Running head: GREEN FIELD VS.

BROWN FIELD 1

Green Field versus Brown Field Development

Stanley Peiffer
Professor Moscovici
Stockton University
Spring 2018
GREEN FIELD VS. BROWN FIELD 2

Green Field versus Brown Field Development

Green field sites are land areas that are untouched by developers. The green field

sites are areas that have agricultural, forest, or undeveloped land that is now allocated for

commercial use to build an industrial projects on. Brown field sites are existing

infrastructures that are no longer being used for the original intended purpose of the

building. Brown field sites cannot be used due to the possible presence of hazardous

materials or pollutants permanently condemning the property. Municipalities give

incentives for companies who have existing infrastructures and are looking to expand

within said town of the municipality. This specified expansion leads to job and

population growth within the town. Developers choose green field development sites over

brown field sites because of the heavy municipal incentives and encouragement during

the site selection stages of the development process, further intensifying the loss of open

space.

Green field sites are areas of land that have been untouched or that have not been

used for anything other than agricultural use; these sites are now being looked at for

possible development and expansion of infrastructure. As Kevin Kane (2017) states,

“Green field development, which often refers to the conversion of agricultural land to

urban uses (principally residential uses)…” (pg.415). Most developers choose green field

sites because these sites are considered ‘virgin land’. It offers a wide open and free

feeling which, appeals to buyers more than the brown field sites. Some benefits of green

field sites include a limited amount of zoning regulations within the area which in turn

allow for easy infrastructure. Most green field land is protected land and owned by the
GREEN FIELD VS. BROWN FIELD 3

town creating an array of laws that would make it impossible to build. However, with

growth and expansion for infrastructure laws that have been placed on that land are lifted.

Green field developments provide a lot of design flexibility in order to meet project

requirements. Developers are able to design for current and future needs for the

infrastructure as well. Green field sites require less maintenance compared to a brown

field site due to the ability of using the most recent top of the line and up to date

materials. With that said, existing infrastructures may have harmful pollutants or

chemicals on the property that may not be able to be removed or may be too costly to

remove. The inability to remove pollutants or chemicals within a property cause issues

for development. With the ability to build new structures with a green field site, the

corporate company has the opportunity to update and improve their current image.

Corporate also has the ability to ‘go green’ allowing them to save money in the long run.

Finally, another advantage of green field sites are the non-existent constraints which

allow designers to start fresh. When designers have to work with a brown field site, the

designer and/or developer must ensure all structural requirements are met for the current

standards. When redesigning brown field sites, the developer must also take into

consideration operating difficulties such as traffic congestion or residential noise. Green

field sites are the beginning of new expansions which void present operation difficulties.

The green field sites have some environmental and economic effects with

development of which consists of agriculture, jobs, habitat, value, and separation loss.

Once land is converted from a green field site to a brown field site, it is highly unlikely

that that site will ever become a green field site again. Should the site be converted back

to farm land, the land may night be able to support the same crops that were previously
GREEN FIELD VS. BROWN FIELD 4

harvested in the soil due to loss of nutrients and soil compaction. This loss of agricultural

land will also result in a loss of fruit and vegetable production as well as employment

loss. Another environmental impact of green field sites include the destruction of the

natural habitat for some animals as well as plant species. The intrinsic value of said land

itself will become lost as well as creating a separation between two areas that allow

privacy and peace.

Brown field sites are sites with buildings currently built on them that are no longer

being used for unknown reasons. Brownfield sites are usually unpleasant, disheveled, and

rundown buildings that are a potential hazard. One of the most common reasons

brownfield sites are no longer being used is due to the infrastructure itself. The

infrastructure is usually condemned, leaving the only option for the site is to tear it down

and start over which can be very costly for developers. Over time, they become pollutants

to the environment. There are few benefits of the brownfield sites which include pre-

existing environmental licenses and council approvals for said piece of land. New

companies that are just beginning are able to quickly redesign a building and begin to

grow their revenue. Other than those two benefits, the disadvantages of pollution and

hazards to the environment of brown field sites are greater, thus leading developers to

choose green field sites over brown field sites.

Site selection is the process of a developer choosing the best location for an

anticipated use. Studies show that “a portfolio approach to appraising real estate

development may be crucial when multiple real estate options exist” (Baldi, 2013, pg.

