Why? (lot sizes)

[Haaheo okole puka]

We who live on elongated parcels don't live in a "housing development", we live in a "land development". They are very different things and municipality requirement's for the two differ substantially.

[Punaperson]

I have done research on Orchidland, the first of the Puna subdivisions, so my following comments are probably not applicable to other
areas.

Orchidland was created as a mainly agricultural subdivision, and if you look at a plat map, this makes a lot of information pieces fall into place.
The lots along the streets perpendicular to the highway are square, and were expected to be the homes of the farmers that were going to own orchard crops on the long, skinny lots on the numbered side streets (125' wide x 1090' long). The shape of the long skinny lots is the template for the ' peninsula' layout of an orchard, with one road down the middle of the lots, and side offshoots spaced according to the crop. There was much talk of having macadamia orchards and banana fields on the slopes, and perhaps cattle on the flatter land down at the bottom. At that time ( 1959 ), there was no expectation that Orchidland would become a residential suburbia.

Was the political fix in ? Absolutely - look at some of the original purchasers of the square lots.

Did they make mistakes ? Yes - some they tried to correct, and some they didn't know about. What they tried to correct: originally Aulii was perpendicular to the highway, as were the other entry streets. When the bulldozer collapsed a 30' lava tube on the planned route, the street was dog-legged, and change from a 'main road' ( 60' wide ) to a side road (40' wide). What there is no evidence of ( that I have found ) is that they knew about the volume of water that drains across 40th as a result of Puna Sugar re-routing rainfall to drain their upslope fields.

The lots closer to the bottom of the subdivision are smaller ( 2 acres, some on the highway only 1 ) were to house the orchard field workers.

Again, this is information that pertains to Orchidland, the first of the Puna subdivisions. What was done right, and what was done wrong, shaped what created every other subdivision in Puna.

We can't go back and change past decisions. We can use information to guide where we go from here.

[Haaheo okole puka]

BTW... as per the "proof" of the intent as if it weren't already crystal clear to someone who actually comprehends the issue between land development and housing development.
Look at the address numbers assigned to these "spaghetti lots" and count how many omitted numbers there are between two neighboring lots and then ask yourself why across the street it's completely differing as they count up the road on one side and back down the road on the other side. The address system is this way for a purpose and it's not like you would expect to see in a housing development because these are land developments with the potential to be further subdivided into housing developments and those future potential homes will then be assigned the not yet used numbers.

[Rob L]

Haaheo Okole Puka, can you just cite documentation? Where did you learn of that the spaghetti lots were intended for future (re) subdivision? Is there a advertising brochure, a newspaper article from the period, a county record?

Aloha,
Rob L

[Haaheo okole puka]

Rob L,

My understanding comes from working in development both on the land and housing sides over the past 35 years. It's about peddling dirt and what makes it sell.

As per the land developers intent, that's pretty clear from the dimensions selected for these lots. The parcels size were of various typical desired size for housing developers in those days. Back when they liked to build everything on a grid pattern. A potential housing developer could buy two lots or more of these dimensions and subdivide them into a neighborhood. These aren't fly by the seat of their pants dimension selections. They work out to very precise single family home lot dimensions of the day when divided up.
The scale of these developments are simply astounding but none the less they are simply larger versions of what was common in those days.

Anyhow the intent becomes self evident when you look into the address designations given to these lots when applied for. Just go take a look at them, call the county and ask them why the addresses are applied the way they are to these long parcels.

[ericlp]

Say you bought in hawaiian acres... and one of the lots next to you was vacant. You could write a letter to the owner asking them if they wanted to trade half the top lot of half the bottom lot.

So you would get a more square lot... Say 300x435 lot. My nighbor in orchidland was thinking of doing this with me. The only problem you would have to work out a "FLAG LOT" some sort of right of way Road that both would own giving the land owner on the bottom less land and the person on the top a driveway situation so he wouldn't be land locked.

If one could get around this maybe the top half could give a few more feet in exchange for a driveway. But the plus side could be both land owners split the cost of driveway maintenance. Could be a win win if done right. I never did care for the long narrow lot situation.

Something to think about I guess.

[Midnight Rambler]

HOP - you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason for the lots being the shape they are is that Hawaiian Acres, Orchidland, and similar subdivisions are zoned Ag-3, meaning the minimum lot size is 3 acres. They can't be subdivided beyond that without a zoning change, which is next to impossible. And when each lot must be at least 3 acres, as Carey and others said, the most efficient way to subdivide into lots that size is to make them as narrow as possible.

As for your claim that they weren't initially sold to individuals but to developers: here's a brochure advertising lots for sale in Hawaiian Acres, obviously targeting mainland individuals and not developers. Note that it refers to the "Territorial Government" - HA was established in 1958, statehood came in 1959.
http://imgur.com/tyM5z8s
http://imgur.com/gallery/E1C0MKm

Some discussion of the history of the Puna subdivisions by Peter Young, former DLNR chief:
https://www.facebook.com/peter.t.young.hawaii/media_set?set=a.3848705339449.2142055.1332665638&type=1

[Haaheo okole puka]

I am officially tired of playing games with addlepated mentalities.
My initial response was to answer the question as posed by the OP.
Why are they long acres?
Current zoning has not a damn thing to do with the shape of the parcels. It does not alter the damn fact of why they are shaped as they are or their future potential use.
How they ended up being marketed is irrelevant as to why they are shaped as they are.
If you knew a fraction of what you think you know, you'd understand what I have expressed as being fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hawaiian

Hello,
I was wondering if anybody new why the acres people sell on the big island are long acres? Is there a reason for this? And how wide is an acre there? thanks[8D]

---

"As for your claim that they weren't initially sold to individuals but to developers:" where in the hell did I write that pertaining to the developments on this island? More disjointed assumption.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Midnight rambler and to whom ever else...
Why are the acreage lots in Puna so long? Please indulge us with your vast comprehensions on land development practices.

[missydog1]

The history of these developments as detailed in "Land and Power in HawaiÔi: the Democratic Years," by George Cooper and Gavan Daws, does a great job of explaining how and why the Puna subdivisions were created, by whom, who bought them, who profited by them, naming names.

Most of the chapter on Puna is free online in Google Books.

Chapter 8 Hawaii: Subdividing Lava Fields
http://books.google.com/books?id=8128CdC...&q&f=false

I have no doubt Carol has read that book. The authors are much respected.

On a side note, pg. 274 begins discussion of concerns that people might someday build on the lots (as never originally intended) and demand services and infrastructure from the County, and how the fear of that reality we now face ended the area of subpar subdivision approval.

The book says that Hawaiian Acres was the first ...
The chapter does not address the spaghetti lot design, but the information set forth in this history should I think form the basis for any speculation on what the developers planned. (It appears to me they planned little but to sell quick and pocket the winnings.)

Anyone who buys land or plans to buy on lava land subdivisions should have this as required due diligence, if up to me, which it is not. [:p]