary streets to reach most destinations. The only real direct route is to cut through yards. In the traditionally designed suburb, most destinations are not even within an easy walking distance of the homes. All of these factors play a role in discouraging pedestrians. This new study indicates that this active lifestyle is simply easier to achieve in communities that are walkable.

Virtually everything American society has done for the past 100 years has made it easier for us to be lazy. Early concerns about this were shown by the government with fitness and health campaigns being introduced in the early fifties. Currently, it is estimated that 17.1% of US kids Ages 2-19 Are Overweight. This sedentary lifestyle that correlates with obesity does not necessarily stop in childhood. This lifestyle is carried on to adulthood where almost two-thirds of all adults are overweight or obese. It is passed down through the generations, but this is not done solely by genetics. If you are overweight your child has a 40% greater chance of being overweight or obese. With so many opportunities to exercise in Daybreak, it is time that parents be an example to their children and lead a healthy lifestyle.

While Daybreak is cited in this study as being a model of healthy residential development, the study is only referring to the Daybreak that is planned. In an earlier post I talked about walkability in Daybreak. Daybreak is currently not a walkable community. This status will only change once the village center is up and running. With the giant district behemoth shopping center outside the gates, it will be difficult to entice residents out of their cars to visit local shops.

The Future of New Urbanism in Utah

I received an e-mail from a reader not too long ago about my stance on New Urbanism. He insisted that New Urbanism did not have any place in the Utah suburbs. He further suggested that the movement was just a planning fad that would end with only a couple developments in the Salt Lake Valley carrying the banner of New Urbanism. In response, I have decided to post a picture of New Urban developments in the Salt Lake Valley. They are located throughout the valley in all four quadrants branching out from the city center of Salt Lake. While a couple already exist, the majority of these developments are either in the planning or construction phases. As you can see, New Urbanism is not a trend that will go away any time soon and considering the movement has been gaining momentum since the 80s, I do not think it is short term.

In looking at where development is occurring in Utah, the fringes of the community are still popular, but there is a growing trend that is the result of the energy crises. This trend uses transit as a lifeline to the surrounding communities. Numerous TODs (Transportation Oriented Developments) have started already and many more are planned. Any empty space near a proposed TRAX station has become prime real estate for these communities.

Many more New Urban projects are starting all over the state. Ogden, Layton, Farmington, Woods Cross, Park City, Heber, Lehi, Orem, Mapleton, Richfield, Cedar City, and St. George all have projects on the drawing board or being constructed. Of course, none of these projects match the scale of Daybreak or the West Bench which has many more communities planned, but this is clearly the new direction in development. This is by no means an exhaustive list. In fact, if anyone would like to inform me of other communities planned or being built in Utah, then please share. This list is merely what I could gather via the internet.

As for whether or not it belongs in Utah, I would like to refer to another comment that I received: "..let the free market reign." In Utah our demand is being pushed by our demographics. People want to start a family and own a place instead of rent. With housing and land prices going through the roof people need affordable choices. These choices need to save the owners money and time. With the option to ride mass transit, lower utility bills, and maintenance-free options, you can stretch your budget much further. New Urbanism will continue in Utah by choice. This choice has already been seen in the marketplace for housing and will continue well into the future.

Housing Density and NIMBYs

Housing density has been and will remain the most common disagreement with regards to new development in existing towns. The politics surrounding this issue can be fierce with strong emotions on all sides. The battle over density usually starts when a developer purchases land with plans to build medium to high-density residential. One resident will hear about the pending project and will rally the troops. This person is usually referred to as a NIMBY which stands for Not In My Back Yard. This neighborhood watchdog will then broadcast the message that an evil developer is trying to profit with a new development and does not care about its impact on the surrounding community.

This was the case with Daybreak and many other new urban communities across the nation. The question that I would like to ask most NIMBYs is this: how did you inform yourself about the topic of density and its effects? Some of them call on first-hand experience. The neighbors near many developments complain about the traffic that the development is causing. Of course while the infrastructure that will accompany the development is only starting these neighbors pass judgment by what they see immediately. This short-term, subjectivity should not be taken as fact, but many NIMBY’s present it as fact. Many NIMBYs that I have talked to use the words “its just common sense” all too often when trying to explain their information source. While I feel that common sense is a valid tool that cannot be underestimated, I also feel that it is sometimes confused with myth.

These myths are traditional in my opinion. Passed down through the generations and are added to with each new generation. The history of where these myths started reaches back as far as the 1800s. The US started as an agricultural nation and transitioned into an industrial nation with factories and mass production. This transition was accompanied by waves of immigration from Europe. Each new wave contained different ethnic groups that were overtly discriminated against. This discrimination clustered these immigrants into densely populated areas with the least desirable jobs. This segregation along socio-economic status lines resulted in the materialization of many of the myths that are associated with density.

Fast forward to the age of suburbia that started after World War II. Being enabled to travel long distances via automobile, people could more economically live in the suburbs and further segregate themselves. Zoning use ordinances specified separation of land use and from then on commercial could no longer coexist with residential. In many cases this meant separation of density as well. Fast forward again to the 70s and 80s where the government decided to build “project housing” which not only segregated people of lower socio-economic status, but actually concentrated them. Many of these were an immediate failure with rampant crime and social problems. The images created by these projects reverberated with further intensity in the media particularly in movies and television. The “inner city” was a dangerous crime ridden area only suitable for those “other” people. All of these events perpetuated the myths of density with a simple philosophy: guilty by association.

So what is the real story behind density? The best way to answer this question is to address the myths often cited by NIMBYs one at a time.

