33 
through careful planning before he purchases the land, he is frequently 
forced to make many sacrifices to meet the (political, financial, and 
social) constraints imposed on his site. The developer frequently 
finds that the final purchase price for the land is the critical factor in 
determining what types of uses and what types of densities will be 
possible regardless of what he might think is most appropriate. 
The second problem with the land-first approach is its failure to 
complement the needs and growth potential of the entire region. The 
private developer is, essentially, given the right to determine the 
future growth pattern for the region in which he selects, his site. His 
decision to build is based primarily on the anticipated marketability 
of the site and the ability of the surrounding area to service his project 
and provide the level of facilities he requires. He is generally not 
concerned with the following: 
1. The impact of his development on the entire region’s growth. 
(Is his site the most appropriate location to develop a new growth 
center?) 
2. The employment and valuable cultural activities it will 
attract away from areas of greater need within the region; and 
3. The changes in priorities in regional and State appropria- 
tions of funds that will be required to provide the community 
with the desired level of facilities. 
The major criticism of new communities built thus far in the United 
States (and in England for that matter) rests on the argument that 
they are not conceived as part of a regional analysis and rarely occupy 
a coherent place or role as part of the regional plans or, indeed, of any 
regional planning framework. 
The key factors in the success of a new community development 
are sufficient capital, a short development period, a location which is 
developable, accessible, and available, ownership of the land prior 
to starting, as few legal restrictions as possible, and a competent 
administrative and marketing team.®* Hach phase of the new com- 
munity development process (regional analysis, hiring of stafi/con- 
sultants, financing, site analysis, site planning, intergovernmental 
relations, land acquisition, management, infradevelopment, tract 
development, marketing, evaluation) involves certain requirements 
that can best be handled by a different level of government or by the 
private sector»? The purchase of land might be handled by a public 
body with the power of eminent domain. At each stage a variety of 
public powers might be exercised to enhance the final outcome of the 
development. Different levels of government (agencies, instrumentali- 
ties) might perform different functions at each stage of the process: 
The Federal Government (HUD, HEW, Interior) might provide excess 
Federal land and subsidies for land acquisition, housing development, 
open space and transportation, and infrastructure planning. State 
agencies (DCA, DCD) could select the sites that make the most sense 
in light of state objectives and they could subsidize certain apsects 
of planning and development. A State corporation (with broad powers 
such as local override) might handle the intergovernmental relations. 
~ 8 For a full discussion of the problems faced by a private developer in building a new community, see 
“The Role of Private Enterprise in Developing New Towns,’’ Harvard Business School, Intercollegiate 
Case Clearing House, ICH, 13@45, PR 8A. 
58 For an elaboration of these considerations see the case prepared by McKinsey & Co., on Soul City, the 
hew community being planned and developed in North Carolina by Floyd McKissick Enterprises. 
62 For a discussion of which phases can best be handled by which units of government, see New Com- 
munity Planning Associates, op. cit. 
