The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Livable Communities Act1 4, CITY OF �BANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 t c MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planing Director DATE: March 11, 1996 SUBJ: Livable Communities Act - Action Plan The City Council has agreed to participate in the,. able Communities Act. The first component was to establish housing goals. The second component is to develop an action plan as to how the city will implement the plan to meet the goals. Attached is the report that went to the City Council regarding the city's current housing status, the city's Housing Goals Agreement, and the Housing Goals from the City's Comprehensive plan and recommendations from the Metropolitan Council. Also attached are a number of articles regarding affordable housing. Staff is proposing a series of recommendations that, for example, the city has recommended in the past with the rewriting of the PUD,ordinance, requiring development to be developed at the maximum densities, providing more mixed density opportunities, etc. We are requesting input from the Commission regarding which action plans to pursue, gAplan\ka\Wplan.pc CITY OF �HaNHassEN 690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: October 16, 1995 SUBJ: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Goals BACKGROUND About one month ago, I presented to the Council the Legislature's Livable Communities Act. I recommended that the city agree to participate because it could mean the loss of funding through any state or Metropolitan Council'disbursements, or it could mean the rejection of future expansion of the MUSA line. In order to participate, the City Council must adopt a resolution by November 15, 1995 (see model resolution attached) and adopt Housing Goals by December 15, 1995. It is my recommendation that the council adopt both at the same time if there is concurrence on the goals since they are the major components of the act. I am proposing that the.council review the housing goals and give staff input as to whether or not they are acceptable. The`city has jurie 30, "1996 to summit an action plan as to how we will implement our g As part`of that implerneirtation; the council will then have to budget $50,795 towards affo _&b1 housing in 1997. In attendance at the Council meeting will be the, two assigned Metropolitan Council staff, Don B1uhm and Bob Paddock. They will be available to answer any questions that you may have about the Livable Communities Act. `. ANALYSIS In order for the council to decide if the goals are acceptable or even achievable, we must examine the housing trends of the city. The City of Chanhassen is being compared with 20 other ' Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 2 communities in Sector 8 of the Metropolitan area (see attachment 2). If you average all of the affordable, diversity, and density numbers for the 20 communities in the sector, you would arrive at the benchmark numbers for Sector 8 (see Attachment #2). After arriving at a bench mark for the areas of affordability and density, the city was measured against these areas to determine the city index. The goals the city is trying to achieve is for the period 1996 to the year 2010. The city has 15 years to work toward these goals. Development anent is cyclical. clical. Recently the city has seen more multi- family development. As D p explained by the Met Council staff, the objective for the city is to turn the course of the ship for ' housing development. It may be impossible for the city to accomplish the change of course (achieve all of the goals) within this time frame. The process is then threefold. The first step is to pass a resolution to participate in the process and set goals. The second step is to develop implementation strategies to achieve these goals. The third step is to allocate Affordable and Life -cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALOHA) dollars for affordable housing in the city's 1997 budget. This makes the city eligible for the three funding accounts: Tax Base ' Revitalization, Livable Communities Demonstration, and Local Housing Incentives. The Met Council has estimated that the number of new households for this period will be 5,784 (see attachment 2). Staff estimates that the current number of households is 5,907. The Met Council is assuming that based on available land, the city will double the number of households ' in the next 15 years. This is assuming a 6 percent growth rate. The Met Council projections can be compared to the projections made in the city's 1991 ' comprehensive plan. Table 1 Household and Population Projection Composite Source: 1991 Comprehensive Plan ' TH.212 Household 3,800 5,600 6,500 7,400 TH.212 Population 10,800 15,300 17,500 19,250 ' 4.75-5.5% 4.75-5.5% Household Population 4 11,105 6,586 17,182, 8,609 22,814 11,250 29,80",` 6% Household 4,235 7,583 10,149 13,582 6% Population 11,435 1 20,474 26,895 , 35,992 Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 3 Some of the assumptions made in the earlier projections include the household size at 2.7 persons per unit (2.65 after the year 2000) The current household size is estimated at 2.92, which is reflected in the number of young families in the city. Another assumption in the projections is that all property would be developed. Staff finds the projected ib,ousehold numbers possible only if all available land in the MUSA develops, whict is unlikely. There are all large tracts of property in the current MUSA that may not be developed by the year 201 These pi<. r :sties include Prince, Nvho has 156 acres guided for low density development, and fickankar, which has 60 acres of property, guided for high and medium density. The three areas the city has to address in affordable housing are Life - cycle, Density and Affordable. • Life -cycle housing is made up of two components. The number of non - traditional housing or percentage of housing that is not single family detach,;d, The other component is the ratio of owner occupied units to renter units. • Density compares the number of units to the acres of development. This ratio is applied to low density and multifamily. • Affordable is that percentage of new housing units that will be affordable. The Met Council considers those owner occupied units under $115,000 affordable. Rental affordability is the percentage of rental units with rents under $625. In order for the Council to assess a goal carefully, staff has reviewed developments in the city since 1991 to evaluate development trends. Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 4 Table 2 Residential Development Statistics Source: Chanhassen Planning Department QASF 9 3 -1 SUB Highlands of Lake St. Joe 9 -4 SU B Windmill Run 9 -8 S UB Royal Oaks Estates 93 -10 SUB Lotus Lake Woods 93 -11 SUB Oaks at Minnewashta 93 -12 SUB Tower Heights 93 -14 SUB Shenandoah Ridge 93 -15 SUB Church Road 9 - 1 6 S UB TJO 93 -25 SUB Minger Addition 94 -1 SUB Minnewashta Landings 94 -3 SU Ol ivewo od 94 -4 S _ Sh Ridge 94 -5 PUD Mi ssion Hills /Single - family 94 -7 SU B Shamrock Ridge 94 -B S UB_ Creekside 94 -10 SUB Brenden Pond 94 -13 S UB Point Lake Lucy 94 -14 S UB Lake Ann Highlands 94 15 SUB Hobens Wild Woods Farm 95 -10 SUB_ Forest Meadows 92-4 PU D_ M eadows at Longacres 93 2 PUD Trotters Ridge 91 -3 PUD Willow Ridge 9 -1 S Stone Creek 92 -4 SUB _ It hilien Addit 92 -5 SUB _Bluff Creek Estates 93 -3 PUD W oods at Longacres 93 -6 PUD Rogers / Dolej si GROSS 'ROW WETLA PAR NET 'T G 'NET NOTES - ---- - - - - -- A CRES A CRES ACRES LAND - A CRES UNITS _ - DENSITY DENSITY 36 -------- 0 - - 1 1.54 -- -- 0 24.06 33 0.92 1.37 Shoreland district 17.92 3.3 0 0 1 35 - 1.95 _ 2.41 far field 13 2.2 0 -- 0 - - 10. 8 23 1.77 2.13 f arm field 4.47 0.32 _ 03 0 3 35 7 _ - 1.57 -- 1.82_ wooded/wetland 35.83 9 3 _ 8 15. -- 4 5 - 1.26 _ - -- 2.84 - - 7.1 - - 0. 6 - -- -- 0 - - - - -- 0 6.5 1 3 ___ - - 1.83 - 2.00 - - 11.5 - 3.5 - 0 0 8 - 20 - 1.74 -1 - -- 2.50 3.3 0 -- - -- 0 - - -- 0 3 .3 _ ____ _ 4 - 121 - -- 1.06 0 - 0 0 - 1.06 3 2,83 _ _- 2.83 -_ -- 9.95 2.08 0 0_ .1 5 7.72 17 1 .71 _ - 2.20 19.7 1.7 0 _ 0 18 27 1.37 1.50 beachlottshoreland di strict _ 25.95 4.6 14.8 0 6.55 9 0.35 - - -- 1.37 shoreland district - _- - - -- 15.99 2.15 1.9 0 11.94 - 7.1 17 1.06 1.42 3.9 acre outlo�et to be platted - -- 7.1 -- - 0 _0 0 0 - - 7.1 1 2. 25 2.25_ 37.9 3 6. 7 27.53 4 5 _ ___ 1 19 _ -_ 1.63 _ _ __ - -___- 39.5_ _ _ 4.2 __ 5.7 _ -__ 5 2 4.6 - 44 - -- 1.11 __-1. 23.3 3.6 7.2 - - 0 - - 12.5 21 0.90 _ - - 1.68-- _ -- 18. 15 1.63 5.6 0 10.9 19 1.05 1.74 _ - -- 35.1 9.2 0 0 25.9 92 2.62 3.55 14_8 acres of M to south 1.87 0 0 0 1.87 3 1.60 1.6 20 .2 2.2 0 _- 5 13__ 19 - 0.94 -- 1.46 _ 95 10 - -- -- 24 - -- _ __ 0 _ _ 61 - - - 112 -- - 1.18 -- - 1 .84 32.5 7.44 - 5.6 -- - - 0 -- 19.46 - 49 - - - -- - - 1.51 -- - 2.52 -_ --- -- -- 30.3 4 8.39 -- - 0 ----- 17. 91 _ 37 1.22 2.07 81 10.04 0.96 8 62 - -- 141 _-1.74 - - -- - - 2.27 -_- - - -- -- - -- 9 1.8 - -- 0.9 - - -- -- - 0 - - -- 6.3 _ 1 _7 _ _1.89 9 - 2. 70 61.4 7.9 _ 19.7 _ - -- 0 -- _ 33.85 78 1.27 _ 2.30 - -_- 96.77 13.1 10.87 0 72.8 115 1.19 1_58 - -__ 80 2 0.2 0. 5.3 54.8 134 _ , 1.66 _2.45 - 871.71 128.9 127.68 31.45 583.68 1195 - 15 15% -- 4 67% AVG 1.37 _- --------- 47.18 11.6 -- -- 5.87 - - - -- 0 29.71 208 4.41 7.00 11.5 0 0 0 11Z 46 4.00 4.00 24.19 2.09 1 .8 0 20.3 - 147 - -- -- --6.08 7.24 4.6 0 --- - -- 0 - - - - -- - 0 - - - -- 4.6 - - -- 24 5.22 - 5.22 - - -- 9.7 - 0 - -- - 0 -- - 0 - - - 9. - 48 -- 4.95 _ 4.95 7.29 0 - 0 - -- 0 -- -- 7.2 9 34 4.66 - - _ 4.66_ 2.2 0 - -- - 0 -- - 0 2.2 -- 6 29.55 29.55 -- -- - 5 2.1 ----- 2.92 - 8.66 - - - -- - - 26.38 -_ 14.14 76 1.46 5.37 158.76 16.61 16. 33 26.38 9 9.44 648 - -_ -- -------- 10% - - - -- 10% - - -- 17% 63% AVG 4.08 6.52 SUBTOTAL PERCENT SUBT PERCENT -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - TOTALS 1030.47 145_51 144.01 57.83 683.12 1843 ----- _ _ PERCENT 14% 14% - _6 66% AVG 1.79 2.70 -5 PUD MULTI-FAMILY Mission Hills/Multi- family ' 94 94-18 PUD A utumn Rid 92 - 3 PUD Oak Pond /Oak Hills 9 4 -7 SP Prairie Creek Townhomes 87 -3 PUD 95 -7 SP Powers Place Lake Susan Hills Townhomes 9 5 -8 SP Centenial Hills 95 -1 PUD North Bay SUBT PERCENT -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - TOTALS 1030.47 145_51 144.01 57.83 683.12 1843 ----- _ _ PERCENT 14% 14% - _6 66% AVG 1.79 2.70 Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 5 Office Parks/Open Space Public /Semi Public Residential Large Lot Residential Low Density Residential Med. Density Residential High Destiny Mixed Use Study Area Undeveloped Total DENSITY GOALS Table 3 1991 Comprehensive Plan Land Uses Source; 1991 Comprehensive Plan 4, IA v.Ta 13.48 2,302.42 1,056.79 1,523.95 4,344.86 507.88 210.39 82.63 1,145.98 772.53 13,333.84 0/0 0% 17% 8% 10% 33% 4% 2% lava 9% 6% 100% 295 0.19 2% 7,083 1.80 59% 3,047 6.00 23 ° l0 1,683 8.00 13% 413 _ 5.00 3% 13,241 1.99 avg. 100% As Table 2 indicates, the city has been averaging 2.05 net units an acre on the single - family (low density) and 6.52 units and acres on the multi - family (medium and high density). In Chanhassen, low density includes twin homes. The North Bay project which is developed as a single family detached project does not increase the density in the single family detached land use because the land use is guided high density. This highlights an issue the Planning Commission has been raising for a long time —if the city allows development to occur below the designated density, then where does this lost density occur. The benchmark the city should be trying to achieve in the single family detached is the 1.8 -1.9 units /acre. In Chanhassen, because of the number of wetlands, staff has asked to have the net density used in calculations. Currently, the city index is 1.5 /acre. I believe a goal that is obtainable is 1.8 units an acre net density. In the multifamily district, the bench mark is 10 -14 units /acre. The city index is 11 units /acre. Staff is recommending a goal of 9 -10 units per acre. This number is based on 1990 data. As indicated earlier, this number has moved farther from the benchmark because of the number of projects approved at the medium density range. The only way to achieve the density benchmark in the multifamily land use would be to build ' Livable Communities October 16, 1995 ' Page 6 developments at the maximum density permitted. In cases where the development is appropriate, give density bonuses as permitted in the PUD ordinance. The city currently has limited high density development. The majority of projects are being developed at 6 units an acres, therefore, a significant number of developments will have to be built in excess of 14 units an acre to increase the multi - family units per acre density to achieve the benchmark. ' Table 4 Ll it Single - Family Detached Multifamily LIFE CYCLE GOALS The method for determining life -cycle housing is to look at the future number of households the Met Council has predicated for the city in the next 15 years and establish what percentage of owner to renter the city will try to achieve. The type of non - single family includes apartments, townhouses, 3 and 4 plexes, etc. Assuming the Met Council prediction of 5,784 new households, staff's recommended goal of an 80% owner to 20% rental mix would mean that 4,627 units should be owner occupied and 1,157 should be rental units. In the 1990 comprehensive plan, the approved housing goal was for 34% of the housing units to be non - single family detached. I believe this still is a reasonable goal. With the types of owner occupied and rental there is a large variety of housing options. I believe it would be impossible to achieve a higher level of rental to owner occupied units because there has only been two rental projects built in the city in the last 10 years. The proposed Met Council benchmark is 67 / 75 and 25 / 33 ratio of owner to renter. The city index according to the Met Council is 85 / 15. The Heritage Park Apartments, with 60 units, was built in 1989 -90 and in 1995 -96, Centennial Hill (Senior Project), with 65 units is being built. Even at 1,157 units over the next 15 years it would mean 70 units a year. The important number to keep in mind is for every eight units of owner occupied, the city should be developing two units of rental. Housing Goals Agreement Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 7 Table 5 Housing Goals Agreement (Non - Single Family Detached) Owner /renter Mix 19% 35-37% 85/15% (67 -75) /(25-33) % 34 : `* 1991 Comp Plan ' 80/20 AFFORDABLE The definition of affordable owner occupied units are those units under $115, 000 in homestead valuation. Affordable rental units are those units with rents under $625 a month. To determine the number of affordable ownership, the first step is to detei,:,:ine the number of owner occupi units. As stated previously with an 80 / 20 ratio of owner occupied units to rental units, the number of owner occupied households over the next 15 years could be 4,627. The number of rental could be 1,157. The bench mark the Met Council is recommending is 60 -69% ownership affordable and 35 -37% rental affordable. The city is currently at 37% affordable rental, according to the Met Council and the County Assessor (see Table 6). According to 1995 data, 32% of Chanhassen homesteaded homes are affordable. I believe a 50% goal is more realistic. That means that 50% of all new homes constructed in the next 15 years should be under the $115,000 in valuation. Table 6 Chanhassen Homestead Valuation January 2, 1995 Source: Carver County Assessor $0472,000 225 5% $72,001 4115,000 1,111 .27% $115,0004150,000 1,436 35% $150,0014200,000 741. 18% $200,000 4250,000 304 7% $250,001+ Total 4,140 Livable Communities October 16, 1995 ' Page 8 RECOMMENDATION, Staff is requesting input from the City Council as to the proposed goals. The resolution and goals should be approved at the November 13, 1995 meeting. The next step in the process is to provide the Met Council with implementation strategies that will be used to achieve these goals ' (due June 30,1996). Strategies staff is considering are reviewing the PUD ordinance to allow zero lot line homes and density bonuses, working with the City's HRA and Carver County HRA for another housing development, examine the use of CDBG dollars for affordable housing, down payment assistance, requiring all developments to meet the comprehensive plan densities, providing additional mixed use opportunities, and investigating commercial /industrial /office contributions to affording housing fund. Attached is the Housing Goals Draft Agreement and Resolution for your input and consideration ' for the next Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS, ' 1. Model Resolution 2. Sector 8 Housing Data 3. Draft Housing Goals HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES The City of Chanhassen supports: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people of all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all k acial and ethnic groups in the purchase, &� Y rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life- cycle. 4. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving tc coxp n.odate the need for a variety of housing types and costs, 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to an linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carry out the above housing principles, the City of Chanhassen agrees to use the benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable and life - cycle housing goals for the period of 1996 to 2010, and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and source availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. * The City of Chanhassen reserves the right to renegotiate the goals after 2 years. ** Chanhassen agrees that the Metropolitan Council will use other market indicators in evaluating goals. These indicators may include land prices, interest rates, cost of construction, and environmental factors including trees and wetlands. City Index Benchmark Goal Affordability Ownership ! 37% 60 -69% 50% Rental 1 44% 35 -37% 1 35 Life -Cycle Type (Non - single family detached) Owner/Renter Mix j Density Single - Family Detached Multifamily 19% I 35 -37% I 34% 1991 Comp Plan 85/15% 67- 75/25 -33% 80/20 1.5 /acre 1.8 -1.9 /acre 1.8 11 /acre 10 -14 /acre 9 -10 To achieve the above goals, the City of Chanhassen elects to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Program, and will prepare and submit a plan to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996, indicating the actions it will take to carry out the above goals. ' CERTIFICATION Donald J. ni e ayyor Date (2/91) HOUSING Approval of grading, filling and excavation plans to ensure that erosion and siltation are minimized. ■ Utilizing state: federal and programs where appr g� ')e city should operate diseased tree removal programs to assist in cul° +.ailing tree diseases and noxious weeds that impact wetland and lake areas. Construction plans and specifications should contain provisions for adequate on and off site protection of existing vegetation. The city will utilize its site plan review, land use plan and subdivision procedures to maximize the preservation of mature trees by the sensitive design of proposed developments. The City of Chanhassen will discourage the alteration of steep slope areas and bluffs to minimize soil loss from erosion, minimize tree loss where appropriate and to protect visual amenities such as those found along river blufflines. GOAL To provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community development goal. POLICIES Existing housing within the city should be maintained and improved and revitalization of older developed areas should be encouraged. The City of Chanhassen will attempt to provide adequate land for projected housing growth and to provide housing opportunities for persons of a range of incomes. N. (2/91) As state and federal funding permits, efforts should be made to provide low and moderate housing where needed, to provide balance to the generally high cost of new housing. New construction programs may provide a source of such housing. Plans and ordinances for the City of Chanhassen should ensure that adequate amounts of land are designated to accommodate projected residential growth. The city should promote the use of state and federal programs designed to reduce land costs for developers of low and moderate income housing. The Ci ty of Chanhassen wi 11 cooperate wi th other governmental units and public- agencies to streamline, simplify, and coordinate the reviews required for residential development to avoid inflating the cost of housing due to unnecessary delays in the review process. Subsidized housing should be given equal site and planning considerations to non - subsidized housing units and should not be placed in inferior locations or in areas that are not provided with necessary urban services. If demand becomes apparent, the city will promote the construction of senior citizen housing in locations convenient to shopping and medical services. The development of alternative types of housing such as patio homes, townhouses, and quadplexes should be permitted to supplement conventional single - family homes and apartments providing that they are compatible with appropriate land use practices and are representative of high quality development. 0 (2/91) New residential development should be discouraged from encroaching upon v "tal natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural state. Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site plans and buildirg types should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources used for housing. Property and code enforcement policies which encouraged the maintenance and rehabilitation of both owner occupied and rental housing should be encouraged. The City should discrimination in housing units. conti nue to ensure non- the sale and rental of Citizen participation in developing plans and implementing housing programs is encouraged in redevelopment, rehabilitation, and in the planning for future housing. RECREATION GOAL The City of Chanhassen will provide recreational open space areas which will reasonably meet the outdoor recreation needs of the community's residents. POLICIES Provide park and open space facilities that emphasize accessibility and use by Chanhassen residents. Coordinate the expenditure of local funds for recreational open space with the schedules for 10 PUBS:ZN Feb 91 DMc 25 Jan 91 reprol FEBRUARY 1991 AMERICAN IN ° PLANNING ASSOCIATION F n 7 Paving the Wav for require at least 6,000 square feet. Fairfax County, Virginia, b W -�': :' and San Antonio permit lots of 4,200 and 4,000 square feet, Affordable Housing r' , ` - ,'`respectively. Even though these lots will seem plenty small :Mention "affordable housing" to 20 differeiit.peopie, and to -some homeowners and city officials, some planners want you'll get 20 different opinions of how it vn`11 look, where-it tb.see even smaller lots. should go, and how it should be regulatecT At least some of - -'Witold Rybczynski and Avi Friedman, professors at the those people will agree that affordable housing is a good idea McGill University School of Architecture in Montreal, are as long as it is b - u;" in : ome.aile else's community, pzegonents of the °ow Rome, a small house designed at Nonetheless, the tiuth is that every munictg0ity needs to that school. These are two -story row houses, 14 feet wide, have housing for people of modest income:+Idw can with a 1,000- square -foot footprint. Lots as small as 1,500 planning and zoning officials write ordinances tihat will alI6iv ,.