Myth: Density will lower the value of my home. Many things can lower the value of a home, but density is not by itself one of them. In fact researchers have conducted many studies on single-family housing that is located in proximity to dense residential developments. The conclusion of these studies is that there is not a significant difference in the appreciation rate of those single family homes located in close proximity to high residential developments and those single-family homes located further away. In fact the percentage of appreciation is 2.9 versus 2.7 percent. This is not a significant difference. However, if you have an apartment building located next to your home that is 5 stories tall, over 30 years old, the grass is browning, windows are broken, loud music is blaring from the windows, and the paint is literally peeling like a sunburn, then this will obviously lower the value of your home. Of course, if a single family residence was in the same state, then it would lower the value of your home as well.

Another myth is that dense housing will create more traffic. Obviously if you add more cars to an area you will have more traffic. However, research has proven that higher density housing decreases traffic per person. Single family detached homes average 10 car trips a day. Compare that to the 6.3 car trips per day made by people living in townhomes and condominiums. Density is also needed for public transportation to be feasible. The Mid-Jordan TRAX line would not extend to South Jordan at all if not for the density that will make up the Daybreak Town Center. This mode of transportation will bring an additional choice for transportation that is likely to be used considering gas prices. Daybreak further mitigates traffic by having most necessities within walking distance which encourages the two-legged commute.

The most prominent myth about density is that it creates crime. This claim is absolutely false. Numerous studies have been conducted and the conclusion is that per population, crime is the same in higher density housing as it is in single family housing. The perception of crime is perpetuated when the observer holds an entire apartment complex to the same standard as one single family home. So when three juveniles from the same complex commit a crime and the police show up at the apartment complex three times in one year, it is considered “crime ridden.” On the other hand if the police show up for a juvenile in a single family residence this is considered an “anomaly.” Crime research indicates that crimes increase in accordance with certain socioeconomic indicators such as education attainment, unemployment (particularly of males), and the poverty rate.

The final main myth is that dense residential housing is unattractive and is only desired by lower-income households. Considering the changing demographics and preferences of consumers, this assumption is not based in reality. This market appeals to empty-nester and first-time home buyers tremendously. As with anything in real estate it is all about location, location, location. You can buy a single-family home in some locations for half of the price of a town home in south Jordan. Considering that the average income earner in Utah currently cannot purchase high-density housing in many areas, I would have to say that it is not just the poor that are moving into condos and townhomes. If the housing has a good design and is well maintained it will attract quality residents who care about and participate in their community.

So who is winning this battle, the NIMBYs or the New Urbanists? The New Urbanists have the clear lead, but this depends greatly on where you live. In North Dakota and Oklahoma , the NIMBYs are holding their ground. If you live in Utah , Colorado , Texas , Florida , or California on the other hand, the New Urbanists are definitely ahead of the game. Since its inception in the early 80s, New Urbanism has grown at a phenomenal rate in most states. Locally, more and more new urban developments are popping up. They are called by different names such as smart growth or transit oriented developments, but they are the same with respect to density.

In fact, South Jordan will shortly be surrounded by these developments. With the Herriman Towne Center , Daybreak, Jordan River , and other future communities coming to light, New Urbanism will also be the future of development locally. A number of strong forces demand this density. Energy costs demand homes that are more efficient, smaller, easier to take care of, and closer to the necessities of life. Businesses now want to locate their operations in communities that are vibrant, walkable, and have transit nearby. Density is the vehicle that has to be used to accomplish these attributes. The government wants density as it allows for less expenditure on infrastructure per tax payer. Finally, people are demanding more density and they are voting with their feet. The success of dense New Urban communities speaks volumes about this demand.

Density will have its place in the future of South Jordan, but if not planned correctly it can cause problems. Density cannot be thrown in a community in a half hazard manner in order for the developer to make a buck. Instead it should be planned and integrated correctly according to transect planning and community needs. These new developments must feature good designs that are sensitive to the context of the surrounding community. These designs and features must be maintained by a community organization such as a HOA. I can see why many NIMBYs are opposed to housing density, but assumptions should not be made based on false associations of the past. To those NIMBYs who will fight till their last breath any development that has more density that 2 units per acre consider if your beliefs about density are actually true. Also consider if your energy might be better spent ensuring that these developments are integrated properly instead of trying to ban them all together. Density is here to stay. Instead of a battle of how many units per acre, we need to ensure that these units are built, maintained, and located in a fashion that will enhance the community for all of us.

Traffic In Daybreak

With the increase in the planned density at Daybreak concerns have surfaced about the increase in traffic. The current plans for Daybreak call for over 20,000 homes to be located within the community. All of these residents will have cars. Most of them will have more than one along with more than one member of the family to drive them. If you do the math on these numbers you can easily see the thousands of car trips that will be necessary for each family daily. However, these calculations are based off of the traditional suburban model of traffic. Daybreak follows the principles of New Urbanism and studies have shown that there is a significant difference in the amount of traffic generated by these diametrically opposed planning schemes.

New Urbanism improves transportation choice and reduces traffic speeds. These New Urban design features tend to reduce per capita automobile ownership and use. While most individual features have modest impacts on total travel, their effects are synergistic resulting in significant total reductions in vehicle use. Research has proved that residents that live in well-designed New Urbanist neighborhoods with good walkability, mixed land use, connected streets, and local services tend to drive 20-35% less than residents in automobile dependent areas. Another study has concluded that these residents take 305.5% more walking trips than residents of conventionally designed suburbs. While these benefits have not materialized immediately in Daybreak, most of the research suggests that these benefits will not be realized until developments are "made whole" with the majority of basic needs within a short distance of homes.

In addition to the traffic reducing affects of mixed-use communities, Daybreak offers a variety of traffic calming structural features in its design. The most noticable of these are the two roundabouts that deflect traffic from two fairly high-speed parkways that lead to Daybreak from Bangerter Highway. These arterial roundabouts distribute traffic in a more efficient manner than 4-way intersections and slow traffic down upon their entrance to Daybreak. Recent studies have also proven that roundabouts significantly reduce vehicle crashes compared to intersections.

