Urban3 tells Clemson council to use 'value per acre' maps to guide growth

Urban3 representatives presented a data-driven overview of how land-use choices affect municipal finances and urged Clemson officials to use a “value per acre” metric to guide future development.

The presentation, delivered during the city work session, framed the city as a limited fiscal ‘corporation’ where parcel-level productivity matters to the tax base and the cost of services. The presenter said concentrated, mixed‑use downtown parcels and purpose-built student housing can generate far higher tax yield per acre than large single‑story retail footprints.

Why it matters: The consultants showed maps and case studies—including examples from Asheville and local Clemson parcels—demonstrating how small-footprint, mixed‑use downtown buildings and multifamily typologies typically produce more tax revenue and sales activity per acre than sprawling retail. They also contrasted the one-time gains of annexation with recurring infrastructure liabilities, arguing that long-term maintenance costs (roads, pipes) must be measured against per‑acre revenue to make fiscally sustainable land-use choices.

Core claims and data: The presenters illustrated the idea with specific comparisons: big‑box sites (Walmart) yield relatively low tax per acre; main‑street and multifamily parcels often yield multiples of that amount. They also noted that university-driven growth can be captured by concentrating student housing near campus: “for every student they added, you added half a person,” the presentation said when comparing historical student and city population growth, and the team modeled scenarios showing how adding thousands of student beds can materially increase property tax receipts and reduce per‑resident infrastructure demand.

Council and staff reactions were largely receptive; staff confirmed the presentation materials will be provided as a PDF for broader review and an online tool the presenters use is available for staff to explore. The presenters cautioned that aesthetic objections to density are often design issues and urged officials to separate architectural critique from fiscal analysis.

What was not decided: The session was informational; council did not vote on any specific policy or zoning change. The presentation recommended further steps—sharing maps with county assessors, coordinating with the school board and county commission, and running cost-vs-revenue analyses (geo‑accounting) for candidate infill projects.

The city will receive the consultants’ full packet and is expected to discuss next steps with staff and county partners.