- square feet can accommodate a Grow Home with a small developers to provide attractive units for a city's acg= backyard garden. families and retired people, as well as for teachers. Donald MacDonald thinks that even smaller is beautiful. firefighters, janitors. and shop clerks who provide necessary The San Francisco architect- turned - developer has designed services for modest wages? Small lots, small units, density single - family detached units that are so small they have only bonuses. reduced building and infrastructure costs, and 300 to 900 square feet of living space. But these are not efficient proposal reviews all form part of the answer. necessarily overgrown doll houses — MacDonald packs quite a bit into that space. His larger units are two stories high and Small Houses on Small Lots include two bedrooms. plus a loft for either storage or One common technique used to encourage lower -cost units is sleeping. One of the bedrooms can be replaced with a garage. to include in the zoning code a district that permits lots Bedrooms are on the first floor, with living and dining areas smaller than the local standard The various methods of and the kitchen on the second. He makes the second floor doing this raise some interesting questions about the amount of space Americans need for a single - family home. For instance, Wallkill, New York, has a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet in its affordable housing district. Arlington, Texas, permits zero - lot -Iine homes on 5,000- square -foot lots, while conventionally sited houses Four of the houses designed by architect Donald MacDonald fit on a 4,000-square-foot San Francisco lot. Inside. living spaces are tightly clustered. with a sleeping loft overhead. Y ' Reprinted ,, Aith permission from the American Planning Association, 1/31/96. more attractive addiag a fireplace and a large window. MacDonald has fit four of these box - shaped houses onto a 4,000- square -foot lot in San Francisco, wit's the lot owned in common through a condominium -type association. The average density of these units, measuring 2n by 20 feet, i� 37 per acre. His smaller houses, which measure only 20 by 12 feet, are really detached studios and require so much less space that he can fit 65 units in an acre. At present, San Francisco zoning regulations require MacDonald to build on land zoned for apartment units and do not allow him to subdivide the lots. While the houses are two inches apart and are sold individually, the land beneath each house must be owned jointly as part of a condominium. MacDonald hopes that those regulations will eventually change. He wants cities to begin adopting cottage zoning districts with a minimum lot size of 1,000 square feet for single - family detached units. Though they are small, the Grow Homes and the MacDonald houses are designed to be sold at market rates, Infrastructure and Building Design Standards appealing to buyers at the lower end of the spectrum. A A controversial, but often effective, way to reduce building Grow Home would sell for about $62,000 in Montreal; U.S. costs is to reduce the cost of the surrounding infrastructure. prices would vary according to land prices. MacDonald's Smaller lot sizes can help accomplish this without any houses have sold for between $115,000 and $165,000 in San reduction in infrastructure standards because pipes need not Francisco — bargain prices in that tight real estate market. stretch as far and roads need not cover as many miles. Though the houses are less expensive than larger units, However, some advocates are pushing for a reduction in the Witold Rybczynski cautions that their affordability ought not standards themselves. For instance, according to a May 1990 to be the only selling point. Terms like "affordable housing" Urban Land article, Durham, North Carolina, allowed a raise too many fears of crime- ridden, poorly maintained, developer to use rolled (smooth- curved) rather than standard low- income high rises. Small lots can also be the key to (square -cut) curbs. To save pavement costs and achieve more attractive neighborhoods with many services within walking uniform lot sizes, the city allowed the builder to use distance. Like the neotraditionalists, Rybczynski appreciates hammerhead (T- shaped) cul de sacs. It also permitted several the pleasant neighborhood feeling of a well designed but houses to tap into the pipe leading into the main sewer and densely populated area. water line rather than requiring each house to have its own While few communities have chosen to allow units as pipes all the way to the main line. There can be problems small as those that Rybczynski, Friedman, and MacDonald with this if the shared line breaks. There must be a clear advocate, some communities have provided for a variety of agreement between the municipal government, the housing types by allowing smaller than standard lots. homeowners, and perhaps a homeowners' association Standard lot sizes in San Antonio are 6,000 square feet, concerning the responsibility for maintaining the shared which is considered the bare minimum for single - family lots lines. in other parts of the country. However, the zoning ordinance Building codes also need to catch up with improved permits lots as small as 4,200 square feet. Mike O'Neal, a technology pipes are durable, easy to install, and less planner in San Antonio, says that from 1983 through 1986, expensive than copper. The required diameter of the pipe many houses were built on these smaller lots. Most appealed should be no larger than necessary. to moderate - income buyers, selling for about $45,000 in Another place to cut costs is on neighborhood streets. 1986_ Even though San Antonio did not have a severe According to a forthcoming publication on affordable housing crunch, the downsized units met a local need and housing by the National Associaton of Homebuilders sold well. (NAHB), many streets are overdesigned. If streets are too O'Neal says that the neighborhoods are attractive and do wide, they not only are expensive to build, but they become not look overcrowded unless the houses on the smaller lots unsafe by encouraging drivers to speed. They also detract are too big. In small -lot subdivisions, he notes, there are still from the neighborhood's residential character. a few of the larger lots, relieving the appearance of density. NAHB encourages communities to rethink their sidewalk Also, 75 percent of the units must be zero -lot -line. This requirements, as well. Infrequently traveled areas may not creates the illusion that there is more open space and gives need sidewalks at all, while busier streets may need them on each owner enough room on the side of the house for a only one side. Although a valid case can be made for usable yard narrower streets and fewer paved paths, planners need to exercise some caution in areas with very small lots. Their higher density could increase traffic enough to justify the higher standards. Infrastructure is not the only place where it is possible to cut the costs of building homes. Developers can save money on materials and on the architectural design of affordable units. For instance, MacDonald uses the least expensive materials available that will still do the job. His houses are Density Bonuses The real estate boom of the 1980s sent housing prices spiraling out of reach of many prospective home buyers. The situation has led local governments to use density bonuses to promote the development of affordable housing. Fairfax County recently passed an ordinance requiring that at least 12.5 percent of new homes be affordable if a developer plans to build more than one unit per acre, if there is sewer and water service to the site, and if the developer plans to build 50 or more units. In a very few extenuating circumstances, a developer can provide money for units to be built offsite. ne new ordinance lets developers build at densities 20 percent higher than those previously allowed. Aside from permitting smaller lots, the ordinance also allows a few single- family attached units in zones where only detached units had been built. This provision was controversial, but a staff discussion of the ordinance points out that only a very small percentage of the total land area will be dedicated to attached units. Consequently, the character of low- density neighborhoods will be better preserved than if lot sizes were simply scaled down. The ordinance builds in additional flexibility by reducing minimum lot u4dths in some zones and by permitting pipestem lots as long as the- stem is 25 feet wide. 2 0 7 PUBS:ZN Feb 91 DMc 25 Jan 91 reproI big boxes with pitched roofs and don't resemble the Victorian buildings that grace much of San Francisco. The Grow Homes do not have built -in closets. Basements, if they :xist, are unfinished. Crystal Meadows, the development in Durham, does not feature much architectural detailing. In other communities, developers have scrimped on landscaping. However, it is a mistake to cut too many design corners. Units need not have gorgeous details or mature plantings, but they should be attractive enough to allay the fears of both potential buyers and neighboring homeowners. The neotraditionalists have shown that scaled -down houses need not be ugly and that higher density can be a distinct advantage rather than a liability. But, in order to reap these advantages, the new units must have pleasing proportions and be an asset to the streetscape. Wide streets and more than one bathroom may be lu ,.Pes, but aesthetic appeal is not. Streamlined Processing While it is important to encourage affordable housing through the use of appropriate zoning code provisions, some of the work must also happen in the zoning office. Fairfax County recognized this when it required its government to take no more than 280 days (excluding the time that the plans are back with the developer for revision) to approve a development that includes affordable units. There are no time limits for other developments in Fairfax County. NAHB offers some recommendations for establishing a quick and thorough hearing process. It encourages ongoing communication between the developer and local government representatives through preapplication meetings, printed development guides, and a central clearinghouse where staff members can answer questions, make referrals, and perhaps issue noncontroversial permits. The development process must encourage communication among staff members. Information about the proposal can be shared among departments, applications can be reviewed by several departments concurrently, and a committee of representatives from affected departments can meet to set deadlines and make decisions. A streamlined permit process, thoughtfully modified design standards, scaled -down houses and lot sizes, and density bonuses can individually serve to reduce the cost of building affordable houses. In combination, these methods can help ensure that communities will have adequate housing for middle- and moderate - income citizens in the years to come. C.K. Houston Goes for the Flag Zoning is coming to Houston, the only major American city still without it. (See Zoning News, March 1990, "Zoning in Houston ? ") In a unanimous vote on January 9, the city council reorganized the city's planning commission as a planning and zoning commission and instructed it to produce a new comprehensive plan that includes zoning. Within 18 months, the commission is to produce a zoning scheme for esidential areas, and within three years, a plan for citywide zoning. The same day, the council also confirmed Donna Kristaponis as the new planning director. She is leaving a similar post in West Palm Beach, Florida. Houston voters rejected zoning in nonbinding referendums in 1948 and 1962. The dramatic turnaround resulted from a two -year crusade spearheaded by the Houston Homeowners Association, a coalition of about 40 neighborhood groups. Gail Williford, its president, says that the drive resulted from citizens' frustration with a series of "rifle- shot" ordinances aimed at solving such problems as off - street parking and sexually oriented businesses. An upturn in Houston's economy, after the oil slump of the mid - 1980s, has increased development pressure in many residential areas, adding to the clamor for protection. After winning such small victories from 1982 to 1989, she says, the decade -old coalition decided it was "asinine to work so hard for so little" and that it should "go for the flag — zoning." The victory, according to both Wlll;f7rd and co!mcil member James GreenvE ( who spomured the zoning measure, resulted in large part from election -,year politics. Two years ago, Rosie Walker, a magazine publisher, based her insurgent mayoral campaign entirely on the issue of zoning. Polls last year showed that up to two -thirds of Houstonians favor zoning, and Greenwood, chairman of the council's planning committee, has been widely rumored as an opponent to Mayor Kathy Whitmire in this year's election. Although a 32- member Land Use Study Committee appointed by Whitmire recommended against zoning in a report released in October, the mayor chose to back Greenwood's measure just a few days before the council voted. Some members of the study committee, which included business, neighborhood, and city agency representatives, charged that its chairman, Charles Miller, president of the Houston Business Partnership, had made up his mind to oppose zoning before the committee ever met. Miller argued that traditional zoning would be ineffective in Houston and might lead to racial discrimination. While the study committee deliberated last year, Greenwood and John Mixon, a University of Houston law professor, each spoke to 75 or 80 neighborhood groups, explaining the concept and building support. Among their tools was a 15- minute video, A Vision for Houston: Zoning. Mixon is credited with creating some of the momentum two years ago by proposing a simplified form of zoning for residential areas. Greenwood says he expects that Houston will adopt a fairly simple zoning code with perhaps just five categories, relying heavily on performance standards to enhance the effectiveness of zoning. The study committee's final recommendations suggested, among other things, strengthening deed restrictions, lowering building standards in the inner city to attract low -cost housing, and establishing a design review board. Some were good ideas, Greenwood says, but as a whole they constituted "mishmash" and "lacked clarity and definition." In the battle for public opinion, he says, the "indirect and complex" committee proposals were ultimately no match for the "direct and simple" concept of zoning, whose "time had come." Funding is now the key issue. The planning and development department's current budget is $4.6 million, but the planning commission, which oversees it, has requested $17 million to complete its new assignment, which it welcomes. Greenwood says the commission is to present a budget by May for the fiscal year beginning July 1. He expects that the council will allot $6 million yearly for the next three years, creating up to 100 new positions. In a city facing budget problems, that may mean a small property tax increase, but proponents argue that the long-term savings in infrastructure costs and increased property values will repay the city well_ J.S F" Me for the Record Book The largest blown fine for a zoning violation by an individual property owner has been levied by the California Coastal Commission. The commission recently settled the case out of court when the owner agreed to buffer his property to screen it from public view. He also agreed to pay a fine of 5325,000. The holm belongs To Peter Vivian who owns a Sar, .Jose truckinc , ompany. Viviano built his hone on a lot overlooking Monterey Bay in 1984. The commission originally approved a site plan that allowed the home to be 6,800 square feet_ In 1986, building inspectors found that it had grown to 33,264 square feet. At that point, the commission issued an order to halt construction, and both parties began to litigate. The settlement, reached in late December, calls for Viviano to reduce the size of his home to I 1,000 square feet and to screen it from public view. The commission wiII use the money for coastal improvement projects within Santa Cruz County, but at least S100,000 will be needed to cover legal expenses. D.B. Will This Ban Hold Water? Last summer, an advertising boat began flashing electronic messages toward shore as it floated up and down the waterways of Chicago' Outcry from civic groups prompted the city to propose an ordinance to ban advertising on Chicago's waterways. On October 24, the city council passed the ordinance. Last June, the Chicago Plan Commission approved the Chicago River urban Design Guidelines, developed by the city and a local civic group, Friends of the Chicago River. (For information on the Chicago River plan, see the August 1990 PAS Memo.) A major purpose of these guidelines is to `reinforce and expand the visually impressive urban ensemble now in place along the river." Beth White, the executive director of policy of Friends of the Chicago River• says that she supports the ban because such an advertising Zoning :ti'cws is a monthly newsletter pub:ished by the American Planning Association. Subscription are available for S32 (t:.S,) and S38 (foreign), Israel St01L.nan Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director. Zorirg News is produced at APA. lira Schwab, Editor,, David Bergman, Fay Dolnick, Chrs Ha. -:is, Carolyn Kennedy, Marya \lorris, HO Russirof, Atay Van Dozen. Reporters: Pau: Thomas, Assistant Editor. opyzig}:t V991 by American Planning Association. 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL i0637. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 4.1sSac:uisetts Ave.. x.W., washingroa. DC 20036, QL xigbts reserved, \o part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in anv n oz or by any mean.$, clecyonic o: mechanical. inc!uding photocopying, recording, r by any inforntatior, storage and :ttricvai sy$:em, without ptrnission in tom The American Planning Association. wzirin$ boat contradicts what the guidelines are trying to protect. But Rod Zuidema, the advertising boat's owner, is contesting the ban as unconstitutional. Zuidema is suing the ; cit in federal district court on the grounds that the ban iolates his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. His attorney, Robert Fioretti, argues that, since truck billboards are still permitted on the streets of Chicago, the ban unfairly singles out one form of mobile advertising. Moretti also contends that the city has no jurisdiction over what is considered a federally controlled waterway. However, Illinois state law grants all municipalities - jurisdiction over all waterways within or bordering upon the municipality, to the extent of three miles beyond the corporate limits . , . The boat at issue, The Dutch Drezni, is a 65 -foot converted houseboat that Fopports a I ('0- square -foot changeable copy sign. The 6 -by -30 -foot sign is comprised of 1,792 45 -watt light bulbs that are programmed to spell out commercial messages and community announcements as well as the time and temperature. Other groups, such as the Burnham Park Planning Board, also strongly oppose the use of floating billboards on Chicago's rivers and lakefront. Their major concern is that the Dutch Dream obstructs the natural beauty of Chicago's waterways. Barbara Lynne, the planning board's executive director, argues th )t the sign Is "polluting the scenic b of the riverfront." The group cites as its other major concern the lack of respect for the citizens' right not to be overwhelmed with commercial advertising everywhere they turn. ` C.H. Singing the Praises Suppose you were the Vernon, Connecticut, zoning board of appeals, facing a request from two sisters to allow outside dining at their yogurt shop, despite the fact that they installed the tables before realizing they needed a permit. They come armed with petitions with 2,000 signatures and this ditty: If you like sitting here in the clean fresh air, enjoying our yogurt with time to spare: We could use your help, `cause the hearing's real soon, to bet the -zoning board to change its tune. L You guessed it. The yogurt sisters won. J.S. ' Call for information The Planning Advisory Service is gathering information for a report on transportation management ordinances. We would Iike to receive examples of ordinances, reports, and planning documents covering the range of approaches to transportation management. Thanks for your assistance. Send materials to: -Amy Van Doren, Research Associate, American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago. IL 60637. 1 r r 1 m SITE � TURNS ITS RACK 0N_ CO NINTNTION 1 Ingle- family detached density at 15 du/acre may seem like a concept only for certain areas of the Sun Belt. Where else would such high density for detached houses be necessary? How about for infill sites in older sections of mature metro areas like Denver? Kephart Architects of Denver has used such high- density detached houses in designing `J Observatory Green, a garages can be accessed Houses on an infill site in Denver prototype for infill devel- from the surrounding use surrounding streets and alleys opment within the exist- streets and alleys. to reach the rear- oriented ing grid of Denver's The color scheme for garages. The end units are 10 feet streets and alleys. all the single - family from the street other units are the Eliminating streets on detached units is similar same distance from the property the site enables density to the approach used for line. The douses are 22 feet to be pushed to 15 units a multifamily building. wide 50 feet deep. per acre. In site locations Colors used on all roofs, with streets, Kephart siding and trim are con - with more amenities says the density could be sistent. than comparable older about 12 du/acre. "Me idea is to make houses in the area. At The 10 houses at one good, strong unified sales prices of $160,000 Observatory Green are impact,* says Kephart. to $200,000, the homes oriented inward with The houses, built by cost about the same as front porches facing a Johnstown Design of existing for -sale common pedestrian Denver, are 1400 to 1460 homes in the court. Rear oriented square feet, bigger and neighborhood. D Reprinted from PROFESSIONAL BUILDER August, 1994 0 1994 by Cahners Publishing Company + 1� ` ry ftlifes w. v 1y a, WIRI i Mme' k y r�� , Ar, � . :. f . rte iaw — '— / 4 AUG us MATIC.: M-Sff r- �s+► _ �- w.