Another traffic calming feature is the neckdowns that are placed at most intersections in Daybreak. Neckdowns are curb extensions at intersections that reduce the roadway width and tighten the curb radii at the corner. Again this feature slows traffic, but it also decreases the distance that a pedestrian must travel to cross the street and makes the pedestrian more visible. There are other traffic calming measures, but these two are the most effective.

Even with all of these measures, there are still drivers that choose to speed down the street, racing to their destination. This practice has irked quite a few residents in the community including the Daybreak Daily website author Scoop. He decided to do somethign about it and worked with the City of South Jordan to monitor the traffic on a particularly problematic street in Daybreak where drivers tend to speed. The street in question is Kestrel Rise. One of the main problems with this street is that when driving South you drive down hill. This obviously increases speed and many do not slow down until they are only feet away from a stop sign. While these studies gave an average speed of 25 mph, this is simply an average. The traffic monitoring devices registered speeds of up to 50 mph on this street. Of course speeds like this did not happen every day, but speeds of 35 to 40 mph are fairly common depending on the day of the week.

What additional options are there to preven cars from accelerating to 50 mph in an area where kids play? A few design features come to mind. Traffic slowing features such as humps or speed bumps as some people call them. These features actually come in a large variety and are one of the most effective design features in slowing traffic speed. There is a downside to this though. Cost. You would think that making a bump in the road would not be very expensive, but in this case a properly designed bump can cost thousands of dollars. The question that keeps popping up in my mind is this: Isn't a few thousand dollars worth it when a simple design feature can (and probably will someday) save the life of a child? Especially considering this street is adjacent to an elementary school.

I would deem most streets in Daybreak to be safe. This safety is due to the design features that were likely planned from the very beginning. However, no plan is perfect and some adjustments need to be made here and there. While speed humps may not be the answer, planners and the community need to do something about people driving 35 to 50 miles per hour past homes full of children and an elementary school.

Cottonwood Mall - A New Dawn

Maybe you have heard that the Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay is going to be redeveloped by General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). 57 acres of what used to be acres and acres of parking lots will now be transformed into a new urban walkable community. They have torn down most of the old mall except the Macy's store which will be incorporated into the new plan. The plan calls for office space, retail, entertainment, and residential space to be mixed together using traditional architecture. In fact, GGP is planning for 534 residential units which will mostly be in the form of condos and townhomes, but there will be a few single-family detached homes as well. 700,00 square feet of retail along with 100,000 square feet of office space will be integrated among these residential units. GGP even managed to fit 17 acres of open space into the plan along with a stream that will skirt the western and southern sides of the development.

In my opinion, this plan is the best possible use for that piece of real estate. The land is being recycled into a walkable mixed-use community that will be a sign of things to come. This kind of development is called gray field development a form of infill new urbanism. Many do not know this, but malls across the country are being redeveloped in much the same way. As with the Cottonwood Mall, sales for these retail establishments have been on the steady decline and many have become a blight in the community. Governments seeking to revitalize the area to increase tax base and rid themselves of blight have aided developers to turn these old malls into walkable mixed-use communities. Belmar, Colorado is a prime example of this and the local government is just starting to reap the benefits of such a community.

Many of the citizens of the Cottonwood area are skeptical of the plan and especially the tax-increment financing that the Granite School District will use to pay for an estimated $52 million in infrastructure improvements for the project. I really would not worry if I were living in that tax base. The tax base for that municipality will increase substantially when the development is finished and there will be more than enough money to pay the debt. The increase in property values will have an impact too. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that there was an immediate rise in the value of surrounding real estate corresponding to the announcement of the redevelopment plans.

GGP is the second largest owner of malls in the U.S. and is usually the purveyor of drivable suburban malls. This development is their first venture into new urbanism a move that may signal a change in policy for the company. They still have malls like fashionplace that are thriving, but a change is on the horizon. More and more conventional malls will be redeveloped into mixed-use communities along with the increased demand for walkable communities. The project currently has an elongated time-line that will last the next ten years. Will it compete with Daybreak for customers of walkable new urbanism? A little. According to estimates of demand for new urbanism, there will be no shortage of customers in this area of the market and there will be plenty for both developments.

West Bench Plan Setback

The Salt Lake Tribune printed a story about a break down in the planning process for the West Bench today. An interesting story to say the least. The two parties do not seem to be planning as much as negotiating who will have control. In this they seem to be having a zero sum negotiation with no creativity whatsoever. This control is referred to by Kennecott as "vesting."

I can definitely see Kennecott's point of view on this one. If you are developing a few acres, then the time frame for the project will be short-term. You can be assured that politics will not change drastically and the atmosphere will be the same. On the other hand, Kennecott's endeavor has a time line that stretches to the end of this century. They want to make sure that the tides of political change do not treat their plans like an etch-a-sketch.

The representatives of Salt Lake County also have a valid point. They do not want to bind future administrations to the decisions that are made today. Apparently they cannot legally do this although that is probably debatable as well. By allowing Kennecott to set their plans in stone they feel as if they will have given a dictator control over planning of the West Bench. A dictator who will not relinquish control until the next century. Quite the dilemma.

These two views are not total polar opposites. If the two parties proposed more creative solutions, then I feel that they would not have encountered this impasse. However, from what I read in the paper, neither party seemed astute in communicating with one another. Months of unproductive meetings seemed to be the result. One quote really stands out from the others:

Joe Hatch, who recalled a similar politely worded threat in a private meeting earlier this year. "If you think that kind of threat is going to change our beliefs about planning and zoning," he remembers telling company officials, "it ain't going to work."

"Beliefs." To me that is a strong word. Would he be talking of new urbanism? Density? That is not clear, but obviously he did not like his negotiating position. Does Kennecott have to absolutely win his heart and mind? No.

