• Affordable features: These neighborhoods contain a wider range of home types, sizes and prices, so some are relatively affordable. Homes built to green standards cost less  to operate due to energy efficiency. Residents also save because they can  access jobs, recreation, shops and services without needing a car.  If residents do drive, trips tend to be shorter.  A case study analysis (1) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found households close to a city’s center spend about half as much on travel expenses  as those in the  suburbs do.

• Successful local businesses: Businesses in and near green neighborhoods tend to thrive because the residents find it convenient and often a lot more pleasant to shop close to home.

• Attractive investment opportunities: Lenders consistently recognize infill, mixed-use, and transit-oriented developments  as good, low-risk investments due to demonstrated past success (2).  Real estate market studies show 25 to 33 percent of potential buyers  prefer these neighborhoods, and this demand is expected to grow as the population ages (3).

• Reduced local government costs:  By nature, compact neighborhoods minimize costs related to utility infrastructure.  EPA’s case study research found public infrastructure costs for sites close to city centers were just 10 percent of those for projects in the suburbs (1).  Cumulatively, compact development could save 8 percent in development costs and reduce local government deficits by 10 percent by 2025 (4).

• Lower lifecycle costs: A recent literature review(5) found that “on a lifecycle cost basis (excluding revenues from property taxes and development charges), high density neighbourhoods in inner areas are as much as 50 per cent more cost efficient than low density outer suburbs neighbourhoods.”

References:

(1) Hagler Bailley Services Inc.  1999.  The Transportation and Environmental Impacts of Infill Versus Greenfield Development.  US EPA.
(2)  Gyourko, Joseph E. and Rybczynski, Witold.  2000.  Financing New Urbanism Projects: Obstacles and Solutions.  Congress for the New Urbanism.
(3) Ewing, Reid, et. al.  2007.  Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.  Urban Land Institute.
(4) Burchell, Robert et. al.  2005.  Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development.  Island Press.  Washington DC.
(5)  Dillon Consulting Ltd. et. al.  2005.  Costing Mechanism to Facilitate Sustainable Community Planning.  CMHC.