- Charlan Brock's courtyard �" '` � ing Th6 _._ design solves site "� �� Problems with Stair. � nvelope ..83 See page fiH_ 00l *9 *12 �Rep lour Best Eti X04 ans:94 ti 1 • ad • •, • �� V ' Lar _ L.J ... �� , W ITH ITS 1•aT 1 NE I I!5oRl W6 HOMES • r MVa4N( 14ep �cN �vEv AfYM: Small lot homes are less private! Privacy in small lot designs may actually be superior to that for homes on larger lots, particularly when the large lot designs are based on the erroneous assumption that privacy Rill simply occur. Central to any small lot concept is the Pig for Pri%UC5' "CNE 51N6LE FAM I LY NOME ohl A LOGE 1.oT Iii 1°SF-z-IEV5D +� pESIGNED 1N. ��D1�'flC�ht F�oM iry hte�H� HIV 114e caMMuN iTl' AT LitiRC�E There is a conceptual difference between large lot and small lot design. The home on a large lot is designed as if it had no neighbors. Page 1 ff= • •700 ,�.; :, •. When to A Lot Small? In western cities, small (4000 to 5000 sq. ft.) lots are written into planning and subdivision regulations, and we experience little trouble developing lots this size. The same small lot would shock the sensibilities of many midwestern communities and chances of approval are greatly reduced. �1�• - �51M�1Y A tt,l- ck -bwc• . /TS A44 REI-- Ar�VE ®.. Small is Relativel There is always room for change in any region. We've developed lots as small as 3750 sq. ft. in suburban Chicago. The trick is to cLoose your time and your place very carefully and describe your concepts clearly. ,19 LUO"I- 'FA% • • ^TrA.cMED . Gai�c7T -,ylv5 "Cluster Homes" means many things! Clustering can group building sites to save natural features or to increase density in urban locations. A cul -de -sac can be a "cluster" to some, while to others "clusters" are attached homes. The word "cluster" has regional variations in meaning, so care should be taken when using such loosely defined terms. KephWk Al t tm O 1994 Page 2 / e !'GTtrRES MYTH: Small lots or clusters are merely Ways to stuff more homes on less land. Clustering can: save natural features; provide neighborhood identity, and provide privacy as well as increase density. i , Y� Boring developments built in the past are often cited as the reasons neighborhood groups and city officials have such resistance to small lot concepts. These negative attitudes , are rooted in the more basic percep- tions of "What a single family home should be." Homes should: _ • Be separated from neighbors •' . • Be individual in style • Be distinctly different from townhouses or other multi - family forms • Have large yards, big setbacks, wide elevations, etc. etc. • Be like my parents' home Myth: Single family Municipalities understand town - detached homes are always houses and are perfectly comfortable more acceptable than with the higher densities in town - attached homes. house developments. The negative focus on small lot single family is on To buyers, probably -- but to city the small lot. It may not be logical officials and neighborhood groups, or understandable, but it's a fact. almost never. One basic principal to follow is to ,l•Y ?' /ME immediately dispense with the term small lot. Concentrate on how your concept works. Show homes, not lot lines, and talk about how you achieve privacy. i Page 3 ELE YA770 / / J 04.AN J f�� L _" 19Wc ,All • AWNZIPA4I7IF5- . -RA_ �oMM1h�A'ti . • CRY. Gcr!f�C�i '�_- " ; . • 7�1�lNSHIP. S , Y� Boring developments built in the past are often cited as the reasons neighborhood groups and city officials have such resistance to small lot concepts. These negative attitudes , are rooted in the more basic percep- tions of "What a single family home should be." Homes should: _ • Be separated from neighbors •' . • Be individual in style • Be distinctly different from townhouses or other multi - family forms • Have large yards, big setbacks, wide elevations, etc. etc. • Be like my parents' home Myth: Single family Municipalities understand town - detached homes are always houses and are perfectly comfortable more acceptable than with the higher densities in town - attached homes. house developments. The negative focus on small lot single family is on To buyers, probably -- but to city the small lot. It may not be logical officials and neighborhood groups, or understandable, but it's a fact. almost never. One basic principal to follow is to ,l•Y ?' /ME immediately dispense with the term small lot. Concentrate on how your concept works. Show homes, not lot lines, and talk about how you achieve privacy. i Page 3 ELE YA770 / / J 04.AN J f�� PON617r; How KA Wy HOMESIms? • W ETL a,N 175 • Ow lewt-6 • E�l:MJ =NTS • VEMeAT1o44, • DETENTIoNc:• S�T13AG IG5 � .�EASEMEhIT 0 RA AWIT10tiW- DEDI CATION FOR 47FEST Have you ever worked with a perfect site? It wouldn't have an odd shape, easements, wetlands, or any of the other constraints found on most pieces of land. Row C%VjCA.TIoN INEFFICIENT oR /�DDITtoNI.L SrrE uI/� PE � M�R TR E T W ` 5*31A lie L^i 50) WOMWAe- it 1+ I s ,1 2 n . 10 i 9 AGTV (F 2EAL°) 14 La T-, oN 4ok : 35 MOMEVA—c WATER (06% EFF1QCNr) GETENTIO*t /►.1tFJ► N I� I developed the "Perfect Density Test" in order to analyze the poten- tial density of planning concepts independent of the constraints of a particular site. Judgements on the validity of concepts can be made quickly without designing an entire site. Actual density is typically 20% to 30% less than a perfect density depending on the peculiarities of a site, such as its size, shape, and required public dedications or easements. Page 4 S ° L e m i N� �} C s� 1 oN -CA c0 Actual density will typically be 70 to 80% of perfect density. Ground Coverage - Up to seven homes per acre (perfect density). Open space decreases with greater density, as the ground coverage of des and streets increases. The switch to narrow lots increases open space, and using private streets and clusters continues this pattern. MWH: Unlimited Density possibilities M— &—I _ fVVATS Vx TS �L ' i C LS1 WS Ffo O4ivEWaY P'Mr+KIr 4 The potential density with this house type and size (50'x 30' - 2200 sq. ft.) is limited. Density cannot go over 10 to 11 per acre (perfect density) unless gimmicks, such as eliminating streets from the site area, are used, or trade- offs such as reducing house sizes are incorporated. Gross Density - Uses the total site area, including all streets. Net Density - Takes streets out of the calculation_ of land area and falsely increases density. 1 Page 5 q _ L 3 1 - of o:::f � �T . ALL c v. oN �5 (cl N ROW ' EW:W MVATE ND GRR1Ek�Y5 Yti. WIPE Y p �L FM P AF,14W, The costs of density are measured in the trade -offs that may reduce the marketability of the final product. You can develop many more three - story, one -car garage small houses on a site than larger, one- or two -story homes, but if your market doesn't want them, it's a wasted effort and a failure in the making. MYTH: "It's still a single ' family detached home." At some point we cross the line with density, and the result is not Perceived as single family, or at least the type of single family the market wants. Greater success could perhaps be achieved with more costly single family or even the right type of multi- family. C Page 6 F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � _Pvec ra 67RECT The Typical House used in this and following illustrations is 50'x 30', with a two - car garage. It has approximately 1000 sq, ft. of living space on the first floor, and could be as large as 2200 sq. ft. including a second floor within this footprint. t C _Pv��e STREET' Page 7 % op E AxPA *4 eel • OP 5�cace ..7yY. 3 4;1 1ACRE 'P�•�cT c�ivsi�- • Driveways are included in "open space," and the "street" area includes the entire right -of -way width for public streets. % OF 5 P?E AREA . sfr ... /7r • /l ovscs ... if % op sWre, - 6770 /A&V A47VA L.) � PLI¢F EGT G� NS/7Y Houses are the smallest element of ground coverage, typical of all large lots. At . I �; �v�cic S77Q�ET' • • �ovs�s ... /8 5 . 3 /Acs PEROOEGT DEN'S 177" (" IlAc. Ar n/n-) The 60'x 110' lot is the smallest of my large lot examples. Predictably, while density increases open space Ieslines, and louses and streets tale up more and more of the land area. W, X15,00 6 L ?d i �'S� I ' ' I it 'BLtG STREET �� yo Off' -5/; ARA • 57 , , • yov • • Off' S�rce .. 53/. e 6 1A 9d=. ( 5. G AC rwt.) Narrow and Deep Lots are a powerful high density technique. Narrow lots reduce the area of street per lot, leaving extra -room for more lots. The difference is in the product! Narrow and deep homes are not always accepted in a market, or need to be introduced carefully and at the right price. Page 8 �� ID�v 1 !• L Private ]Roads can increase density . with no loss in open space. As 1 density goes up the homes cover more of the site, but the reduction in street area compensates for the loss and 1 open space can actually increase. AWAIM /WW Setbacks from private roads can often be less than from public roads, and are measured from the curbs rather �0 I 1 Private ]Roads can increase density with no loss in open space. As 1 density goes up the homes cover more of the site, but the reduction in street area compensates for the loss and 1 open space can actually increase. Setbacks from private roads can often be less than from public roads, and are measured from the curbs rather than from a right -of -way line. I /y5 0 , . 4% PR1VA7C- R OAD , ....• .:t:l__._ 90 OF5 MAAZA • ; - . 12 % •Howe* ... 299: •op 144a .. 51% 8 061t4i-eogr- (60. ACTUAL-) A homeowner's association is necessary to maintain the street and is an important consideration before making this move. Buyers resent paying to care for their roads while their taxes go to the maintenance of roads in neighboring subdivisions. • 5free 990 • Hvayes ... R.2 • 0,001 127ce .. 9e5/ate Clusters/Courtyards - Less street per house, plus the absence of driveway parking spaces, increases density while maintaining open space. Care must be taken to insure clear separations between clusters (a common error in courtyard planning). Page 9 9 - rf7 .144 51,44. =-IV-,7/W� 49XEgr MYTH: Unbelievably High Densities Streets are ah in place or are not counted as part of the land area. Note: See cover page for illustrations of this development. j IAO CP /VATS' AWO If t-A ---r- Calculating site area from centerline of street to centerline of street results in less density (units per acre), but it's unrealistic not to include streets except for urban infill locations where streets are in place. Page 10 CW677M�, 4,77ZOE7- 11 TYPES OF SMALL LOTS • ALTERNATE WIDTH LOTS Homes are oriented alternately. Wide,. narrow, wide, narrow, along the street for vafW y in the streetscape. This may require two separate groups of plans for each type of lot. (See Keyhole lots.) _ ' ATRIUM HOMES Private yard space is contained within the confines of the home. Greater privacy is achieved I t at the expense of distances between homes. BOUTIQUE LOTS Traditional small lots on public streets. They are I ' ' generally more narrow than deep, and are traditional in that they have room for small front ' and rear yards. CLUSTERS Any closely knit grouping of lots and homes. (See page 2). ' COURTYARDS Private driveways are combined into a common paved auto court that serves as a combination of automobile access, front yard, and pedestrian walkway. 09 FAN LOTS A specific type of cluster plan that mimics a traditional cul-de -sac. The zig -zag shape of the homes allows for a tighter, more compact ' grouping and higher density. (See page 1.) FLAG LOTS Lots behind other lots, with limited exposure to the street. They can be prime locations when located on amenities such as open space or lakes, ' or they can simply be the least expensive locations. ' KEYHOLE LOTS Keyholes are an outgrowth of the Zipper lot idea ; (see below) and address how to deal with the site perimeters. The sharing of rear yard open space i ' is common with Keyhole and Zipper lots. Page 11 NARROW LOTS Simply put, these lots are wider than they are ! deep. Exaggerations of the concep ct ari be as narrow as the one -car (or no) garage and the minimum space Vermined between homes. "NOT" LOTS Zane Yost introduced this concept for affordable u homes. The lot itself is not as important as how the homes relate to their outdoor private spaces. � ODD LOTS Most lots in this concept are narrow and deep (Boutique lots) on public streets, but some are T wide and shallow (odd lots). The same homes work on both configurations, but elevations, I entries, etc., change de g pending on the lot shape. _... WIDE & SHALLOW Wider than deep small lots provide greater width 1 for homes to enhance the street scene and reduce ' the dominance of garage doors typical with narrow lots. The trade -off is a greater percentage of street per lot, increasing lot cost and reducing I ' potential density. 1_ "Z" LOTS A very narrow lot concept that manages to provide good privacy, lots of light into the homes, and entries that are visible from the street. Tools used are "zero side yards," use easements, and an angled "Z" lot shape. ZERO LOT LINES Any of several concepts that place one side of a home on the property line to increase yard space a on the opposite side. Use easements for this area facilitates the concept without the need for ' setback variances. ZIPPER LOTS Close design of homes and lots results in private rear yards on very small lots (4000 sq. h. or less). Back -to -back homes share the large rear yard open space. Page 12 I F 11 How to Open Doors to Affordable Housing Many factors affect the production and cost of housing. Some ways local governments can provide more affordable housing in their communities are: Finding opportunities in land -use ordinances, fees or administrative processes to reduce the purchase price or cost of new or rehabilitated housing. Authority for land -use regulation is provided to local governments in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Land use regulations also protect against inappropriate land use and safeguard the natural environment. Adhering to land -use objectives helps keep development costs down and allows for housing opportunities for all residents. Local governments can impose fees and exactions to recoup the costs of development. When used appropriately, this mechanism helps cities recover public costs associated with development. Review and approval processes involving subdivisions, building permits, sewer and water facilities and environmental impacts are necessary. However, short, succinct and uncomplicated procedures can help keep the cost of development down. Linking up with the financial resources to get affordable housing built. The funding environment for affordable housing has changed dramatically over the last decade. During the 1970s and early 1980s, housing was easier to produce because federal finds, such as those from the Section 8 New Construction program, were available. In addition, a favorable tax climate provided incentives for developers to produce affordable housing. Today, with most federal funding no longer available, affordable housing requires combining public and private finds in com- plex housing deals. To plan and produce affordable units, local governments need to seek out and use the finan- cial tools that are available today. Using land -use ordinances or other means to locate affordable, life -cycle housing near employment concentra- tions, or link people who live in a distant locale to jobs. Access to affordable housing in the community of their choice is a shared value of many metro area residents. Many also prefer to work in or near the community in which they live. Unfortunately, many residents are denied the option because affordable housing is not available near their place of employment or they wren t qualified for the jobs near their homes. In addition, getting to and from job sites is often a problem due to inadequate transportation services. Providing access to employment, whether through location of affordable housing or transportation services, is a vital link to a healthy regional — and local -- economy. Educating residents on housing issues to build community support for proposed housing developments. Opposition to affordable housing by prospective neighbors and other city residents is often based on misinformation and fears. Residents may express opposition to specific types of housing, to changes in the character of the com- munity, to certain levels of growth, to any and all development, or to economic, racial or ethnic diversity. A compelling case can be made that the development is, in fact, in the city s best interest. The community needs to make the case. Suggested Actions for Local Governments _. .. .. ♦'try. �`+ .... ..... - .., •... � These actions will help create an environment morn. conducive to the production of affordable and cycle housing '.gut producing the hous ing is fecc gY"zed for what it is -- a difficult task. It requires politi- cal will. It takes resources, which have dwindled, and include not only money but support services to meet the needs of assisted families. It takes expertise. The Council will work with local governments in a partnership to meet the goal of more affordable and life -cycle housing in the region. Some of the factors discussed in this section are directly under the control of local government, such as land -use ordinances. in other areas, linkages need to be made with resources to get the housing built. The Council v'11 provide assi.siance to local governments toward this end. _.. _. Finding opportunities in land-use ordinances, fees or administrative processes to reduce the purchase price or cost of new or rehabilitated housing. . Examples of Local Action: ❑ Reduce required lot sizes. ❑ Encourage zero lot line development or other innovative site planning techniques. ❑ Offer density bonuses for developing at higher densities. ❑ Allow planned unit developments or mixed -use development. ❑ Allow some housing without two -car attached garages. ❑ Reduce surfacing width or depth requirements for residential streets. ❑ Implement flexible land - clearing ordinances that protect the environment and are cost effective. ❑ Allow for a variety of housing types, including manufactured and accessory housing, through local zoning ordinances. ❑ Establish criteria that ensure that fees are related and fairly proportioned to the need for facilities and services generated by the proposed development. ❑ Exempt or provide reduced fee schedules for affordable housing. ❑ Impose linkage ordinances which require the developer to pay a fee in lieu of construction into a housing trust fund, or make equity contributions to low -and moderate - income housing projects. Reduce or consolidate reviews by advisory bodies to the municipality s elected council or board. Implement a simplified permit process. lenders in meeting homeownership needs of their communities and their Community Reinvestment Act(CRA). ........_.. _.. ... , .. . _ .:.. _._.__._.... ,v . _ � ; • Minnesota Communities Program (MCP): Provides cities with spot loan set - asides of mortgage revenue bond funds (below- market interest rate first mortgage financing) for specialized homeownership projects undertaken to address locally identified housing needs. Low - and Moderate - Income Rental: Provides for acquisition and rehab or permanent and construction financing for multifamily low- and moderate - income rental housing (minimum of 5 units). D 1 Locating affordable housing near employment concentrations, or using reverse commute programs to link people who live in a distant locale to jobs. Examvles of Local Action:, ❑ Participate in or create a reverse commute program. ❑ Implement Land -use regulations that promote higher - density, affordable development close to new employment sites or public transportation. ❑ Participate in programs that may target the provision of affordable housing near job sites. ❑ Partner with local businesses to offer training and re- training opportunities for lower- income households. Educating residents on housing issues to build community support for proposed housing developments. Examvles of Local Action; • Prepare materials and programs to educate residents about affordable and life -cycle housing and its benefits to the community. • Establish housing or human services commissions 'or task forces to work on affordable and life -cycle housing issues. [1, A Hair dbook: 0 B u il din g C onse n sus f or � or a e H ousi ,* n g OCopyright 1989 Michael Wheeler This publication has been reprinted with permission f rom the copyright holder. ' A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING L� INTRODUCTION This short handbook is for local officials, citizens, and developers who are tackling the challenge of providing affordable housing in their communities. Although public awareness about the general need for affordable housing is growing, there is often heated controversy surrounding the details of getting it built: — How should the need be met? — What constitutes affordable housing? — Where should such housing be located? — Who should have access to it? — What about impacts on other local concerns, particularly growth management and open space preser- vation? and, most important, . — Who decides these difficult questions? The handbook helps to answer some of these questions, drawing on more than a decade of experi- ence in mediating controversial environmental and development disputes throughout the country. The ideas are also based on more recent examination of public - private partnerships to design, locate, and build affordable housing in a variety of communities in the state of Massachusetts. Sometimes these partnerships have been initiated by private developers, but, in other instances, local officials or citizens groups have taken the lead. Likewise, state agencies have been active in some cases, but less involved in others. In short, communities working on affordable housing issues have a rich variety of successful experiences that they can tap and apply to their individual needs. The handbook offers a conceptual map of affordable housing disputes and ways of building consen- sus to address them. It provides, in a large scale, the lay of the land. Many of the ideas here will be fa- miliar, and, as a consequence, trustworthy. However, the way in which these concepts are tied together may be new. Be assured that this map is drawn from the experience of local officials, citizens, and developers who have already been successful in fashioning solutions that they could endorse as part of a negotiating team. While the territory still is not fully charted, the general orientation described in this handbook will help you identify obstacles to consensus and ways they may be overcome so that you may arrive at your destination easily and quickly. Although building consensus on affordable housing is seldom without problems, it is usually possible and always worthwhile. 