The county even listed "lessons learned." These seem to concentrate on improving their negotiating position. An interesting lesson learned is that they apparently want to control all planning documents:

"Avoid giving the applicant - in this case, Kennecott - the right to write and produce planning documents. Control of those records must remain with the county, "no matter who is paying the bill."

The county doesn't even seem to keep track of what they disagree about. Another "lesson learned" is to

"Keep minutes to meetings to track ideas and define points of agreement and disagreement."

Wow, thats a novel idea. Who would think of keeping minutes so that they could reference them later. In my opinion the fault lies with both parties. I think that Kennecott could preserve their plans for the west bench and satisfy the demands of the county. Besides, there are no perfect plans. In the end, Kennecott definitely has the upper hand. Kennecott has other venues that it can pursue to accomplish their ends. With this action the county may have excluded itself from having a greater degree of influence on the West Bench. Instead of a comprehensive plan with one government entity, Kennecott will piece together their plan with the municipalities of the West side. Over which Kennecott will be able to exert and even greater influence than the county. From what I can see the break down will not halt Kennecott's plans, nor will they "crumble."

Kennecott and New Urbanism

The West Bench plan is an impressive road map to a sustainable future on the West side of the Salt Lake Valley . I like the plan along with many citizens and groups throughout the valley. This plan is especially interesting considering that a mining company is responsible for building these green new urban communities. However, the way Kennecott has chosen to communicate this plan intrigues me. I have found that many of my neighbors in Daybreak are puzzled when I mention that Daybreak is a New Urban community. They have never heard of the term. That is completely understandable since I have not seen Kennecott use the word in any of their advertisements or brochures.

They use the terms smart growth and sustainability all the time, but not “new urbanism.” Of course, I have not searched through every single piece of literature that Kennecott Land has ever produced. Is Kennecott shy about the fact that Daybreak follows new urban principles? More likely Kennecott decided that the public was not ready for an advertising campaign that proclaims the merits of new urbanism. This makes some sense considering that the Daybreak community was the first major new urban community in Utah . Introduce the concept slowly so people get used to the idea. So you see the advertising featuring the kids playing, the traditional architecture, community gatherings, and the silhouette of the tree on the yellow background with the tag line “this is getting good.” These advertisements appeal to our nostalgic side of how neighborhoods used to be. It also appeals to parents who feel that it takes a community to raise a child. Not that these advertisements are bad. They’re not. In fact the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies here. But while they show the pictures of and people who live in a new urban community, they do not convey the philosophy behind the development.

Maybe that is why some people are surprised when the City of South Jordan distributed the flyer informing citizens about the future Daybreak apartments. Conflicts usually come about because people or groups have differing expectations. Kennecott Land should probably stick with their current campaign, but they need to inform the residents and prospective residents about the philosophy behind Daybreak. Maybe then people will know what to expect.

Renting In Daybreak

In an earlier post I talked about how apartments are an integral part of new urban communities. In my opinion if they are integrated properly into a community they can bring diversity and allow people that could not otherwise afford to buy a home a chance to live in Daybreak. How do Daybreak residents feel about apartments being built? According to a Daybreak Daily website poll most Daybreak residents do not like the idea. In fact, 62.5% of the 115 respondents indicated that they were not happy with the decision to build apartments in Daybreak. (May 13) They are not alone. Most owners of single-family homes or condos in the United States do not want to live near rental housing. They see them as high-crime areas that put extraordinary burdens on local schools and civil services. However this has been proven completely false. Numerous studies conducted by Harvard, NYU, and numerous government entities prove that these claims are false. Per unit crime in apartments is almost equal to that of single family homes. As for property values, "Between 1987 and 1995, single-family houses located within 300 feet of apartment communities appreciated at roughly the same rate as those not near an apartment property, 3.12 percent compared to 3.19 percent."

On the other hand I feel that there is something to be said about the habits that tend to be exhibited by renters. People frequently moving in and out result in noise and create an environment of impermanence and of a transitory lifestyle. Property managers report a higher incidence of rule violations by tenants. Examples include noise disturbances, illegal parking and overburdening of the Association recreational facilities. These rules are broken because many tenants are ignorant of these community restrictions. Rental occupancies tend to be shorter than owner occupancies and do not facilitate long-term relationships among neighbors. Resident owners are more likely to carefully maintain exclusive use common areas than are tenants. However, most of these negative attributes apply to homes and condos that are rented out. These are properties that are integrated into the community with the purpose of being owner occupied. The condos and homes in Daybreak that are being leased are more likely to exhibit these problems. With the proper planning the negative impacts can be minimized.

From what I understand Kennecott intends to build many apartments in or within close proximity to the village center. This is good planning, but the devil is in the details. How exactly will they integrate it with the predominant architecture in Daybreak? Exactly how close will these apartments be to single family homes? I would not want to walk out of my front door and stare at a massive facade of a 5 story concrete apartment building. Kennecott Land seems to have a penchant for surprising stake holders by withholding details until the last minute. I would urge them to be a little more forthcoming with residents. Especially those on Topcrest.

Many aspects of the community hinge on the successful integration of higher density housing. Take TRAX for example. You cannot justify having a line run into daybreak without a certain amount of residents in the immediate area of the stations. This calls for density. To truly be a walkable community a development must have a higher density for all essentials to be in close proximity to all homes in a community. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to build these apartments now. It is good timing that they are ready to build the village center and apartments right when the market for rental properties has become much more attractive and commercial entities are still expanding. In all practicality I feel that these apartments can be a great addition to the community if they are done properly. I just hope the planners use the successful attributes of other new urban communities.

