Note: this is the second post in a series on what real estate developers can learn from Vitruvius’ landmark work, De Architectura. The first post can be found here.
The focus of this post is on development concepts that were important throughout history that we don’t think about (or just don’t care about) today. Most reasons for “not caring” have to do with practicalities like making a profit and meeting city codes. But when these baseline concerns become the only concerns, you end up with something resembling the NIMBY stereotype of the modern developer. The singular focus becomes efficiency: how quickly and easily can you turn dirt, sticks, and bricks into cash?
While stereotypes have an element of truth to them, it’s also virtuous to work to maximize profits in a high-risk environment. Vitruvius had the envious position of overseeing a development program that had glory and longevity as the primary goals (not profits). It’s easy to nod along and think we’d all follow the same principles if we had no pressure to generate a financial return. His audience, though, included for-profit “developers” of private buildings, and even in his own public projects, he had strict budget criteria to work with (10.1). Further, he called out some of the same issues in the development community of his day – people who focused too much on popularity and wealth were eventually disgraced because they were ignorant and incompetent (6.1.5). Vitruvius taught principles and techniques that he believed would be practical to implement in both public and private projects.
Developers talk all of the time about “good dirt”. This implies that the land is in a desirable location and has good access, natural beauty, or other qualities that should lead to a price premium above competitive properties. But when is the last time you thought of “good dirt” as land that makes people healthier? The Romans sure did:
“We must diligently seek to choose the most temperate regions of climate, since we have to seek healthiness in laying out the walls of cities” (1.4.8).
“When, therefore, by these methods there shall be ensured healthiness in the laying out of the walls [of the city]... then the foundations of the towers and walls are to be laid” (1.5.1).
Vitruvius tells the story of a town situated near a lake that stood stagnant and oozed foul moisture, causing the inhabitants to suffer regularly from sicknesses. The residents petitioned the government to rebuild a new town in a better area. The leaders selected a new site four miles away where they could open the lake into the sea then built a new town with a harbor there. The people, one might say, dwelt healthily ever after.
While we’re blessed to have the engineering and construction capacity to provide clean water and efficient sewage in most cases, the health aspect of development is an important principle to consider. Take an easy example like a neighborhood (similar to planning a town) – what kind of recreation opportunities can you provide for exercise? Does the layout of the community promote people moving around outdoors? Considering the spiritual side of health, does the layout of your neighborhood promote loneliness or regular interactions with neighbors (that can lead to friendships and support)?
How about something on the other end of the spectrum, like an office building? You will have people spending lots of time in your building – how can you build it in such a way as to promote their health? Or on the flip side, are there elements you can remove that would make them less healthy? Hygiene and safety concerns would also fall into this category.
The point is that developers should consider the principle of how our buildings affect the health of individuals and communities. By looking at plans through this lens, you might spot changes you can make that will be a blessing to your community down the road.
In the second half of the 20th century, there was an explosion of construction of large properties across the country. Most of our cities owe their current skylines to these decades, but this came with a problem: for the first time in history, we had the ability to build massive buildings with relatively cheap materials and labor.
In the past, large buildings (like houses of worship or government facilities) were a huge endeavor to construct and were built with long-lasting materials and techniques. Fast-forward to the 20th century and the predominant construction materials for large buildings became concrete, steel, and glass; brick and stone almost disappeared. Expected lifespans shrank from centuries to decades. And now we are seeing the beginning of the end of those “decades” as cities are dealing with crumbling buildings and infrastructure at a large scale.
Let’s return to Vitruvius:
“Respecting the wall itself and the material of which it is built or finished, there must be laid down no rule beforehand; because we cannot have in all places the supplies which we desire…. Other regions or useful sites have their special advantages, so that with due preparation a wall can be built perfect forever and unblemished” (1.5.8).
“For thus the work is not built all of a heap but in order, and can last” (2.8.4).
Vitruvius wrote in detail about the many available construction materials in different regions of the Roman Empire. He had a clear priority for how he compared and evaluated different options: how long would it last? While their options were limited compared to ours, ancient developers still had cheaper, quicker materials to work with that wouldn’t last as long – in uses like military camps that required speed, Vitruvius even recommended these. But in any other kind of construction, he advocates using the materials and design that leads to the longest life span.
Returning to our situation today, we are beginning to deal with the repercussions of buildings and infrastructure that were not built to last. This not only causes financial and logistical headaches, it also poses a threat to the people using those buildings and to neighboring properties. Demolitions are accelerating. This carries risks and is not going to be a logistical possibility for buildings where the value of the underlying dirt is less than the cost to demolish (the final boss of the zombie building lifecycle).
This is a tricky principle to apply in modern development and often comes down to incentives. If financial returns are the main goal in the project (as they often should be), how do you justify spending more money to extend the longevity of a building that you won’t own in 5-10 years? What effect does the building’s longevity have on your pocketbook today? In an ideal world, buyers would pay a premium for higher-quality construction. But if most of the buyers are also only in the game for a few years, it becomes a game of hot potato.
For developers who intend to hold onto a property forever, optimizing for longer-lasting materials and design makes sense: you lessen your headaches down the road by spending more today. But for developers who are building to sell, make a profit, and move on, there is little to no incentive to care about that.
I’m not going to pretend to have an answer to this (it’s something that I wrestle with myself). I believe that it’s virtuous to make sacrifices today for the benefit of future generations. I also believe it’s virtuous to seek a profit in business. A good start is recognizing this tension; beyond that, every developer has different costs of capital and different time preferences. It would be a great benefit to our communities in future generations if those who have the ability build for longevity. For others, we should seek to find a balance between the two.