38 Affordable Housing Mediation GETTING STARTED Four fundamental questions need to be addressed as an initial step in building consensus for afford- able housing- - Why is affordable housing needed? — What is the purpose of gaining consensus? — Who should be involved in the partnership? — How is success measured? Why Affordable Housing? Real estate prices in many regions of the country have escalated so rapidly that the average family cannot come close to affording the average -priced home. Rents have followed suit. There are, as well, long waiting lists for public housing units. Some people who cannot find decent housing face real hardship. Even in times of general economic �nsperaty, there are those who have no place to sleep but in the streets or in makeshif, shelters. Finding affordable housing is becoming a challenge for an ever - growing number of individuals. The problem, moreover, is not restricted to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Young people just out of school and starting careers and families find themselves priced out of the housing market in the towns in which they grew up. Older citizens on fixed incomes likewise have trouble finding secure, easy- to-maintain housing. Employers are discovering the growing difficulty of compet- ing for talented new workers who prefer parts of the country where housing costs are lower. Above all else, the dearth of affordable housing presents a serious social problem, even for those who themselves have comfortable homes. Decent housing has long been central to the American dream. Generations of citizens have grown up believing that, with hard work alone, they could realistically afford good housing. As increasing numbers of people come to the bitter realization that this dream is beyond their reach, an important part of the social fabric is tom, and our sense of community is seriously diminished. Increasingly, communities are striving to respond to this growing need. Why Consensus? No single person or individual interest group can produce affordable housing. Instead, the power to create it is held in many different hands. Elected officials may be able to commit public resources and revise land use regulations; municipal staff can provide technical expertise on legal, engineering, and financial issues. Local planning boards, conservation commissions, and zoning boards of appeal have discretion to issue important permits. Housing authorities, in turn, may have access to special funding. Private land - owners may control key parcels; and developers may be able to package an affordable 39 _-AIL A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ! housing program within a broader project. Citizens groups may have the political clout either to make things happen or to have them come to a screeching halt. ' indeed, anyone who attempts unilateral action is almost certain to spark a counter - reaction. Propo- nents of affordable housing have to form a broad coalition or partnership if they wish to see their goals fulfilled. This coalition, in turn, must be prepared to negotiate with other groups who have different agendas. The following points are axiomatic in most cities and towns. • Many public boards and private institutions share authority. The production of affordable housing, like any uthex lord of development, is subject io i ;gulation by a number of local and state authoritib:,. To achieve the goals of affordable housing, each of these decision - making bodies must he involved. ' Local boards and community groups want and deserve respect. To exclude them from decisionmak- ing on affordable housing is to raise broader, potentially more controversial, political issues of jurisdiction and power. • Expediting the approval process saves money and creates housing faster. Administrative and legal ' challenges, even when they are ultimately overcome, add significantly to the cost of a project and undercut affordability. ' • Building affordable housing is a challenge; it requires the resources and insight of a wide variety of people. No one has a monopoly on wisdom. involvement of both believers and skeptics produces a ' better outcome. Today, people do not tolerate projects or policies forced down their throats — nor should they. Building consensus is a necessary and desirable part of the local decisionmaking process. On the other hand, consensus in this context does not mean that every last person in a community has to be fully in ' favor of a particular project, for that is not realistic. Here, building consensus means that the key decisionmakers and stakeholders work together to identify interests, invent options, and arrive at a ' solution that they can live with. Who is Needed? This handbook is written for people in communities that have a serious interest in providing afford- able housing. That interest, of course, may start with one individual or with a very small group. In order ' to expand the coalition, proponents fY Pe le in the community who feel a pinch from p must identify other o the lack of affordable housing in the area. They must create a partnership of interests to accomplish their ' goals. Such people who would add to the partnership might include the superintendent of schools, the ' police chief, and the other municipal administrators who find that their new employees cannot afford to live in the city that they are supposed to know and serve. These advocates might be joined, in turn, by a 40 Affordable Housing Mediation local chamber of commerce or bank board, concerned with the long -term economic health of the area. Religious councils, organizations for the elderly, developers, and union representatives, particularly from the trades, may have an interest, as well. Affordable housing proponents should approach representatives of these groups to join the coalition. The incentives and interests of people who participate will inevitably vary and (as discussed later) sometimes conflict. Some of the members of the coalition may be responding to problems or oppom W- ties they encounter personally and professionally. Others may join out of a more general sense of community responsibility. Yet each will share a belief that affordable housing is a prob"zin of immediate concern for the community, and that the problem is nat just an abstraction. Enlistment of local elected officials, board memo -rs, and professional municipal staff to the afford- able housing coalition requires special care. It is a mistake to exclude anyone who wants to take part, especially if that person can deliver (or withhold) needed support and expedite (or delay) the decision - making process. Even local officials who are not actively involved in the partnership should be regu- larly informed of its progress. Moreover, proponents have to be sensitive to political concerns. A walition or partnership that bills itself as 071 alternative to P. do- nothing local government is asking for trouble. Creation of a housing partership must be seen as an enhancement of the local decisionmaking process, not as a replacement for it. The number and variety of people who need to be brought into the circle of proponents depends on the goals and resources of the community. The coalition may be limited to local people or it may include representatives of abutting communities, or even state officials. The group is free to call itself whatever it wishes. It is essential, however, that the individuals involved have some public credibility if they are to persuade others to support their goals. In addition, they need to have the energy, imagination, and patience to see the task through. These qualities are rarely found in perfect balance in any one person, but they should be reflected in the group as a whole. Achieving a critical mass is only the first step, of course. A coalition of proponents must be nurtured and strengthened over time. It will also probably need technical advice on land use laws, real estate finance, and perhaps environmental impact assessments; learning from other communities that have dealt with the issue can save valuable time and effort. Proponents also need to catalog and evaluate the resources they can tap — available parcels of land, special funds, perhaps even contributions of labor to make a development work. Before the coalition sets out to work with other groups and individuals, it must manage itself. In settings where many of the members know one another and can rely on the help of existing organiza- tions, they may need little formal structure. In other cases, in which the job of coordinating people and information is complex, someone will have to be given both the responsibility and the resources to keep the group organized. Participants should match the structure they choose to the task at hand; for ex- 41 ... �- .. -• ... ,s- :.wie.. ... ..- ....J.riyuJirrxu,�dYwl A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ample, holding meetings in accordance with Roberts' Rules of Order may be fine for certain kinds of gatherings, but these fairly stringent meeting rules do not usually promote brain - storming and problem ' solving. Although the make -up and structure of affordable housing coalitions or partnerships will necessarily vary from place to place, there are three fundamental principles that should guide the actions of all groups. First, establishing a partnership is not an end in itself, but a means for creating affordable housing. People should take part, not out of a sense of obligation or general good will, but with a deter- ' mination to get the job done. Creating yet another community task force to study an issue and release. a set of bland recommendations that will rarely even be read can breed cynicism and set back action toward achieving affordable housing. Second, "don't argue for solutions before you have agreement on the problem." This negotiation adage is certainly true for affordable housing coalitions. It is almost always self - defeating to seek a specific zoning change, a commitment of municipal funds, or the approval of a particular project before ' there is some support for broad goals. People who do not like the consequences of the specific proposal on the table will have no compunction about attacking both the means and the ends. For example, a ' landowner who does not want to see any kind of development next door is also likely to challenge the need for affordable housing in the community. In these circumstances, losing the battle can also general mean losing the war. Third, live by a standard of conduct throughout the process that others can emulate. The partnership cannot expect the many public or private organizations with which it must deal to be any more open- , minded, forthright, and fair than it is itself. In short, the partnership must take the lead in terms of both the substance of affordable housing and the process by which it is achieved. What is Success? Success in a venture of this sort will mean different things to different people. One thing is clear, however, success is not necessarily measured by construction of a specific project. A plan initially ' advanced by the partnership may, on closer examination, turn out to be undesirable. Instead a partnership is successful if it encourages the creation of affordable housing that is carefully tailored to the needs and resources of the community; what is appropriate for one city may be out of ' place in an abutting city. With certain proposals, the best outcome may be not going forward. Similarly, success does not depend on using any one particular program or strategy. In Massachu- setts, some communities have relied on state aid to build affordable housing, while others have found ways of doing it on their own. Participants in a local housing partnership will probably have to negotiate ' means as well as ends. A partnership may produce beneficial long -term results that also are important, whether or not a 42 ... �- .. -• ... ,s- :.wie.. ... ..- ....J.riyuJirrxu,�dYwl Affordable Housing Mediation project goes forward immediately. Although hard to quantify, by- products like improved relationships, trust, and operation among public officials and private citizens can yield positive results on many fronts. In the best of all worlds, a partnership effort may encourage a community to begin taking a more active role in shaping many of its problems, rather than simply reacting to them after they beY )me critical. But focusing on the affordable housing issue, the most important mark of a partnership's success is that its actions are fully informed, that is, all the parties must understand the options and their conse- quences. Without such understanding, there can be little confidence that the decisions of the coalition are either equitable or efficient Equity, or fairness, requires that both the positive and negative conse- quences of an action are identified in advance so that potentially harmful conditions creavd simultane- ously by the action can be mitigated. Efficiency, in turn, requires that the strategy chosen be, on balance, the best one available; a partnership that rushes to embrace a particular solution may be overlooking an even better one. Moreover, outcomes that are neither equitable nor efficient are vulnerable to political and legal attack. WHAT'S ON THE TABLE? When a coalition sits down to negotiate affordable housing, the members must address several types of issues: — What approach should we take in creating affordable housing? — Which proposal will best fulfill that strategy? — What type of policy is best suited for the selected proposal? How Can We Make Housing Affordable? This first issues involves the task of cataloging general techniques for making housing more afford- able for buyers or tenants. These techniques are not mutually exclusive; indeed, no one of them may be sufficient by itself. Much of a partnership's effort will go to designing a strategy that mixes the various techniques in a manner that is appropriate for the community. • Direct government subsidies. Although federal funding programs have been cut back drastically, various state programs partially underwrite the provision of certain kinds of affordable housing. • Indirect funding. A housing partnership can help a community negotiate for state provision of other needed items, such as infrastructure, public facilities or social services, thus freeing up local funds for housing. • Market subsidies. In strong economies, the market may tolerate a premium price on some units, which can be used to subsidize below- market prices for others. 43 � ii iii. ,i ��.. �..��. a..wi: -• , ....r..�n. _. �,:�� .._.___. . A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING • Contribution of land. The dedication of publicly -owned land or buildings will cut housing costs. • Increased density. When land is expensive, rezoning to allow a greater density of housing will ' reduce the per unit cost. • Innovative design and construction. Though potential cost savings of this technique are limited, good design may create more attractive, better- functioning housing units for the same dollar amount ' as a routine design. An attractive look may promote community acceptance, regulatory approval, ' and financing. While listing basic techniques is straightforward, understanding the specific forms they can take require s technical information and — patience. There are, for example, any number of land use controls which could be used to allow greater density of housing; a planner or other specialist may be required to ' describe different regulatory schemes. Likewise, a partnership will likely need help in learning about the various state programs and revenue sources that are available, particularly because these change over time. Once the tools have been catalogued and understood, the partnership focuses on discussing the differences of opinion over which mix should be used. Some people, for instance, may advocate dedicat- ing particular public lands to housing, while others may want to hold those parcels for alternative uses. Likewise, if increased density is part of the equation, it may be necessary to negotiate some arrangements ' to mitigate resulting traffic increases and adverse environmental impacts. The fact that there is no one "right' ' answer should be seen as a virtue and not as a vice. The fact that there are a number of different ways of tackling the issue usually leaves room for agreement. The best results will come when people are creative, not dogmatic, in fashioning a strategy. What's Negotiable About Affordable Housing. ' People who are committed to a partnership for affordable housing may have legitimate differences of opinion on how to achieve it. • What it is. There may be differences over the nature and design of the housing. Some proponents may favor rental units; others, ownership. Under either scheme, the people can disagree over ' whether the units are single- or multi- family. Where it goes. Some people who favor affordable housing in general may oppose it on a particular • site. They may fear adverse impacts or wish to see the site held for other uses. For some people it ' may be important to site the housing close to city and commercial services; others may claim this does not matter. ' Who has access. People may differ over whether some or all of the housing should be set aside for particular groups, such as the elderly, local residents, or people with special needs. 44 Affordable Housing Mediation • How it's managed. People may also disagree about the desirability of the community managing the property- It would be abnormal for the partnership members to agree on all these issues. Therefore, propo- nents of affordable housing should have realistic expectations, and avoid all-or- nothing propositions. As in all negotiations, no one person can expect to agree with every aspect of the outcome, but it will be satisfactory at least to those key decision - makers and stakeholders who have the power to make things happen. Do We Make Sweeping Policy of Case -by -case Decisions? In theory, proponents of affordable housing could choose to focus either on community-wide policy or on site - specific projects. In practice, however, both general policy and specific application are usually both on the table. Most significant developments, including construction of affordable housing, require discretionary approval from local boards. A special permit is often needed for multi- family housing, for example; site plan review may be needed to cluster single family units. People who are reluctant to give a blank check for a long -term development policy may nevertheless be willing to say yes to a project that they can evaluate in detail. Similarly, when an affordable housing proposal is submitted for a particular site, it inevitably raises the larger issues of growth control, open space preservation, downtown revitalization, and fiscal impacts. Moreover, people will rightfully ask whether the community is establishing a precedent for future applications if this one is approved. For example, in Massachusetts, when affordable housing programs are initiated, other issues almost always come to the fore, particularly growth management and open space preservation. It is futile to try to suppress them. Cities and towns that faced little growth for decades have felt great development pressure in recent years. Whenever any development is being discussed, legitimate concerns are voiced about about specific impacts and the character of the community. Many of the same economic forces that have pushed housing prices up have also stimulated concern about growth management. These issues cannot be avoided. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that affordable housing advocates and open space advocates cannot find common ground. It may be, for example, that a city or town has adopted large lot zoning, which neither preserves open space nor fosters affordable housing. Housing advocates and preservationists might jointly advocate more intense development of one certain section of land that would allow the rest of it to remain in its natural state. Even if the goals of both groups cannot be accommodated on a single project, they can join forces to lobby broadly for revised land use controls that would serve the interests of both groups. Without such alliances, affordable 45 ' A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING housing proponents may find that they simply do not have sufficient support to accomplish their goals. In sum, proponents of affordable housing have to be prepared to work on both broad policy and specific cases. It is critically important to be able to present a specific project within the context of larger ' policy issues. While involvement with other issues that seem unrelated complicates the communications about affordable housing, the process does present needed opportunities for the partnership to negotiate broader alliances. DIAGNOSING THE SOURCES OF CONFLICT If creating affordable housing were easy, there would be no need for forming partnerships to pursue it. Many developments breed controversy; however, affordable housing proposals can be especially controversial. When a conflict arises, it is easy to fall into the trap of stereotyping the cases as "we/they" problems: "We are on the side of the angels; they are the forces of darkness." Issues are cast as matters of uncom- promisable principle, and people dig in for a long, hand fight. Disputants too rarely stop to analyze the underlying causes of their conflict. Proper conflict diagno- ' sis is a prerequisite for finding the right way to overcome impasse. The best - intended efforts won't help it is important to distinguish among problems of if they are misdirected in this way. As an initial aproach, structure, culture, and process. Problems of structure are about the substance of what's at stake in the dispute. Culture problems involve the way in which specific people deal with one another. Problems of process are those that are caused or compounded, by regulatory requirements and institutions. Difficulties typically occur in all three arenas, but each variety of problem requires its own specific preventive and treatment. Skilled ' consensus - builders continually diagnose conflicts to determine what needs attention and how that is changing over time. ' The following checklist of typical structure, culture, and process problems is not exhaustive. There are many reasons that affordable housing is a challenge. The complexity of some of the legal and financial issues is one reason; coordinating the work of many groups and individuals is another, the way because they in which the issue may revive old political battles is a third. These points are emphasized are less frequently recognized, and, as a result, often stand in the way of agreement. Analyzing Structure: What's the Real Problem? PROBLEM: Different impacts. Today, it is a fact that any development is a mixed blessing; even if it is beneficial overall, it imposes costs on some people. For example, a new apartment building in- 46 Affordable Housing Mediation creases tax revenue to a community and creates jobs, but it also causes traffic, noise, and possibly aesthetic problems for those who live across the street. So, too, may an affordable housing development be good for many people, but bad for some others. Developers often find it difficult to acknowledge the legitimacy of opponents' claims that they really will be affected by a project. As proponents of an idea, developers have had to convince many others — lenders, contractors, local boards, prospective occupants — of the value of their project, and, in so doing, they often sell themselves on the notion that what they propose will produce only good. When such develo— encounter objections, they may make the initial mistake of assuming that op- position is only a prof;.:.