Premium for New Urbanism

One of the most popular criticisms of Daybreak that I have heard people use is that the community is overpriced. In my opinion the whole market is overpriced at this point, but holding this factor aside is Daybreak more expensive than comparable homes? Maybe an appraiser or real estate agent might claim that it is about even if not slightly overpriced. However, the general opinion that I have collected from friends and coworkers that live in nearby neighborhoods is that Daybreak is overpriced. I might argue that the amenities justify the price, but my friends eagerly point out that I pay a home owner's association fee for the amenities each month. With these facts in consideration, should a house in Daybreak cost more than the surrounding area? The answer is yes. Why? Because the market has proven that consumers are willing to pay a premium to live in communities that exhibit new urbanism traits.
New urban communities are relatively new. The first community to be dubbed new urban was constructed in Florida in the early 80s. Back then no one really knew to what extent the design features of new urban communities would add value. They could only surmise that people liked the features and thus demand would dictate a premium be paid.

Recent studies now go into detail about the value adding amenities and the amount of value they contribute. One of the first of these was a study called Valuing New Urbanism: The Case of Kentlands. This analysis used a hedonic pricing model in which size, construction quality and other variables were held constant. The conclusion? When compared to homes in conventional suburbs outside of the community, homes in Kentlands exhibited a $24,000 to $30,000 price premium. The study was conducted in 1998 and the gap has widened since then.

Not only will consumers pay a premium to live in new urban communities this premium has grown larger through the years. Another new urban community has exhibited a 14.4 percent higher appreciation rate than comparable homes with all significant factors held constant. This widening gap was attributed to features in the community reaching maturity.

Additional studies conducted by Market Perspectives and the Urban Land Institute compared New Urbanist communities with standard subdivisions. Their study showed a minimum 15 percent premium for houses in New Urbanist communities. These studies were conducted by comparing regionally diverse new urbanist communities with homes in nearby conventional neighborhoods. The authors accounted for site traits, housing characteristics, unit quality, neighborhood, and other market factors. They even considered HOA fees. Even with those factors not being accounted for, new urbanist communities still command a solid 7% price premium.

I'm not sure as to the exact percentage, but from what I can estimate from real estate listings I can see a small, but visible price premium for homes in Daybreak. The turmoil in the market prevents any serious investigation at this point. I have to admit that I generalize the fairly rigorous studies conducted on values because the variables appear to be the same. However, if I am even close in my assumptions, in the years to come Daybreak will appreciate significantly faster than surrounding real estate.

Is Daybreak Crimogenic?

A few days ago I read about a supposed stranger that approached a young girl in Daybreak and threatened her with a knife. The apparent intention of the stranger was to get her to drink something. This story was later proven false as the girl was lying, but it peaked my interest about crime in Daybreak. I wrote an article earlier about crime in Daybreak that compared statistics with my old neighborhood, but this article only touched base with a debate that has been raging for years about new urbanism and crime.

A theory of community design called Defensible Space seems to be the clashing point of this debate. This theory was thrust into the mainstream in 1972 by Oscar Newman with his book, "Defensible Space: - Crime Prevention through Urban Design." The four main principles of this theory are:

• Territoriality - The differentiation between public and private space
• Owners, or those who take ownership of a given space, have a vested interest and are more likely to challenge intruders or report them to the police.
• The sense of owned space creates an environment where "strangers" or "intruders" stand out and are more easily identified.
• Natural surveillance - the link between an area's physical characteristics and the residents' ability to see what is happening
• Image - the capacity of the physical design to impart a sense of security also known as the broken window effect. The community must look well-maintained with no signs of criminal mischief.
• Milieu and Access - Features that may affect security, such as proximity to a police substation or busy commercial area

In the related literature you can find many instances where authors suppose that the principles of Defensible Space are at total odds with New Urban Design. The table below illustrates this proposition:

In fact, supporters of this line of thinking believe new urbanism to be crimogenic. However, new urbanist designs have taken the concepts of defensive space to heart in their designs. Most literature that contrasts this point does not understand new urbanism or does not understand defensible space concepts. Possibly both. In reality, new urbanism creates harmonious communities that combine private spaces with active, well-observed, well-connected streets and other public spaces. Streets, squares and plazas are compact and lined with buildings whose many doors and windows help occupants to provide ongoing natural surveillance.

Daybreak has only a few problems from a defensible space standpoint. The walking tunnel that goes under the main road to Daybreak could be a problem. While homes do face this tunnel there are many spots that are obscured from public view. I would not recommend kids hanging around this tunnel. Another problem area is the alleyways that are used as access routes to vehicle storage. For the most part the second story buildings that are so prevalent in Daybreak neighborhoods help in this matter. The windows on the second floor can usually see over fences into the alley. The garage apartments also help in this area. The biggest worry, from a defensible space standpoint, is actually in Eastlake where new construction provides ample areas for theft and vandalism.

Overall, about 95% of the Daybreak development adheres to the concepts of defensible space. Daybreak residents are territorial in that we care about the community and what happens in it. There are clear lines between public and private space. Being able to distinguish a stranger at Oquirrh Lake may be a challenge since it is public space, but this same problem is applicable to any public space: churches, schools, playgrounds. These features can be found in just about any neighborhood in Utah.

Natural surveillance is the category in which Daybreak truly excels along with any new urbanist community. Our houses are close to the street and we have many eyes on the street. Image, well does Daybreak look unsafe? Does it seem like a place where criminal activity can thrive? That idea is laughable. As far as access, yes Daybreak is a mixed use development with a grid-like system of roads, but even Oscar Newman himself did not think that this was a particularly bad thing, especially where cars are made to go so slow. Finally, Daybreak does have a police substation in the community center. This proximity as part of the design speaks well for the planners of Daybreak.

Unfortunately, you cannot "design" out crime from a society. Design can only take you so far. While new urbanism seeks for people to know each other and be more active, it cannot prevent disagreements between people in a community. People are people no matter what neighborhood you are in and they will have disagreements. That is why Daybreak has experienced some crime as of late. For details you can look at the map on www.crimereports.com. This website is extremely handy to assess crime in any neighborhood. My prediction? Daybreak will remain a low-crime neighborhood because of new urbanism not despite it.

