Yule Heibel's Library tagged density urbanplanning → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

11 Sep 09

Forget Curbing Suburban Sprawl (MIT Technology Review)

I have some questions about the source of this report/ research, which claims that density (including examples such as Vancouver's eco-density) "would yield insignificant CO2 reductions."
QUOTE
Even if 75 percent of all new and replacement housing in America were built at twice the density of current new developments, and those living in the newly constructed housing drove 25 percent less as a result, CO2 emissions from personal travel would decline nationwide by only 8 to 11 percent by 2050, according to the study. If just 25 percent of housing units were developed at such densities and residents drove only 12 percent less as a result, CO2 emissions would be reduced by less than 2 percent by 2050.
UNQUOTE

I guess the problem is with defining real density as a mere "twice the density of current new developments": if you consider that new developments include suburban greenfield spreads on 1/4 to 1/2 acre for each SFH, then doubling that density really doesn't amount to much.

Further down, the report just makes the case for building more fuel-efficient cars - so maybe that's where the report's agenda originates.

www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx - Preview

mit_techreview sprawl urbanplanning phil_mckenna density national_academy_of_sciences

11 Nov 08

The Housing Affordability Problem Has Not Gone Away

Excellent blog post by Donald Elliott on why and how (un)affordability is systemic, and what (little) steps municipalities can take to mitigate the problem.
QUOTE
What can local government do? It cannot solve the macro-economic problem, but it can remove barriers that drive housing prices even higher than they need to be. Minimum lot size and minimum house size requirements are two of the main culprits. Artificially low multi-family densities are another, and narrow definitions of allowable housing types are a third.
UNQUOTE

abetterwaytozone.com/...lity-problem-has-not-gone-away - Preview

affordability housing planning urbanplanning density donald_elliott

Over the past two years, news from the housing industry has not been good.
So with prices falling, the housing affordability crisis must now be behind us – right? Wrong. In A Better Way to Zone I describe the housing affordability crisis as a structural problem of the U.S. economy and that is still true. Business cycles come and go, and this recession will in time bottom out and the housing economy will rebound. The long term effects may be a slight lowering of average housing prices – but not much, and not over the long haul. The key problem remains – the U.S. economy is simply not creating jobs that pay (on average) what it costs to build new housing (on average) and that gap continues to widen.
6 more annotations...
- In fact, that difficult fact is what fed the desire to create sub-prime mortgages – since we could not increase average wages and we could not lower the costs of building a house, the home finance industry found a way to bridge that gap by letting less money buy more house (temporarily). The recession may narrow that the gap by deflating home sale prices and bringing them a little closer to the buying power of some households, but it doesn’t change the basic mismatch between wages and housing construction costs. And the problem will get worse, because global economic pressures will continue to push wages down and the burgeoning demand (especially from the exploding middle classes in China, India, and elsewhere) will keep driving the price of housing inputs up.
- cities are asking for broader and more powerful tools to address housing affordability.
- What can local government do? It cannot solve the macro-economic problem, but it can remove barriers that drive housing prices even higher than they need to be. Minimum lot size and minimum house size requirements are two of the main culprits. Artificially low multi-family densities are another, and narrow definitions of allowable housing types are a third.
- The simple fact is that economic pressures are going to force many American households into smaller single-family units and sometimes into multi-family housing even if they would prefer to buy something larger.
- Responsible cities will find ways and places where that can happen and will revise their zoning to allow it to happen in ways that strengthen the community. Local governments can also remove barriers to modern modular homes, co-housing, live-work products, cottage housing, and a variety of innovative smaller home options emerging to serve our aging population. Other innovative products are described in more detail in A Better Way to Zone. These are not just “quick fixes” — they can result in long-term changes in the American housing stock that responds to changing economic realities.
- The long-term housing affordability crisis is not going away, and responsible local government will use this “breather” from development pressure to rethink their approach to the issue and to re-evaluate the housing barriers embedded in their zoning and subdivision controls.

14 Apr 08

"Don't be dense" by Zev Yaroslavsky - Los Angeles Times

"The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue." An interesting article by Yaroslavsky that initially makes the reader think that he's advocating a sort of nimby-istic "pulling up the drawbridges" mentality, but if the reader perserveres to read the entire piece, it seems his suggestions are really LA-specific. They're not necessarily in conflict with infill development; development around transit routes & hubs; and creation of density in areas that really need it (in our case, downtown). He does bring in late 80s experiences, however, which make you wonder if things haven't irrevocably moved beyond thel contexts he's referencing.

www.latimes.com/...oslavsky13apr13,0,544304.story - Preview

urbanplanning urban_design density los_angeles neighbourhoods nimbyism smartgrowth eco_density affordable_housing

The debate about the availability of housing in Los Angeles and the city's development policies has been testy but long overdue.
Fueling public outrage over growth policies that would significantly increase density are well-grounded fears that, in the clash between overdevelopment and neighborhood preservation, the developers will prevail.
8 more annotations...
- Urged on by some elected officials, city planners have decided that the "smart" and "elegant" way to grow the city's housing stock is to double the allowable size of new buildings,bust through established height limits and reduce parking-space requirements -- effectively rolling back more than two decades of neighborhood-protection laws.
  