- : of communication. If opponents are not convinced to support the project by Public relations gimmicks, developers usually write thew off as cranks, or worse, believe, "It's no use talking to those people." The problem is often compounded by the fact that project opponents are often forced by the regula- tory process to mask their true concerns. Their opposition, for example, may stem from fear that the proposed development will reduce their property values, yet nothing in the land use codes explicitly Protects monetary interests. Thus, the neighbors have to argue secondary issues — typically, environ- mental impacts — in order to have any legal leverage. This explains why opponents often cling tena- ciously to positions that an outsider might say are unimportant. Moreover, it means that the developers, here as the proponent of affordable housing, may not be able to fully satisfy the opponents, even when their apparent concerns have been met. If, for example, a road is relocated to alleviate traffic congestion, neighbors still concerned about property values will look for other, proxy, issues to invoke. SOLUTION: Look for ways to mitigate the real problem or to provide compensating benefits that balance whatever costs will be imposed; compensation may be off site and may involve helping oppo- nents on an entirely different agenda. PROBLEM: Different forecasts. Development disputes can be created or compounded when people have different expectations about the outcome of the project; in essence, these are disagreements between optimists and pessimists. In the case of affordable housing, there may be optimism or pessimism about economic or environmental forecasts. The opponents foresee traffic jams and red ink, while the propo- nents expect open roads and profitability. Here the problem is not who will swallow the bad in order to produce the greater good, but whether any greater good will be produced at all. If the project is of any sizeable scale, its legal, financial, and engineering components will require technical experts to cant' them out Yet, retained experts often disagree in their forecasting, and battles between them usually succeed in doing little more than make most observers skeptical about forecasts in general. SOLUTION: Identify why there are conflicting forecasts. Are people operating from different facts; 47 11 A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING even if some see the issue as broad, and others define it narrowly. PROBLEM: Different values. Different impacts, forecasts, tolerance for risk, and definition of issues explain many development disputes. Some cases, however, result from a clash of fundamental values. A developer may regard the transformation of vacant land into multi- family housing as progress, while a ' preservationist sees it as a violation of the environment. Value conflicts are the hardest to resolve. Many people would prefer to be martyrs to their principles rather than compromise them. SOLUTION: Do not paint others into corners from which they can escape only by repudiating their values. Look, instead, for ways of fashioning outcomes that honor the basic principles of the parties. The Culture of Negotiation: Who's at the Table? PROBLEM: Damning the stakeholders. Land use laws, environmental regulations, and other ordi- 1 48 are they using different models or assumptions? There should be mutual interest in accurate forecast- ing; joint fact -finding and model - building may be helpful. PROBLEM: Different tolerance for risk. No matter how daring they may be in other contexts, most ' people are cautious when it comes to embracing change in their communities. This is particularly true for new development, which represents long -term change, even if it is not as permanent as the mountains and the seas. While social policies can be tried on an experimental basis, the hard reality is that once a t site is cleared and housing ere md, it is virtually impossible to return to the original condition. People must be convinced, therefore, that what is promised is what will happen. It is not enough for proponents to demonstrate that something will most likely work, or that a feared adverse impact will probably not be felt. The deepest opposition to a project is often from those people who are least willing to accept a risk, no matter how small. SOLUTION: Instead of trying to persuade people to accept more risk, look for ways in which guar- , antees can be provided; setting up mechanisms to deal with negative contingencies may be more fruitful than claiming that the contingencies will not occur. PROBLEM: Different definitions of the issue. Proponents of a specific affordable housing develop- ' ment may contend that the only issues on the table are those regarding the appropriateness of the project for the chosen site. As noted earlier, others may raise much broader questions such as growth control and open space preservation for the community. There is little reason to expect that a person's definition of the issue will change easily, and it is better for the coalition to spend time defining a mutually- accept- able answer than to try to reach agreement on the definition of the issue. in the SOLUTION: Search for outcomes that satisfy the interests of the people involved partnership, even if some see the issue as broad, and others define it narrowly. PROBLEM: Different values. Different impacts, forecasts, tolerance for risk, and definition of issues explain many development disputes. Some cases, however, result from a clash of fundamental values. A developer may regard the transformation of vacant land into multi- family housing as progress, while a ' preservationist sees it as a violation of the environment. Value conflicts are the hardest to resolve. Many people would prefer to be martyrs to their principles rather than compromise them. SOLUTION: Do not paint others into corners from which they can escape only by repudiating their values. Look, instead, for ways of fashioning outcomes that honor the basic principles of the parties. The Culture of Negotiation: Who's at the Table? PROBLEM: Damning the stakeholders. Land use laws, environmental regulations, and other ordi- 1 48 Affordable Housing Mediation nances give broad standing to parties who seek administrative and judicial review of municipal actions. Often, to kill a project, opponents need only file an appeal; even if the developer and the permitting agencies are ultimately vindicated, the costs of adjudication — in terms of time as well as money -- -.. may overwhelm the benefits. If there are many stakeholders, the process of negotiation becomes as much oY a challenge as the structure or substance. There are, however, techniques for identifying interest groups and selecting bargaining representatives for them. The more groups involved, the more it is necessary to designate someone to voordinate their collective work. Sometimes this can be a local planning official, but if the city is taking an advocacy role in the developmera a ameone perceived as more neatral may be needed. It is never easy to manage a multiparty communication and negotiation, but these costs are minor in comparison to the waste that occurs if everyone goes off in a separate direction. SOLUTION: Include in the process people who can either contribute positively or have the power to block or delay the project, excluding interested parties is only likely to redouble their opposition. PROBLEM: Fragile relationships. When an affordable housing coalition or partnership moves forward to work with local boards, citizens groups, and abutters, it has to establish new relationships, often under adverse conditions. Parties may not know one another. They may well be dealing with unfamilar issues. The participants all feel the pressures of time and public scrutiny. No one enjoys full control over the process. Such circumstances seldom bring out the best in people. In other negotiation settings, the prospect of renegotiation in the future provides a degree of disci- pline. In collective bargaining, for example, the worst impulses of management and labor may be checked by the prospect of sitting down again several years hence to work out a new agreement; indeed, the shared recognition that both parties will have to live with the contract fosters a more productive relationship. It is helpful, therefore, if affordable housing is seen as a long -term issue for the community, one that will require the parities to continue working together in the future. SOLUTION: Try to break large problems into smaller components so that the parties can establish their trustworthiness at a low risk. PROBLEM: The ratchet of escalation. In development disputes, it is often easier to escalate conflict than to defuse it. As with any human enterprise, mistakes will be made. Unfortunately, intemperate remarks make headlines in the local papers, while retractions and apologies appear in the back pages, if at all. Individuals have to ask themselves continually if they are holding other people to higher standards of behavior than they are meeting themselves. Negotiation tactics that may seem clever or shrewd when we use them somehow become evidence of bad faith when practiced by others. SOLUTION: Create a mechanism for clearing up misunderstandings before they become major dis- 49 ' A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING agreements. Establish checkpoints to insure that the process is moving forward. i PROBLEM: The pathology of disputing. Roger Fisher and Bill Ury, noted specialists in negotiation ' strategy, offer sound advice: separate the people from the problem. Be hard on the latter, they say; soft on the former. Sometimes, however, the people are the problem. Unfortunately, some individuals seem to take perverse pleasure in being contentious; for such people, the battle itself is more important than I DEALING WITH DIFFERENCES ' A catalog of the many potential causes of conflict over affordable housing should be both chastening and encouraging. The sheer number of possible difficulties should give pause to anyone who believes So any prize. SOLUTION: Make an objective assessment of how much support is needed to achieve your ends, Often you can have a stable ornrome without meeting the demands of the most extreme opponent. What's the Process? PROBLEM: Regulatory straightjackets. Ideally any process of negotiation (like any process of problem - solving) should be one in which interests are identified, information is developed and ex- ' changed, imaginative solutions are created, and agreements are reached, which are equitable, efficient, and workable. By contrast, the formal administrative process that governs much land use regulation actually inhibits the most creative parts of negotiation. Typically, one specific proposal is on the floor. Proponents and opponents testify on the virtues and vices of the project, much as they would in a court - room. As noted earlier, people often are forced to argue proxy issues rather than their true concerns. There is little incentive to take moderate positions. In experimental settings, government officials and researchers are working to establish innovative administrative processes, but their efforts offer no immediate help to people currently trying to function within the present system. In housing matters, public hearings and formal approvals are a continuing fact ' of life. People should nonetheless strive to reach consensus outside the hearing room. If the stakehold- ers are able to fashion on their own a proposal that satisfies their needs, the regulatory process will be little more than a formality. In such a case, the reviewing agency may be as much concerned with the in consensus was reached (was anyone excluded; were all options evaluated ?) than it is with way which the substance of the proposal. SOLUTION: In negotiating, do not mimic the formal process; rather, create a setting that will stimulate creative solutions to all the problems of the parties. I DEALING WITH DIFFERENCES ' A catalog of the many potential causes of conflict over affordable housing should be both chastening and encouraging. The sheer number of possible difficulties should give pause to anyone who believes So Affordable Housing Mediation that others will magically be won over by the power of a good idea. And yet, the variety of differences among opinions on affordable housing offers a solid reason for optimism, for the range of differences provides many possible avenues for negotiation and consensus. With effort and imagination, workable solutions can be reached that equitably serve people's specific needs. This handbook was described at the outset as offering a conceptual map to people who wish to build consensus on affordable housing. Perhaps it could be better seen as a handbook on map - making, a pamphlet on determining latitude and longitude. The specific terrain will vary from location to location. The first skill of a consensus - builder or a negotiator is to analyze the problem, the involved parties, and their interests, as well as one's own. This analysis or map - making must be practiced at the outset and repeated regularly over time. Analysis and map - making, of course, simplI, help us get our bearings. By themselves they do not get us closer to our destination. Effective consensus- builders must also be energetic, persuasive, trustworthy, creative, well- organized and patient. Without a good sense of direc- tion, however, all these qualities, no matter how perfected, cannot bring about success. 51 Wednesday, January C 1 Minneapolis Conve ntion Center ■Minneapolis, Minnesota ' ■ Metropolitan Council of the Twin Citie s ■ Minnesota Chapter, American Planning Association ■ Minnesota ban Land Institute • ■ Minneapolis Urban Design Committee, iFOCUS Developers and planners in other parts of the country have had success creating developments that break from standard post -World War H development prac- tices. The principles they have followed are collectively termed "New Urbanism," an ' approach that can result in communities that accommodate both the pedestrian and the car, and foster a sense of place and community. New Urbanism includes many elements that are not really new —it employs some traditional planning techniques commonly used before widespread use of the car. And, it u not exclusively urban —its principles apply to urban, suburban and rural locations. 31 1996 -7:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon Co- sponsored by: Chapter, Ur American Institute of Architecture ■City of Maple Grove Because the New Urbanism approach is an interdisciplinary one, we have invited practitioners in housing development, design, market- ing and the public sector to share their experiences with projects that employ New Urbanism principles. The program is co- sponsored by a diverse group of organizations whose membership believes this development technique deserves scrutiny and discussion for its possible application in the Twin Cities region. We invite you to join in this discussion. FEATURED SPEAKERS ' Daniel M. Cary, South Florida Water Management District Daniel Cary is currently the Director of the Planning Department of the South Florida Water Management District. Prior to this, he spent 12.1/2 years at the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, including nine years as its Executive Director. During his association with the Regional Planning Council, he became a strong proponent of the new urbanism concept and has applied these principles to new development and a variety of different urban redevelopment and revitalization projects. Although Mr. Cary's focus for the last decade has been on urban problems, his background is in biology and he is now working to merge urban and environmental planning processes regionally. , James Constantine, Community Planning & Research, Princeton, NJ Mr. Constantine is a practicing planner with a focus on qualitative rese. rch and, design orientation. He developed "Curb Appeal Research" to merge consumer preferences with market -based design for new communities and housing alternatives. Mr. Constantine has worked on a diverse range of ' projects, including suburban development, mixed -use urban waterfronts traIelonal neighborhood development, redevelopment, historic infill and rural neotraditional villages. He is a regular speaker before planners, developers, realtors, and lendors and serves on the NAHB's Land Developers Committee. Robert J. Gibbs, Gibbs Planning Group, Birmingham, MI ' Mr. Gibbs is a landscape architect, specializing in retail development and new town planning. He has extensive development planning experience in large cities and small towns throughout the United States and Canada, including the recent collaboration with Andres Duany in Markham, Ontario. Mr. Gibbs is a frequent university lecturer and widely published in retail planning, development design and the New Urbanism movement. He was ' formerly the siteplanning coordinatorwith the Taubman Company, the regional shopping center developers, and project planner withJJR, a national planning and design firm. Curtis Johnson, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Mr. Johnson has been chairman of the legislatively re- organized Metropolitan Council since January, 1995. He is an author and national consultant on regional policy and urban issues. His current focus is on housing affordability and livable communities. He is a participant in the national Congress for New Urbanism. Mr. Johnson was formerly senior policy advisor and Chief of Staff to Governor Arne Carlson. He was also director of the Citizen's League for 11 years. .' Todd Zimmerman, ZimmermanNolk Associates, Clinton, NJ Mr. Zimmerman is a real estate advisor, specializing in market feasibility and trend analysis. The firm's proprietary target market analysis technique is designed tobe a vital tool in understanding the critical residential, recreational, retail and civic space dynamics required for a successful town center. Mr. Zimmerman has 25 years of experience in traditional town planning, housing affordability and sustainable development. He is frequently quoted in national publications and has lectured at Columbia, Rutgers and the Harvard Graduate School of Design. He has addressed groups throughout North America and Europe on housing, civic planning, demographics and target markets. 1 Def 6 6 rT11 On n e N ew Urb anism I do not especially like the term "urban- ■ "There should be a generous net Just when ism." It makes concern about urban work of streets and sidewalks" with streets problems and patterns of urban devel- conceived as outdoor "public rooms" de- you thought opment seem like matters of ideology or fined by building fronts and "other le- that you fashion, like Marxism or modernism. In ments such as trees, hedges and fences." actuality, of course, these are matters that ■ "The character of the houses underst deeply affect the nation's quality of life should enhance the Public rooms. TNDS, along and social equity. Garages should be relegated to back alley or other inconspicuous locations." comes ' WHAT IS "THE NEW URBANISM "? ■ "Neighborhoods should contain "the new "The new urbanism" that is the fide housing in a mixture of sizes, prices, and of one book reviewed here and the subject types, so that a variety of people and urbanism.® of all three is less ideology than a set of households can come together." ' p lanning and des 'Nei Here's a look pragmatic urban P g gn prin- ■ "Nei hborhoods should be laid ciples that is gaining wide credence out so that in a few minutes residents can at three among architects, planners, public offi- walk from their homes to parks, stores books on this cials, and even some developers. services, and other amenities of daily life." ' It is not really new either, but a re,, ■ "Communities should avoid regula- I important turn to pre- automotive precepts of com- tions that require large lots and large ! planning munity building that produced some of {louses. Moderate- to high - density neigh -' movement. our most cherished places. Another of the borhoods are much more apt to obtain ' three books more accurately labels it public transit service, which allows the old "neotraditional town planning." and young to get around more readily and By whatever label, adherents of the generally reduces dependence on private movement have clear ideas about the automobiles." ' kinds of communities they would have us A community that met these pre - build. They are summarized as follows in scriptions would, of course, bear little re- Philip Langdon's A Better Place to Live. See page 220 By Donald Canty Donald Canty is former editor -in -chef of Architecture, the maga- zine of the American In. stitute of Architects, and of City, a national urban affairs magazine. Now based in Seattle, Canty is the architecture critic for the Seattle Post- Intelli- gencerand editor of Cascadia forum, a regionaljournal of urban design and development. Y Q , !ar • �. Ia E U 1 T tl V ■ U U saw Am is 220 u 1 "There is a growing sense of frustration and placeless - ness in our suburban landscape." The New Urbanism from page 219 semblance to those built in the rampant suburbanization of America since World War II. These authors, in fact, question whether these post -war agglomerations of people, buildings, and vehicles should be called communities at all. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE OLD SUBURBANISM? Peter Calthorpe is an architect whose plans for Laguna West and other new communities put the new urbanism's principles into practic He writes in The Next American Metropolis: "There is a growing sense of frustration and place - lessness in our suburban landscape; a ho- mogeneous quality which overlays the unique nature of each place with chain - store architecture, scaleless office parks, and monotonous subdivisions. Americans moved to the suburbs largely for privacy, mobility, security, and ownership. Increas- ingly they now have isolation, congestion, rising crime, and overwhelming cost. Meanwhile our city centers have deterio- rated as much of their economic vitality has decanted to the suburbs." Places editor Todd W. Bressi writes in Peter Katz's The New Urbanism in much the same vein. "Sprawling, low -den- sity development," he maintains, "is com- promising the quality of life suburbs seemed to promise." Fear and pollution have flowed out from the city and the costs of automobility and the infra- structure to support it have been "stagger- ing." Moreover, "homeownership, a cor- nerstone of suburban life, is out of reach for an increasing number of families." While Bressi acknowledges that so- cial scientists debate the extent to which physical surroundings affect social condi- tions, he maintains that "our current met- ropolitan settlement patterns have clearly exacerbated social, class, and racial segre- gation and diminished the availability of common ground on which people of dif- ferent backgrounds and outlooks might encounter each other." All three authors agree that a prime villain is the automobile. Vincent Scully, the venerable Yale architectural and urban historian, writes in The New Urbanism that since World War II the nation has de- stroyed more communities than it has built, calling it a kind of developmental holocaust. The automobile has been "the agent of chaos, the breaker of the city." City after city was torn apart to allow the automobile free rein in hope of attract- ing shoppers from the growing suburbs. "Instead," Scully writes, "the reverse took place: The automobile created the subur- ban shopping mall, which sucked the life out of the old city centers everywhere." Industry and commerce followed and residents of the cities were left "out of work under the Piranesian piers of the freeway, in a surreal wasteland with homes, churches, stores and the orienting street grid of the city, all shot to hell." The New Urbanism Author: Peter Katz This book is the best introduction to the topic, notable for Todd Bressi's clear and comprehensive review of the move- ment and for Vincent Scully's passionate eloquence. The bulk of the book is given over to colorful photographs, drawings, and de- scriptions of 25 actual projects that apply the principles of the new urbanism. The examples start with Seaside, the Florida resort community where neotradi- tional town planning began in the hands of architects /planners Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk. The pair has an essay in the book, as do Peter Calthorpe and new urbanists Elizabeth Moule and Stefanos Polyzoides. Among other examples are Kentlands, in Gaithersburg, Md. (below), the first ap- plication of Duany and Plater - Zyberk's ap- proach to a year- round, working commu- nity, and Laguna West, the first built result of Calthorpe's current thinking. Kentlands is organized into six neigh- borhoods, with a wide range of housing types and generous open spaces. While it has been criticized for stage -set architec- ture and has been through financial reor- ganization, it is a re- freshing relief from the i sprawl surrounding Washington, D.C. � Laguna West, located. } near Sacramento, start- ' ed out to be typical sub - urban development, but Calthorpe was brought in to do an alternative j l plan. He retained the original revenue- gener- ating elements, but ganized them around . "defined public spaces See page 222 and amenities: a village green, town hall, main street, and neighborhood parks.