Utah New Urbanism

While Daybreak has been at the forefront of new urban development in the Salt Lake Valley, Daybreak is not the only community to attempt a traditional neighborhood design in Utah. Tooele, Farmington, Cedar City and St. George now have new urban communities in the works. These communities may have been proposed already at that time, but I am fairly certain that the developers were watching Daybreak's progress intently.

Heritage at Cedar City is a fairly ambitious master-planned community that will boast amenities similar to Daybreak's including trails, green space, and a community center. An interesting amenity of this community that I have not seen in other new urban communities are horse stables. Apparently there will be equestrian activities for residents to enjoy in this new community. The Heritage is part of a larger plan called Goodboro. This community will be built five minutes west of Cedar City on land that is fairly desolate. I know the man that sold them this land and believe me they payed a pretty penny for it. They will place around 4000 units on this property with an average density of 10 units per acre - definitely dense for this area of Utah. Much like Daybreak, Goodboro will take a long time to finish. The developers estimate that the community will be built out in about 11 years.

Another proposed development in Southern Utah is the Elim Valley community. This supposedly new urban community will be built on the current airport in St. George after the new airport has been built in a different location. Right now it is just in the planning phase and they will not even break ground on the development until 2011. They do have a map of the proposed layout of the community. Again, the development is no where near the scope of Daybreak, but then no one owns so much land near a city like Kennecott. The real draw to this community is the surroundings. With a beautiful desert lake, national parks, green forests, and many other recreational opportunities just minutes away, this community will be able to attract residents easily.

In Davis County a small traditional neighborhood has emerged called The Preserve at Farmington Greens. The Preserve is relatively small with only 140 lots on 90 acres near land designated as wetlands by the US Army Corps of Engineers. This small community displays many new urbanistic features, but as it is so small cannot achieve the scale of amenities or degree of new urbanism that Daybreak can. I have yet to visit this community, but I hear that it is quite nice and a little cheaper than Daybreak. Nice option if you want to live in Davis County.

The final new urban community in Utah (that I am aware of) is Overlake in Tooele. While this community claims to be representative of new urbanism, it has fallen far short of the mark. The craftsmanship of the homes leaves something to be desired. The materials being used are not sustainable and the architecture is is horrible. Almost all of the homes/townhomes are the same beige color and the grass is weed ridden. To Overlake's credit many of the features of new urbanism are present: front porches, walkable distances to parks/greenspace, alleyways etc. This community is in its infancy, but it is definitely not off to a good start. Actually, I felt sorry for a lot of the homeowners at Overlake. I visited the community today after visiting a friend in town and found that many of the homes have lost their roof shingles or vinyl siding in the gusting winds that were blowing through the area. Hopefully the developers will deliver on their promise of new urbanism, but they will definitely have to do better in their second phase.

Smart growth in Utah is off to a decent start with Daybreak and plans for other communities that are being drawn up, but new urban communities are not easily built. One of the biggest hurdles is actually making mixed use communities legal. Financing such a development is risky and marketing it to people who are used to suburbia and McMansions? A difficult endeavor to say the least. Kudos to those who take on risk to develop smart growth communities and to those who decide to live in a sustainable environment.

Daybreak Energy Star = Money & Green

If you live in Daybreak take a moment and look at some of your appliances. See that little blue energy star logo? That little logo equals green. All homes that have been built in Daybreak are energy star qualified. Most home owners look at this as a bonus, but don't really see the whole picture. Obviously it saves you money on your utility bills, but energy star qualified homes can do much more than that. For starters, did you know that you can apply for an energy-efficient mortgage? FHA energy-efficient mortgages allow lenders to add the additional cost of energy efficiency improvements to an already approved mortgage loan (as long as the additional costs do not exceed $4000 or 5% of the value of the home, up to a maximum of $8000, whichever is greater). This won't help you qualify for a loan, but may help you put some of those nice upgrades that you want with no additional down payment.

Being able to advertise that your home is energy-star qualified also makes your home more competitive in the market, especially a buyer's market. The trend is catching on too. The EPA predicts that over two million homes will be constructed to energy star standards before 2010. Not bad when you calculate that each home will save up to 30% on utility bills and use that much less energy. Multiply those two figures together with the average utility bill and you get millions of dollars saved. Maybe less fossil fuel power plants as well. Considering that the energy that homes use account for 20% of carbon dioxide emissions, this is a big step in the right direction. In fact, the energy you use at home pollutes the environment more than your car.

But how does a home become energy star qualified? When I first noticed the energy star designation I thought a few windows, some good insulation, efficient appliances - that's good. I thought that the builder just used certain materials for construction, but there is a little more to it than that. When Gold Medallion Homes builds a row house in Daybreak an independent inspector comes by and inspects the work. This inspector conducts on site testing and inspections to verify the energy efficiency measures, as well as insulation, air tightness, and duct sealing details. They point an infrared camera at a window to see how well it is insulating among other things. The home builders know that they will be inspected so they have to make sure the work is quality or it will not get certified, but builders benefit too. They can get up to $2000 as a tax credit for energy star qualified homes.

The biggest perk is your month to month savings. The gas bill for January in my old house ran as high as $250. Yes, the house was old. My current bill is not even close. I save at least 80$ a month over what I paid previously in utilities (Covers the HOA fee). The energy star compliance is also part of the sustainability principle of new urbanism. In fact, Daybreak has an almost 20% market share on energy star homes in Utah. So when you see the energy star logo think green.