212). There are three phases to the site selection process that determine the success of the

project. Phase one is defining the project criteria, which determines what exactly the
GREEN FIELD VS. BROWN FIELD 5

buyer is looking to do with the infrastructure. Phase two consists of site analysis which

Carl Caesar (2014) states, “An essential component in all developments is suitable land”

(pg.257). Phase three is the negotiation and final selection portion of selecting a site. The

third and final phase is where financial evaluations and zoning incentives are discussed

with municipalities. Financial evaluations consist of the developer making a decision

regarding which municipality offers the lowest cost for build. Some of the factors aiding

in the cost to build includes water, sewer, electric, and gas. Many communities provide

large incentives that most companies cannot resist such as state income tax credits for

new development.

Zoning incentives are the developer and Municipalities bargaining chips;

bargaining chips are factors that can be used to one’s advantage in negotiations.

Developers are always searching for the bargain, which location offers the most benefits.

With that said, developers work with multiple communities at once to try to obtain the

best deal with the most benefits. Zoning incentives are comparable to purchasing a

vehicle; the buyer visits multiple dealerships looking at similar makes and models of the

car, but each dealership offers a slightly different and better incentive. Location is

another key factor playing for incentives with new development. With researching

different areas and incentives, the developer must take into account how long the build

will take as well as location. Referring back to buying a new car, the location of the

dealership from the buyers address may affect a buyer’s decision on the car. All the

buyer’s cards must be lined up right in order to accept the deal.

Some of the incentives offered by the municipality include the following: tax

breaks, waived fees such as business license fees, grants may be given under certain
GREEN FIELD VS. BROWN FIELD 6

circumstances, and utility hook-ups. These incentives are what any developer looks for.

A tax break would allow the company to invest more money into the construction of the

building making it more beneficial to the community. The grants that are given to the

developer would be given during the first few years of construction helping fund the

development and useful for minor adjustments to the infrastructure once the company

opens. Utility hook-ups are costly to any new construction and to have that installed for

free or at a lower cost is a benefit to the developer. Kai Wang (2018) states, “Municipal

water systems serve residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and public clients,

whose demands are affected by both long term impact factors- population change,

economic conditions, and water conservation activities- and short-term impact factors,

including seasonal weather patterns, and the associated summer peak demands.” (pg.

204) Water, sewer, and gas can all be installed by the utility companies that are in the

municipalities offering a warranty for any problems that may occur.

The green field sites have some environmental and economic effects with

development of which consists of agriculture, jobs, habitat, value, and separation loss.

Once land is converted from a green field site to a brown field site, it is highly unlikely

that that site will ever become a green field site again. Should the site be converted back

to farm land, the land may night be able to support the same crops that were previously

harvested in the soil due to loss of nutrients and soil compaction. This loss of agricultural

land will also result in a loss of fruit and vegetable production as well as employment

loss. Another environmental impact of green field sites include the destruction of the

natural habitat for some animals as well as plant species. The intrinsic value of said land
GREEN FIELD VS. BROWN FIELD 7

itself will become lost as well as creating a separation between two areas that allow

privacy and peace.

In conclusion, green field sites have more advantages than disadvantages compared

to the brown field sites. Developers are more prone to choose a green field site over a

brown field site related to the ability to stay green with the planet, use the most up to date

technologies and materials, expand and grow towns, allow for expansions of jobs and

population as well as starting with a clean slate. Both green field and brown field sites

have some disadvantages but again, the pros outweigh the cons in this situation. With

green field sites, municipalities offer superior incentives such as tax breaks and the

waiving of specific fees. Site selection allows the developer to find the best site with the

most benefits. Although green field sites are using virgin land, the benefits outweigh the

environmental impacts by staying green and not causing hazardous pollutants.

GREEN FIELD VS. BROWN FIELD 8

Resources

Baldi, F. (2013). Journal of European Real Estate Research. Valuing a greenfield real estate

property development project: a real options approach, 6(2), 186-217. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1399625041?pq-origsite=summon.

Caesar, C. (2016). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. Municipal land allocations:

integrating planning and selection of developers while transferring public land for

housing in Sweden, 31(2), 257-275. Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10901-015-9457-2.

Kane, K. (2017). Land Use Policy. Prices, policies, and place: What drives greenfield

development?, 68, 415-428. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716307347?_rdoc=1&_fmt

=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb.

Wang, K. (2018). Municipal water planning and management with an end-use based simulation

model. Environmental Modelling & Software, 101, 204-217. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136481521730556X.