` The 3,400 -unit community has a 100 - acre town center that will eventually have a high enough residential /commercial density to support a light rail stop. - "Laguna West's innovative planning concepts have helped it gain a premium niche in the local real estate market," Katz writes, "and an independent survey re- cently showed that 84 percent of its resi dents preferred its pedestrian- oriented features over a conventional subdivision." s" i WADER J" 95 DESIGN ' Langdon especially deplores the trend toward market segmentation, which in the case of home building "has encour- aged developers to view prospective resi- dents as a series of disparate groups who are to be kept apart from members of oth- er groups." He calls his the "enclave strat- egy" and believes that it fosters segrega- tion of all sorts. He indicts the industry, saying it has "focused too much on the house itself and too little on the neighbor- hood; too much on interior luxury and too little on public amenity." In The Next American Metropolis, Calthorpe also challenges the idea that "our communities' " physical form is the result of tree , .hoice, the market's wisdom, and the statistical sum of our collective will. "In reality our patterns of growth are as much a result of public policy and sub- sidies, outdated regulations, environmen- tal forces, technology, and inertia as they are the invisible hand of Adam Smith." He maintains that public policy and marketing strategies are "increasingly out of sync with today's culture." A Better .Place To Live Author. Philip Langdon Langdon's is a more personal and opin- ionated book. He says of Kentlands, "It would be unrealistic to expect residents to spend most of their free time sitting on their front porches, swapping stories with their neighbors. Good American con- sumers that they are, they have TV sets, VCRs and the rest of the electronic panoply that has turned the houses of the 1990s into indoor entertainment retreats." Yet Kentlands and its like seem to draw residents out of their cocoons a bit, he notes. "Most adults in neotraditional developments live mobile, metropolitan lives— traveling across the region for employ- ment, goods, cultural events, and services. Nonetheless neotradi- tional communities seem more gregarious than conventional sub- urbs. A pedestrian cer- tainly has more oppor- tunities to see and talk with people." He's less than pleased with the houses in these new communities, however. At Laguna West, " Calthorpe agreed to let builders use their stock suburban house designs in the outlying neighborhoods with just a few modifications, such as adding porches to the fronts and making garages less conspicuous. In a prototype community as widely her- alded as Laguna West, such shortcomings are danger- ous. Bad architecture can blind people to what's good about the planning." Langdon fears that builders will take the wrong cues from neotraditional- ism, adding porches and pe- riod decoration to houses "in subdivisions riddled with all of the defects of conven- tional community design." He already sees this happening in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., perhaps as fallout from Kentlands. A great virtue of Langdon's book is -that he has been to the places he writes about. A Better Place to'Live is based on a decade of crisscrossing suburban America with the financial help of the Gra- ham Foundation and the National Endow- ment for the Arts. But his eye is not infallible. In a useful chapter on using the new urbanism to im- prove existing suburbs, he cites Bellevue, Wash., as a success story. This Seattle suburb had no downtown to speak of. In the early 1980s it set about creating one. It built a handsome, 17 -acre central park. There was to be a pedestrian zone, "an in- tense, urbane place connecting major of- fice towers to shopping, sidewalk cafes and other gathering places." \a� a S See page 224 1 The towers came, but most were of mirrored glass and today look terribly dated. Despite the city's brave plans, the would -be downtown consists of the tow- ers lined up along one edge, a giant shop- ping mall on the opposite end, and be- tween them a sea of parking lots. Another considerable virtue of Langdon's book is its humanism. He consistently writes about the built environment's ef- fects on the daily lives of people —espe- cially children. But he keeps his focus al- most entirely on suburban ills, seldom placing them in the context of the entire metropolitan area. He discusses the plight of the left-be- hind cities sympathetically but tangential- ly. Yet a case could be made that most of the problems he addresses can only be solved successfully on a metropolitan area –wide basis. The New Urbanism from page 220 The building industry also comes in for a share of the blame, especially in Langdon's book. He contends that "com- " Bad promises in architecture and craftsman - ship are common" in production home architecture building. He acknowledges that these can blind compromises sometimes stem from a need to rein in costs so that more buyers people to can afford the housing. But he argues that What's good "much of the cheapening of architectural about the and construction quality comes from a more dubious motive —a desire to spend planning inhabitants' money on wet bars in the ily rooms, lavish bathrooms in the master — Philip Langdon suites, are other embellishments that hu- manity for centuries managed to live quite satisfactorily without." . Langdon blames this and other flaws, including the "impossibly bloated houses" proliferating in upscale developments, on the primacy of marketing over all other considerations —most notably community and environmental impact. And he terms marketing "selfishness masquerading as democratic principle." ' Langdon especially deplores the trend toward market segmentation, which in the case of home building "has encour- aged developers to view prospective resi- dents as a series of disparate groups who are to be kept apart from members of oth- er groups." He calls his the "enclave strat- egy" and believes that it fosters segrega- tion of all sorts. He indicts the industry, saying it has "focused too much on the house itself and too little on the neighbor- hood; too much on interior luxury and too little on public amenity." In The Next American Metropolis, Calthorpe also challenges the idea that "our communities' " physical form is the result of tree , .hoice, the market's wisdom, and the statistical sum of our collective will. "In reality our patterns of growth are as much a result of public policy and sub- sidies, outdated regulations, environmen- tal forces, technology, and inertia as they are the invisible hand of Adam Smith." He maintains that public policy and marketing strategies are "increasingly out of sync with today's culture." A Better .Place To Live Author. Philip Langdon Langdon's is a more personal and opin- ionated book. He says of Kentlands, "It would be unrealistic to expect residents to spend most of their free time sitting on their front porches, swapping stories with their neighbors. Good American con- sumers that they are, they have TV sets, VCRs and the rest of the electronic panoply that has turned the houses of the 1990s into indoor entertainment retreats." Yet Kentlands and its like seem to draw residents out of their cocoons a bit, he notes. "Most adults in neotraditional developments live mobile, metropolitan lives— traveling across the region for employ- ment, goods, cultural events, and services. Nonetheless neotradi- tional communities seem more gregarious than conventional sub- urbs. A pedestrian cer- tainly has more oppor- tunities to see and talk with people." He's less than pleased with the houses in these new communities, however. At Laguna West, " Calthorpe agreed to let builders use their stock suburban house designs in the outlying neighborhoods with just a few modifications, such as adding porches to the fronts and making garages less conspicuous. In a prototype community as widely her- alded as Laguna West, such shortcomings are danger- ous. Bad architecture can blind people to what's good about the planning." Langdon fears that builders will take the wrong cues from neotraditional- ism, adding porches and pe- riod decoration to houses "in subdivisions riddled with all of the defects of conven- tional community design." He already sees this happening in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., perhaps as fallout from Kentlands. A great virtue of Langdon's book is -that he has been to the places he writes about. A Better Place to'Live is based on a decade of crisscrossing suburban America with the financial help of the Gra- ham Foundation and the National Endow- ment for the Arts. But his eye is not infallible. In a useful chapter on using the new urbanism to im- prove existing suburbs, he cites Bellevue, Wash., as a success story. This Seattle suburb had no downtown to speak of. In the early 1980s it set about creating one. It built a handsome, 17 -acre central park. There was to be a pedestrian zone, "an in- tense, urbane place connecting major of- fice towers to shopping, sidewalk cafes and other gathering places." \a� a S See page 224 1 The towers came, but most were of mirrored glass and today look terribly dated. Despite the city's brave plans, the would -be downtown consists of the tow- ers lined up along one edge, a giant shop- ping mall on the opposite end, and be- tween them a sea of parking lots. Another considerable virtue of Langdon's book is its humanism. He consistently writes about the built environment's ef- fects on the daily lives of people —espe- cially children. But he keeps his focus al- most entirely on suburban ills, seldom placing them in the context of the entire metropolitan area. He discusses the plight of the left-be- hind cities sympathetically but tangential- ly. Yet a case could be made that most of the problems he addresses can only be solved successfully on a metropolitan area –wide basis. The building of large -scale developments should be approached as the building of communities. n The New Urbanism from page 222 In the decades since the suburban dream emerged, "our household makeup has changed dramatically, the work place and the work force have been trans- formed, average daily wealth is shrinking, and serious environmental concerns have emerged. But we' continue to build post —World War II. suburbs as if families were large and had only one breadwinner, as if the jobs were all downtown, as if land and energy were endless, and as if another lane on the freeway would end congestion." CHANGING THE STATUS QUO Having deplored the current situa- tion, what would the new urbanists do about it? There are as many approaches as there are adherents to the movement, but here are some basic principles: ■ Each metropolitan region should have a unified, coherent strategy combin- ing infill in the cities and inner suburbs with planned development of open land to ensure protection-of agricultural uses and environmentally sensitive areas. ■ The building of large -scale devel- opments should be approached as the building of communities. ■ Basic building blocks of communi- ties should be neighborhoods with de- fined (but nonexclusionary) boundaries, individual characteristics, and centers of- fering public facilities and amenities. ■ Each neighborhood should offer a wide variety of housing types and all the necessities of daily life within walking dis- tance of one another. ■ There should be a multi -tier trans- portation system, from regional transit to small vehicles (electric cars ?) for move- ment within and between neighborhoods. ■ Streets should be safe and com- fortable for pedestrians and bicycles as well as motor vehicles. ■ Buildings should respond to their context and be designed and sited to de- fine streets and open spaces. ■ Planning at every level should be infused with considerations of cultural di- versity and environmental sustainability. For these ideas to become reality, however, there must be changes not only in public policy and private practices but also in premises embedded so deeply in the national subconscious that we hardly know any longer that they are there. Among the most limiting: ■ That land is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other, not an irre- placeable national resource. ■ That unrestricted automobility is a basic American right. ■ That the largest possible house on the largest possible lot is the only dwelling fit to aspire to. ■ That it is demeaning to live in a neighborhood with people of darker skin or less wealth than one's self. By no means does everyone hold to these premises, certainly not explicitly. But enough do and so long as this is the case we will have no new urbanism, just the seemingly permanent and persistently denied urban crisis that has now joined the move to the suburbs. ■ The Next American Metropolis Author. Peter Calthorpe Li L� Calthorpe, both in this book and in an es- say in The New Urbanism, argues that the principles of the new urbanism "should be applied throughout the metropolitan region, in cities, suburbs, and new growth areas." He proposes that the entire region should be de- signed as one en- tity according to these principles. "The design imperatives of creating the new metropo- lis are complex and challenging," Calthorpe writes. "They are to develop a regional growth strategy which integrates social diversity, environmental protection and transit; to advance a planning approach that re- emphasizes the pedestrian in liv- able mixed -use communities." His partic- ular focus is transit- oriented development, which would place such pedestrian -ori- ented nodes along regional light rail or bus lines. Calthorpe's book is more of a manual that the other two. It contains design guidelines for virtually every aspect of transit - oriented development, from over- all residential densities to such details as the landscaping of parking lots. Of the three books, Calthorpe's pays the most serious attention to the links between suburban development patterns and the prob- lems of the cities, "where increasing de- cay and economic isola- tion have resulted from 40 years of job flight and racial isolation. "There is a vicious cycle at work in the inner city," he writes. "The more develop- ment and tax base decants to the sub- urbs, the less attractive the inner city be- comes to investors, businesses and homeowners." This leaves the city with- out the resources to address its most pressing problems and creates "an urban environment unattractive to investment of any kind. The inner city will not get the in- vestment or tax dollars it needs so long as the region is allowed to sprawl." l? d g i_ a Wide streets and big yards are popular with people who choose not to live in TNDs. Lot size and price turn off consumers wh shop TNDs and don't buy there, says re estate analyst John Schleimer. His comp ny, Market Perspectives in Carmichae Calif., surveyed qualified "hot prospect who visited traditional neighborhood d velopments in 1993, but who eithe bought elsewhere or have not yet pu chased a home. The TNDs they shoppe include Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Md. Harbor Town in Memphis, Laguna Wes near Sacramento, and Lake Park nea Charlotte. (The study is a follow -up to on Schleimer did a year ago on TND home purchasers; see BUILDER, August 1993 page 76). NONBUYER CHARACTERISTICS Here's how those who didn't buy differ from those who bought in TNDs. IN They're a bit less affluent TND buyers earning $50,000 or less 18% TND nonbuyers earning $50,000 or less 41% ■ They're more likely to have children at home. TND buyers with 1 or 2 children at home 16% TND nonbuyers with 1 or 2 children at home 48% ■ More of them work full-time at home. TND buyers 5% TO nonbuyers 14% DESIGN PREFERENCES Though nonbuyers expressed doubts about TNDs, they liked many of the same design aspects that buyers did: ■ Shallower setbacks. TND buyers 69% TND nonbuyers 58% ■ Front porches. TND buyers 80% TO nonbuyers 65% ■ Alleys and rear garages. TO buyers 55% TND nonbuyers 57% ■ Narrower streets. TND buyers 61% TND nonbuyers 41% still shopping, and more than a third of o those say they haven't ruled out a home in al a TND. Here's what Schleimer learned a - about the people who opted to buy l someplace other than a TND. s " ■ Most bought new homes.. e New home 79% r Resale 21% r- ■ ...on large lots. d Less than 5,000 s.f. 8% 5,001 -7,000 s.f. 25% t 7,001 -9,000 s.f. 0% r 9,001- 12,000 s.f. 42% e 12,000+ s.f. 25% ■ More than half paid less than $150,000 for their house. Less than $150,000 57% $150,001- 5200,000 12% $200,001 - $300,000 26% $300,000+ 6% ■ What they liked most about the TNDs they visited: Sense of community 29% Design of homes 24% ■ What they disliked: Lack of security 45 %' Backyards too small 40 %' Lack of grocery/retail 29 %` Notenough value for price 27 % Lots too small 15 % Concludes Schleimer, "Most of the people who visit these communities seem to like the fabric of rreotraditionalism— the neighborliness, the design. It isn't sur- prising that affordability is an issue, however. And you'll always have people who prefer a large lot in the suburbs. But I predict that 20 to 30 percent of fu- ture development will be in TNDs, if S the location, prod- uct, and pricing are right " – Susan Bradford "It's too expensive here to be a diverse community. And It's too planned and controlling. It's my house— I'll paint the damn door orange if I want to. I don't want to ask anyone else If it's okay." — Kentlands prospect a m 'FWr00r Town " sKentlands and Laguna West 9 The New Urbanism's Call to Arms L' From October 8 dirough 11 in Alexandria, Virginia, the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) held the first of four conferences planned through 1994. The 200 participants included architects, planners, and academics from the United States and Canada, as well as real estate developers, lenders, civil engi- neers, and public officials, including Alihvau- lee Mayor John Norquist. In day -long sessions running from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the Congress set forth an ambitious national agenda: a sweeping reformation in the development of Ameri- can cities to change Ameri can urban and suburban life for the better. Joel Schwartz, an architect, builder, and real estate developer in New Jersey, believes "The movement to reform American ur- banism is prevailing," claim the CNU's six coordinators —Peter Calthorpe, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Moule, Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk, Stefano- Polyzoides, and Daniel Solomon. "The evidence is everywhere. At least 100,000 acres have been designed ac- cording to new principles by several special- ized firms. Even the established planning firms most responsible for suburban sprawl now offer this type of urbanism as an option." According to its coordinators, the CNU is not just another visionary think tank. Plater- Zyberk describes the organization as "a multidisciplinary way to address the future of our cities, proactively rather than reactively, with a prescription for change rather than a mere reflection of existing disorder." The New Urbanism's planning and development principles are quite straight- forward: The built environment must be :cM ;i r; Auditorium. up � Y - I Santa Mo� ft- nia's 45-a center is an isolated cluster of E L; 3 _ — --_ - '=f_t public buildings, RAND .. - _ ;$I, . �- _� headquarters, and p r I ' sur- s{: �,•-.' -1 , ; cc ice lots o V _ . `� %�' `:.� ; —, j — >✓ i l _ `:� �_ i _ . _ ing a strategic position in the dvs thriving down- '� _ � - 3 '� �,--5 —��' j `� '� �' i i L f I , c �� ti C i I • � town. Bast November 1 �== . "- j I r .1 � I J -� _ `. the city council approved Lnanimously a plan by ROMA Design Group to redevelop the site in accordance with many principles of the New Urbanism. Incorporating an expansion by RAND, 350 residential Una, new cultural faclities, parking structures, and open space, the new civic center will repair this hole in Santa Monica's urban fabric, encourage walking and bicycling in the down- ' town, and open access to ocean beaches. Traffic calming elements like wide sidewalks, roundabouts, a town square that among other functions, will serve as an interchange point for city buses and local shuttle services, and a new east -west streeVpromenade are a major focus of the plan. In that "typical suburban land planning and de- velopment don't work any more and need to be fixed." He recalls, "When I was making a speech recently, I asked the audience to name a New Jersey community built in the past SO years that is a really good place. You know what? Nobody cuuld name a single location. "But development patterns aren't going to change for the better just because people want more aesthetic, more satisfying communities. Americans are profoundly conservative about choosing a place to live, and they base many of their decisions on economics. As more people realize that the cost of constructing and main- taining typical suburbia has gotten out of hand, they are starting to think about innova- tive ways to plan and build new communities and retrofit existing ones." The Congress for the New Urbanism is a response to the failures of America's built emironment. I r K ; — zz/� Zoning for a new master plan for downtown South Miamy Florida, called the Hometown Plan, was _ _ adopted in October. AI t3 _t`•! though the structure of the a r C existing downtown — main street at the center of small blocks —is tradi - tonal, the random place - '"a '•* a a y�_ ��T ?; R _ ment of newer buildings, wide roads and narrow sidewalks, and a prepotr ay f Y derance of commercial x 40 •zr< G and parking uses have dis- ;'•'• ; : ........... : � 4"O � zouraged pedestrian use. :•: R •; _:I: I �� : __i ; . -.. A The Hometown Plan ap- plies the principles of the New Urbanism to create more activity. Buildings are placed to form street spaces into public "rooms." Mixed uses, including apartments and offices above shops, are encouraged through incentives. Sidewalks along the main street are widened and a tree canopy is restored. Parking lots are placed mid - block, and on -street parking is in- creased. The (failed) shopping mall (at the upper right of the inset map) is redeveloped with small blocks, a variety of building scales, and a town green. Implementation of the Home- town Plan is expected to occur through small development projects following a precise design code and various incentives, instead of through land use controls. diverse in use and population, scaled for the pedestrian, and capable of accommodating the automobile and mass transit. It must have a well- defined public realm supported by an architecture reflecting the ecology and culture of the region. lVorking from a fundamental belief that the act of building can make the world a bet- ter place, the participants want their plan- ning principles to influence not only single - family residential development at the fringes of metropolitan areas but also higher- density and mixed -use projects in central cities and existing suburbs. Public officials and real estate develop- ers who attended the conference in Alex- andria believe that the American public increasingly supports the New Urbanism's principles. "In many parts of the country, a funda- mental revolution is occurring in the devel- opment industry, a shift in paradigm, a shift in values toward many of these principles," said Dan Cary, executive director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, which represents 53 local governments in Florida's Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River counties. "I give man}' lec- tures to citizens groups. When I talk about the form and structure of traditional towns, I walk them through a perfect town model built in 1900 that still functions well in terms of everyday He and personal relationships. "These groups invariably get excited to the point of anger," he continued, "and de- mand to know why we have developed what we did in recent years. People have broken down in tears. They realize that what we have done in South Florida and Los Ange- les, to name two locations, is inhumane and financially insupportable. And they want al- ternatives." Despite emerging public support for the New Urbanism, two growing threats could limit its long -term impact on metro- politan development. In recent years, many participants pointed out, some of the New Urbanism's planning principles have been mislabeled as "neotra- ditionalism" which has a suburban conno- tation. Thus, when discussing these new approaches to development, the press has usually focused on the secluded resort town of Seaside, Florida, and neglected dozens of innovative projects in central cities and sub- urbs alike, creating a mistaken image in the public's mind that the new urbanism is elit- ist. The term "new urbanism" is meant to re- place "neotraditionalism" and broaden the public discussion of the Cl\U's principles from merely single - family suburban neigh- borhoods to all development in the nation's metropolitan areas. Of equal concern to the conference's par- ticipants, some developers and architects have grafted a few of neotraditionalism's most obvious features —a front porch here, a picket fence there —onto typical suburban subdivisions and then labeled these projects "neotraditional developments." "These developers have latched onto the New Urbanism's growing success to sell sub- divisions that have no connection with these principles and do little or nothing to satisfy public demand for this more sensitive form of development," said architect Calthorpe. "As a result, the public can now buy houses in conventional suburbs styled as villages and neighborhoods, which the press pro- claims are representative of the new move- ment. This inability to discriminate between FrGnwmy 1994 • Urban Land I I 1 n the New Urbanism and its hollow imita- tions will, over time, result in the conclu- sion that its promises of social, economic, and environmental benefits have been false. The movement may then be seen as just another fad." In her introductory remarks at the con- ference, Plater - Zyberk threw down the gauntlet: "We must move from the mar- gins, as objects of media curiosity, to a more central role in reforming urban life. This ambition must be played out on three battlefields." The New Urbanism already has em- barked on the first two battles —to do with academia and practice. The third struggle, which concerns policy and h2: just begun, will determine the ultimate success or fail- ure of the movement. How mill the Congress for the New Ur- banism fight these battles to reform the de- velopment ofAmerica's cities and suburbs in its vision? Through organization, unity, and hard work, say its organizers. "You have been in- vited here not so much to learn but because you have something to teach," Duany told the CNU audience. In the morning sessions, participants attended lectures covering the history of suburban development, identified man) of 12 Uihan land 0 Fell?