By Eric Williams
Derelict or underutilized urban infill properties are common in nearly every city. Former gas stations, auto junkyards, light manufacturing facilities, and vacant buildings often stand in the way of community goals for vibrant, productive places. These sites frequently come with environmental challenges—ranging from asbestos in buildings to soil and groundwater contamination. Even when the risks are minimal, perceived environmental concerns alone can be enough to deter private investment.
Compounding the challenge, developers often find “greenfield” sites on the outskirts of urban areas more attractive. These sites typically involve fewer unknowns, lower upfront risk, and simpler development paths.
So how can local governments change the narrative around urban infill? The answer is simple in concept, though more complex in execution: think like a developer.
By understanding how developers evaluate risk, cost, and timing, local governments can reposition urban infill areas to attract private investment and accelerate redevelopment.
Below are three core developer needs—and specific actions local governments can take to address
them.
Developer Need #1: “We need to understand and reduce environmental risk.”
Addressing this need begins with a clear understanding of environmental conditions at the area or site level. Information itself has value. For developers and investors, unknowns represent the greatest risk. Environmental risks that can be identified, quantified in a pro forma, and actively managed are often acceptable.
Local governments can go a step further by helping to reduce or eliminate environmental risks. While some developers may proceed based solely on environmental data, many more require risk reduction before committing capital. Actions such as abating regulated building materials (e.g., asbestos), demolishing obsolete structures, or cleaning up contamination before developer acquisition can place formerly blighted sites on more equal footing with clean properties.
Even when full mitigation is not feasible, developers need confidence that remaining risks are manageable. Many are comfortable implementing standard measures such as vapor barriers or engineered controls—so long as risks are clearly defined and can be incorporated into project costs. As discussed in the next section, grant funding can play a key role in supporting these environmental assessment and mitigation strategies.
Developer Need #2: “Our development pro forma has to work.”
Urban infill projects are often less financially competitive than pristine sites due to the additional costs associated with past site uses. While the mitigation strategies described above are effective, they can also be expensive. Here, local governments have a distinct advantage: access to financial tools that are typically unavailable to private developers. When used strategically, these resources can benefit both communities and investors by closing financial gaps and making projects viable.
Key financial tools include:
- Environmental Protection Agency and state brownfield grants – These programs fund site
inventories, environmental assessments, and cleanups, reducing both uncertainty and actual
environmental risk. - Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – TIF districts can effectively self-fund the removal of blight,
including environmental remediation. - Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – HUD-funded CDBG programs are
commonly used to eliminate blight, particularly in underserved communities. - Empowerment zones and other economic development zones – Often federally designated
and locally implemented, these zones can tip the balance on financially marginal projects. - Utility districts – Special tax-based financing districts that are especially effective when
applied at the district or corridor level rather than to individual sites. - Comprehensive general liability insurance policies – A lesser-known but effective option for
properties with long-term, stable ownership histories.
When applied thoughtfully, these tools can prepare sites for redevelopment and serve as catalysts that
make the financial “math” work for private investors.
Developer Need #3: “We need to act fast to meet market conditions.”
In real estate development, the saying “time is money” is more than a cliché. Long timelines—from initial evaluation to breaking ground—can derail otherwise viable projects. If developers encounter unresolved environmental issues, buildings requiring demolition, zoning that does not align with market demand, or lengthy entitlement processes, they are likely to pursue alternative sites or even different communities.
Local governments can significantly shorten pre-development timelines by:
- Proactively addressing blighted conditions and environmental issues;
- Rezoning areas or preparing Specific Plans or land-use overlays that clearly support
redevelopment goals; - Installing or upgrading infrastructure in redevelopment areas;
- Utilizing available CEQA exemptions, such as California’s AB 130 and SB 131, where
applicable; and - Streamlining entitlement and permitting processes.
Conclusion
For local governments seeking to attract private investment and achieve redevelopment goals, thinking like a developer can make all the difference. By reducing uncertainty, improving financial feasibility, and accelerating timelines, public agencies can transform challenging urban infill sites into compelling investment opportunities.
Eric Williams is the National Director for Brownfield Redevelopment for SCS Engineers. A former developer of environmentally challenged properties, he has owned and redeveloped more than $200 million in brownfield projects over a 40-year career. As a nationally recognized expert in redevelopment, Eric brings practical, market-based insight to public and private clients navigating
complex redevelopment challenges. SCS Engineers is a national environmental consulting and engineering firm headquartered in California, serving clients across the United States.