New Urbanism and Affordability

In a previous post I stated the 10 main principles of new urbanism. One of the most important of those principles is mixed use neighborhoods. This includes having affordable housing mixed in with the higher-end housing. This goal of new urbanism is a difficult one to realize as most of the affluent population of the United States have a biased fear of living in close proximity of lower-income households. It is a tough sale. I can just imagine the thoughts of many of the developers to whom Kennecott first pitched the idea of Daybreak when they heard about this goal. How well was this goal accomplished in Founders Village? I think that this goal was not accomplished that well in the first phase. I think Kennecott decided that this aspect of new urbanist communities had to grow on people. So Kennecott (and Calthorpe) decided to locate the majority of affordable housing on the outskirts of the community. The various shades of white town homes, the terrace condos, the row homes, and finally Garbett Homes' new complex are not located anywhere near the heart of the village. To give the planners credit, most of the housing was affordable when Daybreak was first introduced. However, Eastlake has definitely improved upon Founders in the integration aspect with most of the lower-end housing being integrated into the center of the neighborhood. In fact, Eastlake seems to be the opposite of Founders in that the expensive custom home lots and higher-end housing is located on the fringes of the village.

The difficulty of providing affordable housing in Daybreak has become evident. Only a select few condos remain below the median home value of Salt Lake County and demand for these units is starting to drive up price. This is not unique to Daybreak. The rapid appreciation of all real estate in Utah has rendered prices that the average income cannot afford. Nationally, new urbanist communities have had a difficult time remaining affordable. Seaside in Florida and Kentlands in Maryland have appreciated well beyond the range of middle-class affordability. Many even see these communities as elitist. Rich well to do people living in their own yuppy community fantasy. The Congress of New Urbanism, the main force behind the new urbanist movement, has admitted that affordability is a problem. In one of its conferences a speaker suggested that the only sure-fire way of keeping certain units affordable is bad design. They have been working on this issue for years, but have not really come up with a proper solution. Many proponents have suggested design attributes that may help affordability.

One of the solutions suggested by proponents is to have deed-restricted properties. Doug Cornish of Cornish Associates, a developer of a new urbanist community in the East, stresses,

Owners of the deed-restricted units still get the benefits of homeownership, including a share of appreciation. The rest goes back into a land trust, to help maintain a stock of affordable units in the community. Still, Storrs points out, for these first-time home-buyers, “the return is immense,” given that they may have put down less than $5,000,

Another way is to make sure that the exterior of affordable housing matches that of the higher-end housing. Make the dwelling as small as you like, skimp on indoor amenities, but do not make the outside of the house from inferior materials.

Bottom line: unless we can integrate affordable housing options into Daybreak, we will soon be known as a elitist society by many of our peers in other neighborhoods and diversity will not be truly achieved in Daybreak. Of course, many of the designs that I have seen in Daybreak might just keep it affordable. Many of you might ask the question: why should we try and keep housing affordable in Daybreak? One of the trademarks of a decent community is that property values go up right? Obviously this rings true, but the reason for the diversity is to eliminate the segregation that is a typical element of sub-urban sprawl. This in turn makes a community walkable and eliminates the poor or rich from having to commute out of their segregated neighborhoods.

Coming Soon: TRAX

One of the main principles of New Urbanism is the integration of mass transit into the community. In following this principle for Daybreak, Kennecott planned on a light rail line running through the town center. On all of the maps and brochures of Daybreak you can see the two future TRAX stations displayed prominently. The one word that always caught my eye on the map was "proposed." Not set in stone. Well it seems that this mass transit option will become a reality soon. UTA brought in the heavy-duty equipment to start building the line today. UTA projects that the project may be completed in the next three to five years. Will Daybreak be built out that far by then? The row homes and condos on the West side of Daybreak will be near the South station, but will the other villages North of that or the Town Center itself exist? Kennecott has a lot of building to do.

Kennecott did play a large role in encouraging the development of the TRAX line. They did it in classic Kennecott style: money and land. Kennecott donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the initial study of the line. Greasing the wheels of development never hurts. They did this with the Mountain View Corridor as well. What will this mean for Daybreak residents?

• Peak hours travel time to downtown Salt Lake City: 46 minutes
• A train will come to the station every 15 minutes
• Direct connection with commuter rail for regional travel
• Two huge parking lots: 600 spaces and 400 spaces for park and ride
• Direct transit to fashion place mall, covey field, energy solutions arena, U of U stadium etc.
  

You can see that there will be some pros and cons to the whole picture, but with good planning I can see the benefits outweighing any downside. APTA (American Public Transportation Association) has conducted numerous studies alongside university researchers on the value that a light rail line brings to surrounding property. The studies all agree that properties in close proximity to a station increase in value. The stations also give a commercial boost to those retailers located within two blocks of a station. The biggest benefit of all: less people on the road.

Buying Local

One of the cornerstone principles of New Urbanism is that a community must be walkable. To be walkable, most of the essential needs of residents should be within a 10 minute walking distance. Schools, shops, dining, and recreation should all be a walkable distance from your house. So far, Kennecott has delivered well on these principles except for two obvious components: shops and dining. Kennecott is currently in negotiations with a variety of possible retail vendors for placement in the Village Center. I have heard different rumors about grocers, coffee shops, bakeries, and the like, but nothing solid yet. In the mean time, we go against the whole philosophy behind Daybreak: we get in our cars and drive to big box retail and grocery stores outside of Daybreak. Now that we have established our purchasing behavior with the big box stores, what will happen when the intended small stores move into Daybreak? These local businesses will have to start out in the shadow of the big box stores and they are right outside the front gate of our community.

The Boyer Company is the company when you are talking about commercial real estate. This company has a portfolio that includes the Gateway, Draper Peaks, Quarry Bend, and the Junction. This is the company that planned and built The District right outside of Daybreak to the East. Kennecott has less than stellar relations with The Boyer Company. In fact they filed a lawsuit against South Jordan on November 3rd of this last year accusing the city of making a back-door deal with The Boyer Company. The deal was to put a high-density housing development right next to Daybreak. This deal would have made a traffic nightmare and did not consider the impact of the surrounding community at all.