-Havn 190.1 today's important development issues, discussed the need for a common termi- nology, and sought to establish standards for the New Urbanism's planning and development. In the afternoons, architects and plan- ners presented their current work so that participants could both critique and learn from such diverse urban projects as the Santa Monica Civic Center and South Miami's downtown redevelopment plan. (See illustrations on preceding pages.) Future conferences, commented archi- tect Boris Dramov of ROMA Design Group in San Francisco, should explore how the New Urbanism's principles can retrofit exist- ing city and suburban communities, particu- larly on infill sites like former industrial ar- eas, railyards, and military bases. Indeed, many conference speakers, in- cluding Duany, stressed the importance of developing the CNIU's implementation strategies —for example, remTiting the codes that affect all development and are a prereq- uisite for the success of the CNU's agenda, or working with lenders who say go or po- go to proposed projects. The neat three conferences will give par- ticipants the opportunity to discuss ideas and projects in greater detail and forge these implementation strategies. "The future conferences also will try to create alliances to advance our cause," says Calthorpe. "Think of what we can accom- plish if we work together with environmen- talists, historic preser residents of center cities, even residents of older suburbs that are experiencing the same decline that center cities did a generation ago. With such a broad -based alliance, the CNU can really male profound changes for the better in America's metropolitan development." Note: The Congress for the New Urbanism will hold its second meeting May 20 -23 in Los Angeles. The CNU II is titled "The Building, the Bloch, and the Street, "and it will focus primarily on center city planning and development issues. At present, membership in the Congress for the New Urbanism and attendance at its cot ferences are by invitation only -- Charles Lock Charles Lockwood is the author of smen books about American architecture and cities. BEST CHARLOTTE COMMERCIAL LOCATION For sale or development 50± Ac, Charlotte,NC, Zoned Business; 91 Ac residential, Zoned R -3. ERVIN CO., CAROLINE R. ERVIN - Telephone 704 -542 -6550, Fax 704 -542 -5419. UI O a 146 CO MMUNITI ES KENTLANDS 1 is � K entiands one of the first exam- ples of a new town- "P planning concept based on traditional neighborhood de- sign. Judges liked the core ideas: ■ A pedestrian - friendly plan. Hous- es are close to the ' street; streets are on grids rather than cul-de -sacs. Garages are in the rear, reached by alleys. ■ A blend of product types and income levels. "In- stead of putting all the low-income housing on one side of town: noted one judge. "they have taken the whole gamut of housing and tried to mix that into a master plan." ■ Proxunity of work, housing, and recreation. The site includes 1.5 nlllllon square feet of office and retail space, a town hall, a child care center, school, church, and cultural arts center. The project, which opened in 1990, will eventually have 1,700 units ranging from 750 to 4,500 square feet. Rents are $750 to $1,100, for -sale units are $165,000 to $550,000. Construc tion costs range from $45 to $60 a mms foot. Nearly all of the rentals released have been leased; more than half of the released for -sale housing has been sold. --J.E CATEGORY Master planned community PROJECT LOCATION Gaithersburg, Md. ENTRANTMNO PLANNER Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater•Zyberk, Architects, Gaithersburg DEVELOPER Joseph Altandre & Co., Rockville, Md. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Garr Campbell Associates. Baltimore rnows nooan -•yn 15 Ways to fix the Suburbs Most of us actually know what we want in a neighborhood —we just don't know how to get it, because developers have been building the wrong thing r 50 years. Here's how to get our communities back on track. �I�iII�IIPI�h�✓ �.,� r r o 1� i - -rz�- _""!�'e.'�s� �4P1�/ .- -. = 1 i - OR DECADES, ANTON NELESSON OF RUTGERS University has been using the tools of science to pursue that most elusive and subjective quality, happiness. When a developer comes into a community, humbly seeking permission to re- create ancient Pompeii on the site of an old Go Kart track, the towns planners com- mission Nelesson to survey the populace and determine if that's what they'd actually like there. Using photographs, models and questionnaires, Nelesson has surveyed people all over the country, and these are some of the things he's found: ■ "Everybody will call for a green open space in the middle — that's automatic. They will put the major community buildings around the plaza, then group the houses on relatively narrow streets. Ninety-nine percent don't want streets that are more than two lanes wide. At the edges of the village they leave open space." ■ "With two working spouses, [smaller lots] make a lot more sense. You don't want to mow that big lawn." ■ "People have a fundamental, psychological, spiritual response to nature. If you show them recently built multi- family housing or office parks, they go negative. A small, tra- ditional neighborhood is what people want. They don't know how to get it." Well, of course they don't: most of them haven't even seen a "small, traditional neighborhood" in years, if ever. But they in- stinctively choose it anyway. The premise of the new urbanism is that people can have the kinds of neighborhoods they say they like. Architects know how to design them, developers can build them, banks can make money on them. All it takes is a measure of political will to overcome the inertia of 50 years of doing things the wrong way ... and the application of a few simple rules. ■ 46 N£WSWEEK MAY 15 1995 1 Moving day at Kentlands, the neotraditional suburb in Maryland where houses are close to the street and to each other GIVE UP BIG LAWNS ONE USEFUL WAY TO DEFINE A SUBURB is "a place that grows lawns." The great postwar disillusionment began for many Americans when they left the city in search of a simpler life and discovered that watering, fertilizing, weeding and mowing the measliest yard takes more time over a year than the average New Yorker spends looking for parking. And the expanses of front lawn themselves serve no purpose but their owners' vanity — except that most sub- urban communities require them, on the theory that large setbacks help preserve the bucolic character of a community. That may have been true in the 1920s. when suburbs were being settled 30 houses at 'a time. But when highways opened up huge areas of countryside after the war, large -lot zoning had the opposite effect: by spreading population over a larger. area, it accelerated sprawl. Ifzoning boards weren't so fearful of "density," they could require developers to cluster houses and set aside land nearby for open space and recreation. This is also a more efficient way to build a community. Houses that are 100 feet apart, obviously, have 100 feet of unused road and utility lines between them. School buses have that much farther to travel. And the goal of making a walkable com- munity is defeated when houses are spread out on huge lots. Even the depth of the front yard turns out to make a crucial psychologi- cal difference. When houses are set back behind 30 feet of lawn, the streetscape be- comes oppressively desolate; your perspec- tive changes so slowly you don't feel you're reaching a destination. Probably no single change would improve the quality of subur- ban life as much as shrinking the size of lots —and it would actually make. houses cheaper. BRING BACK THE CORNER STORE 2 THE SUBURBAN CONDITION, SAYS architect Peter Calthorpe, "is a land- scape of absolute segregation ... not just in terms of income, age or ethnicity, but simple functional uses." This is so obvious that most people no longer see the absurdi- 'Y MAKE THE STREETS SKINNY- Modern subdivisions are designed to be driven, not walked. Even little -used streets are 36 feet or 40 feet wide, with big sweeping curves at the corners. It's great for cars: traffic barely needs to slow down. But for those on foot, the distance is daunting. Narrow streets —as little as 26 feet wide —and tight, right- angled corners are a lot easier for walkers, and probably safer as well, because they force drivers to slow down. One objection: fire departments worry about getting trucks through. But that hasn't been a big problem in old nabes in cities like New York and Boston. t of malung a five -mile round trip for a loaf of bread. That is, as long as they have a car; for anyone not so blessed — children, the elderly or handicapped, people who can't afford a car for every member of the family —it's nuts. Again, this is a function of good intentions undone by the explo- sion of suburbia. What worked in a compact neighborhood in a city—a dry cleaner, a drugstore, a corner grocery— became gro- tesque when blown up a hundredfold and applied to whole coun- ties. Shopping strips stretched for dozens of miles along the highways, while the curving streets of suburbia wormed their way ever deeper into the countryside. Obviously, malls and supermarkets, with their vast selections and economies of scale, will never be supplanted by neighborhood shopping streets and corner groceries. But it still should be possible to provide some of the necessities of life within walking distance of many people. Then you could send your kid out for that bread —and a newspaper while he's at it. MAY 15, 1 995 NEWSWEEK 47 t This wide street in Temecula, Calif., is fine for cars but not for kids and other pedesrians Discouraged winding streets and cul- de- sacs exacerbate traffic. TraMcflow y` I 1 7 L n O Transit stop Main artery - - --. cAffunerdal center -,... ♦ ♦ a ■ IF •. • :' 1 �'♦ ■ ■ �■ a a as r � ♦' F�iI. Jl.l.IS >[L.a� � .' � ■ • ♦ e a �. � 1 • ;1 1 ! ♦ !' �♦ �♦ ♦..� �; 1 s ♦gib d ♦ a -: :T. uacaCpt wxwcnn lancPOua cu r roaP?� CAtInBC�O - _ - - DRAW BOUNDARIES 5 IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE, THERE IS NO REAL SHORTAGE OF land in the United States; if the entire population lived on an acre of land per household, it would occupy less than 5 percent of the contiguous 48 states (plus all of Canada and Mexico for parking). But in the regions where Americans actually want to live, they are swarming into the countryside, covering whole counties with "edge cities" flung outward from the beltways as if by centrifu- gal force. New York City's suburbs reach across the whole state of New Jersey into eastern Pennsylvania, nearly 100 miles from Times Square. To new - urbanist theoreticians, this is the disastrous result of shortsighted government policies, such as the bias in the federal mortgage - guarantee program toward detached houses on large plots of land. To free - market economists, it represents the sum of millions of choices by informed individuals Who have decided that, on balance, getting up before dawn in Bucks County beats a full night's sleep in Brooklyn. But sprawl is not a necessary component of affluence. In Europe and Japan, governments have proclaimed "urban- growth bound- aries," beyond which development is more or less prohibited. Even in a democratic country such as Hol- land, a businessman seeking to live on a farm and drive into the city to work y would have to request permission from the government —and he might not get it. Try telling that to Lee Iacocca. Con- trary to popular American political the- , ory, these regulations haven't notice- ably affected the prosperity of Western Europe —nor of the one major Ameri- can city that has instituted its own ur- ban- growth boundary: Portland, Ore. In Oregon, naturally, no one would prevent the hypothetical businessman JAMFS D. W1LS0N- NY % % - S% ELK from living on a farm; he just couldn't Leading new urbanist sell it off for a subdivision when he re- tired to Palm Springs. More than 20 Nothing Irks Peter years ago, planners for the Portland Calthorpe more than hPetropolitan area drew a line around "naysayers who say that 325 square miles — covering 24 munici- Americans don't want to palities and parts of three counties— live in high - density and designated it to receive virtually all cities —they want population growth. Along the way they suburbs, as though have reduced the average lot size for there were only two detached houses from 13,000 square choices!" According to feet to an average of 8,500 square feet— the San Francisco roughly the difference between putting three and five units on an acre. The architect, "The answer proposed future goal is an even mingier Is to understand there 6,600 square feet. Between now and the are a huge number of year 2040, Portland's planners expect people with different the population to grow some 77 per- lifestyles. There are cent, but they are committed to an in- different densities In crease of residential land use of only 6 new urbanism, some percent. Instead of planting more "edge low, some high. cities" at the arbitrary puints where , Neighborhoods that freeways intersect, Portland has con- have diversity— cafes, centrated job growth in its downtown. recreation, casual The urban - growth boundary has been so successful that even a conservativ social encounters— property-rights group, Oregonians in will be increasingly Action, endorses the concept (although . Important. Suburbs it argues with some details). Imagine aren't just about how Los Angeles would look today if it bedrooms anymore:' had done this 20 years ago. `referre Streets pp n Ye rge transit and commercial center. 4i i- - - Main artery t Commercial center i" CDIIfle4'tPt' _. _ 1 �..:. >..� .,_. 2• c :n a a a . ■ ■ ■ r2mit stop Ban a ■ r ■ _. . •�` a ■ ■�:' ♦ ■ Pant -0 ♦ ■ r ■ r r ■ ■ ■ �4 A W ■ ■ i ♦ ' r r r ♦ �'�` ♦ r a ♦ ♦♦ r t gUlt �'ua NF3T w>,!»N NEITOPOLfi,� elf PET'P2 GLidOML DROP THE CUL -DE -SAC 4 The cul -de -sac, a fancy term for "dead end," has emerged as the street plan of choice for modern suburbs. Its great ad- vantage —the elimination of through traf- fic—is also its weakness, because it com- pels everyone in a given subdivision to use the same few roads, often at the same times. Anyone attempting to travel on foot or by bicycle will eventually wind up on the shoulder of a busy highway —and probably give up. But streets don't have to be like that: they can follow predictable routes and interconnect. This gives mo- torists a choice of routes, so they don't all pile up every morning waiting to make a left turn at the same intersection. MAY 15, 1995 NF 49 Ll sr - t� HIDE THE GARAGE 6 Most suburban houses give the ap- pearance that they are first of all places to park, turning to the world the blank and desolate face of a garage door. Neigh- borhoods look more pleasant when ga- rages are put behind the houses, accessi- ble by side yards or b all eys. MIX HOUSING TYPES 7 OF ALL THE WAYS TO IMPROVE THE SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL organization of the suburbs, none would be as subversive as breaking the monopoly of single - family detached homes: that •endless alternation of "Crestwoods" and 'Auroras" intended to foster the illusion of preference in buyers' choosing between four bedrooms and three bedrooms plus a den. Homogeneity is the very essence of the suburbs. Attached houses, rental units, shops or businesses — anything that might attract traffic and its attendant evil, a decline in property values —are banned. This is a fairly new phenomenon in human history. For most of the last 9,000 years, most people inhabited villages, .•here by definition nothing was very far from anything else. As late as the 1940s, for that matter, Memphis, Tenn., developer Henry Turley grew up in the kind of haphazard city neighborhood that is the despair of sensible planners: a jumble of stores, shacks, flats, walk- ups and decaying mansions, all suffused with the vivid street life neighbors made for themselves in the era before air conditioning lured them indoors. It is, of course, beyond the power of zoning to bring back those days, even if we wanted them back, but it may be possible to recapture some of the energy and spirit that character- ized American civic life before television clamped its monopoly on public discourse and entertainment. So in 1937, when Turley bought a 135 -acre vacant plot on an island in the Mississippi five minutes from downtown Memphis, he embarked on a radically different kind of development, which began not by asking "What 50 -% MAI' 1q. 1995 will the county let me build ?" or "What will the banks finance ?" but "What kind of place do people want to live in ?" The result was Harbor Town, intended to be "a slice of the world —the more complete and varied the better." There are houses ranging in price from $114,000 to $425,000, which contrasts with a typical subdivision in Phoenix, Ariz., for example, where the seven basic models run the gamut from $271,990 to $316,990. There are town houses and apartments, and shops being planned. Devel- opers had tried mixing housing types in the "planned communities' of the 1970s, but in those each use was isolated in its own thousand - acre quadrant; in Harbor Town they are all within a few blocks of each other. Turley seems to have decreed that instead of golf, the leading recreational activity would be chatting With neighbors while watchi -g the sun set over the river, so he set the houses close together and built ct village squares. The houses themselves are an eye- popping collection of styles including Charlestown provin- cial, Cape Cod and Bauhaus modern, but they have an underlying unity based on materials (mostly clapboard or wood siding) and the ubiquitous new- urbanist amenity, porches. Turley expects to make money on the project, When it's completed in 1997, but he also has a higher aim. "Democracy assumes — demands —that we know, un- derstand and respect our fellow citizens," he says. "How can we appreciate them if We never see them ?" PLANT TREES CURBSIDE 8 Nothing humanizes a street more than a row of trees shading he s idewalk. dewalk. But they must be broad - leafed shade trees such as sycamores or chestnuts, not the dinky globular things like flowering pears that developers favor in parking lots. And they should be planted out at the curbline, where they will grow out to form a canopy over the roadway. Why don't more places have such an obvious amenity already? Because traffic engineers worry that people might drive into them. Strolling under a canopy of spring blossoms Multicargarages turn an unwelcoming face to the street {\ 11U��dLt NEW LIFE OLD MALLS a - VE GOT FOUNTAINS, HANGING ns and ice rinks, and if you stay in • long enough you may eventually l chita Lineman" rescored for 140 ut most shopping malls are, es- v, just vast sheds that consumers t rough until, with nothing left to ey are spit out into the parking lot. er people are so quick to desert en a bigger one opens up down the :host malls are no longer a rare sight ca. Phoenix has at least two, in- ne right across the street from O f its largest office buildings. But ,d they occupy can, with some inge- re a lot of money, become the nucle- eal neighborhood, an architectural nent rather than a hulking blight. rocess is happening first with strip centers, which are usually older losed malls and less complex archi- Y, The first step is to transcend the tion ofa "shopping center" as a group - nrelated stores in the middle of a lot. That pretty much described the abury Shopping Center, a dreary -era strip mall on a b usy highway in In Portland, Ore., these commuters are choosing to ride the rails d, Mass., about 70 miles from Bos- c ecade ago, the owners decided to p it on a radically different scheme, .led on a New England town. New t e ere laid out t in what had been the o; new sh cps were built in the d area behind the existing ones. A sar development plan was draw1n up, I nin' a substantial community; of- library, a church and a senior -citi ome have already been built. irking was redistributed along the of the new internal streets. This for some congestion and inefficien- lessens the frustration of trudging n long aisles of parked cars toward a t mall entrance. Developer Douglas says that shoppers find the strength ilk as much as half a mile down the :walks of what is now called Mashpee ons, passing shop windows, benches [ anters. The same people reach the old of exasperation when they have ,ark more than 400 feet from the door to W nary mall. e are other examples, including