Private Streets, Shared Gains: Unlocking Efficient Land Use and Walkable Design

As low-rise developers are under pressure to make projects more competitive, we help them do that through walkable layouts, hyper-efficient land use, and better design—without compromising market viability. 
The following is a targeted review of built projects using private/shared governance to enable improved housing form, streetscape, or public realm quality.

Research Scope and Observations

This research reviewed a selection of recent built residential developments in the U.S. and Canada that use private or privately maintained internal streets—not simply for technical reasons, but to enable improved housing or site design. Projects were selected based on a consistent set of criteria:

• They had to include private/shared roads or common servicing managed through HOA, strata, or CEC-style governance
• They had to use that structure to support a distinct spatial model or public realm benefit (e.g. narrower streets, shared green courts, inward-facing homes)
• They had to target the mid-market, rather than luxury buyers
• They had to be built (not conceptual) and offer at least some evidence of buyer or market response

Most of the viable and relevant examples found were in regions with high housing demand and relatively high average new home prices. This reflects both where the most documented innovation is happening and where compact housing forms tend to be more difficult to deliver through conventional zoning or street standards. In these markets, most new detached homes range from 2,500–4,000+ sq ft, and zoning often reinforces this through large minimum lot sizes or other constraints.

As a result, the developments reviewed often stand out by offering homes that are significantly smaller or lower in total price than other new housing in the same area. The use of shared streets or private governance structures allowed for tighter lot configurations, inward-facing layouts, and reduced right-of-way widths, which in turn enabled the delivery of smaller-footprint homes with distinctive spatial qualities. While these design strategies helped bring down total home prices, they were also central to creating a more connected and walkable layout.

This differs from the user’s own working region, where detached homes of 1,800 sq ft and townhomes of 1,500 sq ft are already common, and where zoning is generally more permissive of smaller lots. However, even in such contexts, many of the design and governance approaches observed—particularly related to shared-surface internal drives, clustered homes, and reduced road dimensions—could still offer distinct advantages in site planning, character, and cost efficiency. The spatial outcomes seen in the reviewed projects would not typically emerge under standard municipal servicing and subdivision frameworks, even if unit sizes alone are permitted.

Across the reviewed examples, most buyers appear to have accepted or embraced the governance model—especially where fees were modest and the benefits of shared infrastructure were clearly visible or usable (e.g. greenways, communal gardens, or small shared streets that doubled as public realm). There was no consistent evidence of pricing premiums, but several projects demonstrated strong absorption, resale appreciation, or sustained market interest, suggesting that the design logic was well received. For larger or phased projects, this type of resale performance is also relevant to developers, as it can support higher pricing in later phases.

A small number of developments encountered during the research were excluded due to much higher HOA or strata fees (>$400/month). These were uniformly amenity-heavy communities, often including clubhouses, pools, private maintenance staff, or bundled services—well beyond the infrastructure-focused governance models under review. They were not excluded due to buyer hesitation alone, but because their structure and offerings were not comparable to the compact, street- and design-driven examples prioritized here.

Finally, a consistent pattern across the reviewed cases is that buyers responded more strongly when the design benefits were clearly experiential and spatial—such as shared gardens, internal greens, or public-facing gathering spaces. Projects that removed front-facing garages through rear lanes, but did not replace that space with visible or usable public realm, showed less clear evidence of added buyer value. It appears that shared design elements are most effective when they shape how residents move through and inhabit the site, not just how the streetscape looks.