So will our local shops survive in a big box world? That question will be answered collectively by the Daybreak community. If we want to be able to walk down the street on a Monday afternoon to buy the meat for a barbecue, fresh produce for a home-made smoothie, or the best lure to catch fish in Oquirrh Lake, then we need to support the local businesses that come to Daybreak. In business you vote with your money. Buy local. But don't just support the local businesses because it is part of the overall Daybreak master plan, do it because of the many benefits gained by everyone:

Local, independently owned businesses are the heart and soul of any community. These are the stores in our neighborhoods; their owners are our friends and neighbors. More often than not, it is the knowledgeable service and attention to your needs that you value and respect in local businesses. What you may not know is that local business contributes more to the local economy, since the money you spend at a local merchant has three times the impact in our local and regional economy. Those who work with local businesses are more likely to earn a living wage and receive benefits. Food that is produced locally is fresher and requires far less energy to transport to market And not insignificantly, it is local business owners who are there with contributions for schools, hospitals, local projects, youth groups, neighborhood functions, and civic projects. They don’t have to go to corporate headquarters for approval. The owners are your neighbors. -Local First Utah

According to the professional brokers flier that has been circulated, Kennecott has signed Black Diamond (rock climbing & multi-sport facility), a baker, a grocer, and will have a music conservatory. I hope they succeed in making Daybreak a truly walkable community.

The West Bench

Many people in Salt Lake County know about the Daybreak development in South Jordan, but how many know of Kennecott's future plans? Most people have no idea what lay in store for the regional community. Kennecott has very specific plans for what they are calling the West bench. In 2005, Kennecott contracted the services of Calthorpe Associates to design a long term community plan for the West bench. This plan is quite ambitious. Kennecott has planned a string of communities that are linked by transit corridors and have large amounts of open space. These communities will all follow the principles of urban design, but will all be unique according to Kennecott. Many of the village centers will be located deep within the Oquirrh Mountains and one will be a ski resort. Other ambitious plans include a college campus, three reservoirs, a trail system, and three town centers. These now unincorporated areas will become cities in the next 50 years. I personally like this level of planning because it prevents unplanned suburban sprawl. But I wonder if this plan will actually come to fruition.

Kennecott Land is owned by the Rio Tinto group. This massive conglomerate is an international mining company based in London, England. Like most corporations, Rio Tinto has a broad declaration of environmental sustainability and in most cases that I have seen, that is true. But how long will Rio Tinto own Kennecott Land? According to Businessweek,

The average life expectancy of a multinational corporation Fortune 500 or its equivalent is between 40 and 50 years. This figure is based on most surveys of corporate births and deaths. A full one-third of the companies listed in the 1970 Fortune 500, for instance, had vanished by 1983-acquired, merged, or broken to pieces.

What will happen to these plans if a different company, one that determines new urbanism is not profitable, buys Kennecott Land? We can only wait and see. Hopefully, no matter what company owns the rights to the land on the West bench, they will consider sustainable growth as the only viable option.

New Urbanism and Daybreak

Kennecott, the founding company of daybreak, embraced the concept of new urbanism when it conceived the idea of the development. New urbanism is a movement that started over two decades ago to promote sustainable growth in the United States. This idea has been steadily gaining popularity and momentum as people have become aware of environmental concerns and community impact. So how well have the founders of daybreak followed the concepts of new urbanism? Let's compare Kennecott's practices with the concepts of new urbanism outlined by Professor Pieter Sijpkes of McGill University:

1. Walkable

• Most things within a 10-minute walk of home and work
• Pedestrian friendly street design (buildings close to street; porches, windows & doors; tree-lined streets; on street parking; hidden parking lots; garages in rear lane; narrow, slow speed streets)

2. Connectivity

• Interconnected street grid network disperses traffic & eases walking
• A hierarchy of narrow streets, boulevards, and alleys
• High quality pedestrian network and public realm makes walking pleasurable

3. Mixed Use and Diversity

• A mix of shops, offices, apartments, and homes on site. Mixed-use within neighborhoods, within blocks, and within buildings
• Diversity of people - of ages, classes, cultures, and races

4. Mixed Housing

• A range of types, sizes and prices in closer proximity

5. Quality Architecture & Urban Design

• Emphasis on beauty, aesthetics, human comfort, and creating a sense of place; Special placement of civic uses and sites within community. Human scale architecture & beautiful surroundings nourish the human spirit

6. Traditional Neigborhood Structure

• Discernable center and edge
• Public space at center
• Importance of quality public realm; public open space designed as civic art
• Contains a range of uses and densities within 10-minute walk
• Transect planning: Highest densities at town center; progressively less dense towards the edge.
  

7. Increased Density

• More buildings, residences, shops, and services closer together for ease of walking, to enable a more efficient use of services and resources, and to create a more convenient, enjoyable place to live.
• New Urbanism design principles are applied at the full range of densities from small towns, to large cities

8. Smart Transportation

• A network of high-quality trains connecting cities, towns, and neighborhoods together
• Pedestrian-friendly design that encourages a greater use of bicycles, rollerblades, scooters, and walking as daily transportation

9. Sustainability

• Minimal environmental impact of development and its operations
• Eco-friendly technologies, respect for ecology and value of natural systems
• Energy efficiency
• Less use of finite fuels
• More local production
• More walking, less driving

10. Quality of life

• Taken together these add up to a high quality of life well worth living, and create places that enrich, uplift, and inspire the human spirit.

In my opinion, Kennecott has done fairly well in creating a community that follows the principles of new urbanism. Some of the principles are not applicable as of yet because daybreak has not been built out that far. However, in looking at the future plans that Kennecott has for Daybreak, I can see where they would get high marks for those categories in the future.