  There is nothing smart or elegant about such growth. On the contrary. It's development run amok and with an utter disregard for how it affects the livability of the city's neighborhoods. Should these efforts -- the city's version of a state law encouraging greater density; ad hoc zoning changes to double the size of residential development on commercial property to facilitate more density; widespread approval of zoning variances for parking, height and property-line setbacks -- succeed, they will irreparably harm some of our most cherished neighborhoods and diminish our traditional sense of place.
  - - at first blush, this reads like possible nimbyism, but when Y. gets into the nuts & bolts of zoning policies as they relate specifically to his place, Los Angeles, his stance can be seen as well-differentiated, modulated urbanism. However, I could see how this opening volley could become a rallying cry for change-resistant neighbourhoods and neighbours everywhere, too... - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note
- * Can more housing be built without destroying neighborhoods?
  
  Absolutely. Housing development should be encouraged on the thousands of properties throughout the city that have sufficient lot size and depth relative to surrounding neighborhoods. Such properties can accommodate well-designed, denser and even taller buildings without the collateral damage of traffic congestion, loss of privacy and other community effectsoften associated with such development. In some cases, these projects would even enhance commercial thoroughfares -- such as the Figueroa corridor near USC -- that are in desperate need of revitalization. At short, larger housing projects should be built where they fit.
- * Where can this housing be built?
  
  It belongs in the city's many employment and residential centers -- downtown, Hollywood, Wilshire Center, Harbor Gateway, Warner Center and the Van Nuys Civic Center. These and similar areas can absorb more housing under current zoning laws. In Century City, for instance, developers are converting traffic-generating commercial buildings to residential uses, resulting in more housing and a net reduction in peak-hour traffic.
- Housing should also be built around subway, bus and light-rail stations. Many of these transit stops -- Warner Center, where the Orange Line busway ends in Woodland Hills, is one -- are already employment magnets, and they would be appropriate sites for additional housing as well. But it makes no sense to reflexively boost residential density and building size along every Metro Rapid bus route, as the city's version of the state's density-bonus law allows, when the streets that the buses travel often cross low-density, pedestrian-friendly commercial districts serving some of the city's most charming neighborhoods. The city should be guided by one principle: The scale of development should be informed by the character of its surrounding neighborhood. The one-size-fits-all approach embodied in the density-bonus law and the indiscriminate approval of denser residential housing on commercial property is not an appropriate growth strategy for Los Angeles.
  - "The scale of development should be guided... informed by the character of its surrounding neighborhood." --> well, that's *tricky* insofar as it can result in a drawbridge or stand-off. At what point do you say, "the character has to change"? And at what point do you say, "the character *deserves* protection"? Why should it? Who determines that? - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note
- * What can the city do to provide more affordable housing?
  
  It can require developers as a matter of city policy to set aside a certain percentage of units in new buildings for people with low-to-moderate incomes. L.A. doesn't need to offer development bonuses allowing taller and bigger buildings to achieve this.
  - ? really - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note
- The city also owns a considerable amount of underutilized real estate on which affordable housing could be built. As a council member, I pioneered the creation of several housing developments above city-owned parking lots that were 100% affordable, a policy that should be applied more widely. The county has also made surplus property available to nonprofit developers to build affordable family and senior housing. The office building formerly housing the Department of Public Social Services, at Pico Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in West Los Angeles, is one example.
- It's noteworthy that a major contributing factor to the loss of our affordable housing stock is the demolition and conversion of apartments to make way for condominiums and other luxury housing. Accommodating renters displaced by such developments must be one of the city's top housing priorities.
- The burgeoning neighborhood rebellion we are witnessing throughout the city is the predictable consequence of an increasingly insular and exclusionary planning process.
  - It could also be the result of a vociferous resistance to change. - on 2008-04-14
  Add Sticky Note

1 - 3 of 3

Showing 20▼ items per page

Yule Heibel's Library tagged density urbanplanning → View Popular

Forget Curbing Suburban Sprawl (MIT Technology Review)

The Housing Affordability Problem Has Not Gone Away

"Don't be dense" by Zev Yaroslavsky - Los Angeles Times

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links