r Park, in Boca Raton, Fla., where a 5ng shopping center was replaced with a e mixed use development organized F,elopers a new public park. To be sure, not will b this ambitious with 'ir properties. But as a first step, hiding gly collection of Dumpsters and load - ocks on the backsides of strip malls eliminate a lot of suburban blight. Is there any way to get Americans out of their 0 cars and into buses and trains? In Los Angeles, not even an earthquake sufficed; only about 2 per- cent of drivers switched to mass transit afte them freeways fell down last year, oon as the roads were went right back to driving as patched up. The problem is that transit seems to need as kcal mass to work, and many metropolitan areas nLo les among them) are just too spread ou y commut- ers seem to think that if you have to drive to the train station anyway, you might as well just keep going to the office. Hence Calthorpe's idea for the "pedestrian pocket ": a relatively dense settlement within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop. In Portland, Ore., they're g the transit line first— putting stops literally in the middle of empty fields —in the expectation that the development will follow. PLAN FOR MASS TRANSIT LINK WORKTO HOME 11 SUBURBS ARE NO LONGER JUST BEDROOM .; communities; the dispersal of employ- - `. -` " ment out of the central cities has been 1 going on for a generation. (As the writer William ;;- H. Whyte demonstrated two decades ago, big Lln4.. co rporations leaving the city tend to relocate with- in a few miles of the chief executive's house.) But ? ." the result —the oxymoronic "office parks' consist- ing of indistinguishable glass cubes amid atoken - the same development you work in," he says; "there are a lot of criteria for where you choose your house. But if people can walk to a park, to midday shopping, restaurants and day care, it's better for the people working there." SHRINK PARKING LOTS 13 PARKING IS ONE OF SUBURBIA'S HIGHEST achievements. Only in the United States does the humblest copy -shop or pizzeria boast as much space for cars as the average city hall. fuzz of grass and a giant parking lot —is just a higher class of sprawl than the gas stations and FREDERICK CHARLES A different approach But it is also a curse; the vast acreage given over to Rsphalt is useless for any other purpose, and goes fried- cllicken places tha.c would have been built there instead. MWng Income levels In a n'rused more than half the time anyway.. viost plan- If companies ' t want to be downtown, neighborhood Is a new- ners regard parking as .y prerequisite for economic growth, like water. Rt,, downtown Portland, Ore., they should at lei >t attem . nt to integrate their of- fices —or factories, for that matter —into commu- urbaw at credo, and noo nobody does that better which strictly regul<.tF 3 harking, has been thriving with essentially the same space for cars as it had 20' nities. Nobody wants to live next to a steel mill, naturally. But in Laguna West, outside Sacramen- than planner Oscar Newman."iis scattered- years ago. Developers often build more parking than they actually need; a half -empty lot is presumed to to, people are happy to live within a quarter -mile of an Apple Computer plant, which provides 1,200 site low - Income housing for Yonkers, N.Y., Is a reassure prospective tenants that they'll never run out of space for their cars. Yet a bank, a movie theater white -collar and assembly -line jobs. Apple agreed to locate there after the community was already model of Its kind. But and a church are all full at different times. One simple improvement planned; developer Phil Angelides says the com- Newman Is no fan of the new urbanists. "Instead towns can make is to look for ways to share and pool parking space among different users. pany liked the idea that executives and workers could afford to live in the same community. Playa of saying, `This is what's ' The ideal— although expensive— solution to the , parking Problem is for cars to vanish underground Vista, a new - urbanist community being planned for Los Angeles, has been mentioned as a wrong (with suburbsJ9 ey sou they ask, `Why when they get where thoy'r.- going. A shopping center possible home for the DreamWorks SKG multimedia com - people feel it's worth It surrounded by acres of striped asphalt, whether it's empty or full, might as well put up a moat against pany. It could be an updated —and very upscale— to live there?"' d t ' Lar k' 1 h ld b 1) i version of the company town, which in this case will comprise 13,000 houses and apartments, shops, a park, promenades and jogging trails along the last tidal marsh in the city. Calthorpe believes that more businesses will move to new- urbanist projects as they grow disillusioned with the traffic and isolation of their office parks. "The idea is not necessarily to live in AK ME A TOWN CENTER 12squ Every town needs a center: a plaza, or green that is a geographi- cal reference point and a focus of civic life —even if that just means a place to push a stroller or throw a Frisbee. Shop- ping malls are a poor substitute; the area they serve is too diffuse, and in any case fu their civic nction is incidental to their real purpose — making money. Develop- ers often provide some parkland in their subdivisions, but it's usually on leftover parcels that wouldn't be built on anyway, by the edge of the highway or adjoining another subdivision. 52 xEWSWEEK MAY 15. I9y5 pe es Hans. p par Ing ots s ou a situated behind buildings whenever possible— something most suburban zoning codes don't currently allow —and divided by streets, sidewalks or structures into smaller segments of around three' acres or less. On- street parking in residential neighborhoods is con- troversial. Some planners favor it, because it creates a "buffer" between pedestrians and traffic, but others consider it a danger to children running out between the cars. 1 n 1 1 1 TURN DOWN THE LIGHTS. 14 It is probably true that illuminating a suburban street to the level of the infield at Comiskey Park reduces accidents, especially for people who leave their regular glasses at home and have to drive in sunglasses. For everyone else, though, towering, garish.sodium -vapor street lamps intrude on the peacefulness of the night with the insistence of a stuck horn. Where safety is not a big issue, why not use several smaller lamps that cast a gentler glow and let you see the stars? P 1 15 OUT BEYOND THE BELTWAY, where the roads are narrow and blacktop, past the point at which the dwindling traffic is too sparse to warrant plucking by even the mingi- est motor court, there's a beautiful land. There are pale green corn plants poking through the brown soil, lakes glimpsed through trees, cholla cactus among the tumbled red rocks. It's not wilderness, but countryside, the unfinished canvas of America. It tells us where we are —in Illinois, Maine or Texas —and it locates us in time: summer, fall, winter, spring. There's nothing to buy there, nowhere to park; it lure us with golden arches or free coffee mugs with a fill-up. It's just there. And by the same token, it isn't making anyone rich, yet. There is a gradient of value that runs from the city to the country, and it keeps moving out- ward; pick any spot and it's just a matter of time before it makes the magical tran- sition from "countryside" to "real estate." The process seems inevitable, but it isn't, really. It's the product of concrete decisions made in an age when roads were still viewed as the harbingers of civilization rather than discount muffler outlets. And as surely as our society made those decisions, it can change them, before lawn meets lawn and asphalt meets asphalt, cover- ing the land in a seamless carpet of sprawl. s +nuv rn.,rn i u u A garish street lamp in Maryvale, a neighborhood in Phoenix � AHWAHNEE PRINCIPLES � for Resource - Efficient Communities 1 1 Reprinted from Western City Magazine, September, 1994 1 -' S \•�t"i �, .! J = ate/_•. all. Santa Barbara. American institute ofArchitects, California Council M Seaside. Florida. DPZ architects � I T I A M ►GIRD A 5 � ... ~ �Pedestrianoriented street in Santa Monica. ROAN Design Group 1 ■ ■ ■ -, Horton Plaza — Where the mall was sited downtown. Ciry nr Scn Dirgo ities everywhere are facing similar problems — increasing traffic congestion and worsening air pollution, the continuing loss of open J space, the need for costly improvements to road and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community. The problems seem overwhelming and we suffer from their consequences every day. City character is blurred until every place becomes like every other place, and all adding up to No Place. Many of our social economic and envi- evervw•here by car — there is no other ronmental problems can be traced to land option. We must take a car to the store for use practices adopted since World War II. a gallon of milk• drive the children to little In the late 1940s we began to adopt a League practice, even spend part of the notion that life would be better and we lunch hour driving to a place to eat. And would all have more freedom if we planned as roads become increasingly clogged and and built our communities around the services further from our home, we spend automobile. Gradually, rather than increas- our time as anonymous individuals wait- ing our freedom, auto - oriented land use ing for the traffic light to change rather planning has reduced our options. Now, it than chatting with friends at the corner takes much more time than it used to store or playing ball on the lawn with the carry out our daily activities. We must go neighborhood kids. LEAGUE Or Ca_II ORNIA CITIES _ M Seaside. Florida. DPZ architects � I T I A M ►GIRD A 5 � ... ~ �Pedestrianoriented street in Santa Monica. ROAN Design Group 1 ■ ■ ■ -, Horton Plaza — Where the mall was sited downtown. Ciry nr Scn Dirgo ities everywhere are facing similar problems — increasing traffic congestion and worsening air pollution, the continuing loss of open J space, the need for costly improvements to road and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community. The problems seem overwhelming and we suffer from their consequences every day. City character is blurred until every place becomes like every other place, and all adding up to No Place. Many of our social economic and envi- evervw•here by car — there is no other ronmental problems can be traced to land option. We must take a car to the store for use practices adopted since World War II. a gallon of milk• drive the children to little In the late 1940s we began to adopt a League practice, even spend part of the notion that life would be better and we lunch hour driving to a place to eat. And would all have more freedom if we planned as roads become increasingly clogged and and built our communities around the services further from our home, we spend automobile. Gradually, rather than increas- our time as anonymous individuals wait- ing our freedom, auto - oriented land use ing for the traffic light to change rather planning has reduced our options. Now, it than chatting with friends at the corner takes much more time than it used to store or playing ball on the lawn with the carry out our daily activities. We must go neighborhood kids. LEAGUE Or Ca_II ORNIA CITIES I �l Rather than designing towns so that we can walk to work or to the store, we have separated uses into homogeneous, sin- gle -use enclaves, spreading out these uses on ever - increasing acres of land. We grouped together housing of similar types for similar income levels. We clustered retail stores into huge structures called malls, surrounded by endless acres of parking slots. Businesses imitated the mall, creating "business parks ". usually without a park in sight, and with people working in clusters of similar buildings and parking spaces. At the same time, public squares, the corner store, main street. and all the places where people could meet and a sense of community could happen were replaced by an abyss of asphalt_ Even people are segregated by age and income level. And those who cannot drive or who cannot afford a car face an enormous disadvantage. In the words of Pasadena's Mayor Rick Cole, "There's a loss of place. a loss of hope, and it's killing our souls. The effects of single -use, sprawling development patterns are becoming increasing clear. And, with that has evolved a realization that there is a better way. Towns of the type built earlier in this century - those compact, walkable com- munities where you could walk to the store and kids could walk to school, where there was a variety of housing types from apartments over stores to single- family units with front porches facing tree - lined. narrow streets -these towns provided a life style that now seems to many of us far preferable to today's neighborhoods. Thus we have seen an increasing interest in a number of concepts that would bring us back to a more traditional style of devel- opment and a style of planning that would be more in tune with nature including " neotraditional planning "sustainable development ", "transit - oriented design ", the "new urbanism ", and the concept of "livable" communities. In 1991, at the instigation of Local Gov- ernment Commission. staff - member Peter Katz. author of the New Urbanism, the commission brought together a group of architects who have been leaders in Judith Corbett is the Executive Director of the Local Gorerr anent Commission, a nonprgfnt, nonpartisan membership organization of local elected grTicials committed to finding local solu- lions to problems of state and national signifi- cance. Joe Velosquez is a Council Member for the City of Cathcdral City. developing new notions of land use planning: Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk. Stefanos Polyzoides and Elizabeth Moule, Peter Calthcrpe, and Michael Corbett. These innovators were asked to come to agreement about what it is that the new planning ideas - from neotraditional planning to sustainable design- have in com- mon and from there, to develop a set of community principles. They were then asked how each community should relate to the region, and to develop a set of regional principles. Finally, they were charged with defining how these ideas might be implemented by cities and coun- ties. The architects' ideas were drafted by attomev Steve lVeissman into a form which would be useful to local elected officials and provide a vision for an alternative to urban sprawl. A preamble. topics of spe- cific ideas, community principles. regional principles and implementation of the principles was presented in the fall of 1991 to about 100 local elected officials at a conference at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite. There they received both a highly enthusiastic response and their title— the Ahwahnee Principles. COMMUNITY PRINCIPLES The community principles define a com- munity where housing and all the things needed to meet the daily needs of resi- dents are located within walking distance of one another. They call for returning to historic population densities around transit stops to provide the critical mass of people and activities in these areas needed to make transit eco- nomically viable. They call for hous- ing which provides places to live for a variety of people within a single neighborhood instead of separat- ing people by income level, age or family situation. The Ahwahnee Principles state that de- velopment should be compact but with open space provided in the form of squares or parks. Urban designer Michael Freedman describes this as space- making rather than space - occupying development. Rather than surrounding buildings in the center of unusable landscaped areas (space - occupying development), Freedman says we should use build- ings to frame public space (place making design). Continued «N ESTERN CITY, 5EP"ITNIBER 1994 771e Ahwahnee Principles: Toward Afore Livable Communities, Continued Growth in Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled Son Diego 1968�t8 t00% A l 8D" 6D% +o% 20% POP An POP YMi POP YMt POP= Population Gtovth YMi =YehNk M11e5 hotel frrm US. Drymtmee o /]'tmtporrot�, WHmm Depnnne t a(Meta Ylhdl UNDAG Freedman holds that to plan for more livable communities, local government officials must understand the human scale — that is, the basic relationship of people to the environment in which they live. In neighborhoods, for example, we must recognize the relationship of the house to the front door to the street. In doing so, we will create the sorts of places which bring people together and create a vitality, a sense of community. By fram- ing open space with buildings which open onto it, we gather more eyes to look upon the area and that cre sts places that feel m-)re P iA r. And with that design solution comes more compact development — development which has less costly infra- structure requirements, and development which is more walkable and more easily served by transit. Further, the principles call for an end to the monotony of contiguous, look —alike building by separating each community with a well defined edge, such as an agri- cultural greenbelt or wildlife corridor, so that we can actually see where one com- munity ends and another begins. From a transportation standpoint, one of the most important principles is that all parts of the community should be con- nected by streets or paths — no more dead end cul de sacs, fences, or walls which prevent us from going directly from one point to another. Narrow streets, rather than wide streets, are rec- ommended because they help slow traffic and make it safer for pedestrians and bicycles..'4arrow streets also create more attractive, more people- friendly neigh- borhoods and shopping districts. Finally, the community principles call for more resource - efficient land use planning — the preservation of the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation: and the use of nat- ural drainage systems and drought tolerant landscaping and recycling. They ask that buildings be oriented (as required by the California Solar Rights Act of 1975) to take advantage of the sun for heating and nat- 9rj.k breezes for cooling. Modal -Split (as percentage of total trips) -- 1 1 France West Switzerland Austria Netherlands Sweden Germany ■ Walking /Bicycle Public Transit Other LrAct r Or CAJJFOi;NL. CITIES 1 C P d REGIONAL PRINCIPLES The regional principles call for the land - use planning structure to be integrated within a larger network built around tran- sit rather than freeways, with regional insti- tutions and services located in the urban core. A perfect example of this can be found in the City of San Jose where city planners chose to locate a new sports sta- dium in the downtown area, close to sever- al rail stops rather than off a freeway. The surrounding restaurants and shops are benefiting from the increased number of passers -by before and after games, and freeway travel is less clogged than it other- wise would have been. The architects noted that regions should be distinct from one another rather than fading into each another as they largely do today. Each region should be surrounded by a wildlife corridor or greenbelt and the materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region. Santa Barbara and Santa Fe come forward as two excellent examples of communities which have followed these principles and which have realized there are economic as well as aesthetic advan- tages of doing so. Both of these cities have implemented strict design guide- lines for their downtowns which preserve the historical architectural styles of their regions. Because these cities have retained a very special and distinct sense of place. they have become highly popu- lar both as places to live and as tourist destinations. IMPLEMENTATION PRINCIPLES The implementation strategy advanced by the planners is fairly straightforward and simple. First, the general plan should be updated to incorporate the Ahwahnee Principles. Next, local governments should take charge of the planning process rather than simply continuing to react to piecemeal proposals. Prior to any development, a specific plan or a precise plan should be prepared based on the planning principles. With the adoption of specific plans, complying projects can then proceed with minimal delay. The developer will know exactly what the community wants. There should be no more costly, time - consuming, guessing games. Finally. the architects put forth the most critical principle of all: "Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be pro- vided visual models of all planning propos- als." Without involving citizens from every sector of the community, including devel- opers, the political viability of a new plan may be limited. Citizens must be getting what they want and care enough to be vigilant about it so that the plan cannot be changed by a single property owner out of self - interest But the stability of planning policies is not the only advantage of citizen par- ticipation. Bringing together citizens to create a common vision for the community has more benefits than just the creation of a good plan that will be upheld through time. The process itself can create a sense of community and an understanding among previously warring factions. However, it is difficult for citizens to visualize what a new planning scheme is going to look like after it is built if they see only a one — dimensional sketch or read about the plan in a six - inch thick planning document. A number of techniques have been developed to address this problem. The visual preference survey. where participants are provided an opportunity to express their likes and dis- likes through judging slides. allows citizens to literally see concrete examples of their options. Another useful technique is com puter simulation where the visual results of a physical plan can be created on the computer. mother method involves tak- ing participants on a walk through their own town to determine which portions of the community look good and func- tion well and which do not. IMPLEMENTING THE AHWAHNEE PRINCIPLES The concepts embodied in the ! Ahwahnee Principles are being imple- mented by cities and counties throughout the nation, with most of the activity occur- ring on the east and west coasts. In Pasadena, the participation of 3.000 res- idents from all sectors of the communi- ty resulted in a general plan with a guid- ing principle which states, "Pasadena will be a city where people can cir- culate without cars." The plan lays out where growth should occur — primarily along light rail stations i and in neighborhood commercial ms-µ areas within walking distance of Continued �Vrs CFFI'. SFF71 - MP.FR 19q-1 77ie Ahwahnee Principles: Toward :Vlore Livable Communities, Continued residences. The city is now preparing spe- cific plans to guide what that growth should look like. One of the projects, a mixed —use housing development near a downtown rail stop, is already complete. In San Jose, the city has produced, under the guidance of citizen advisory groups, a total of four specific plans for infill sites in various parts of the city covering a total of almost 1.000 acres. Their goal is to ensure that new development will occur as compact. mixed use neighborhoods located near transit stops. The City of San Diego has adopted `"Transit- Oriented Development Design Guidelines" for the purpose of redirect - ing existing patterns of building within the city and helping reduce the com- munity's dependence on the automo- bile. The planning staff has completed the first public review draft of a com- prehensive zoning code update that will create zoning designations to t! implement the guidelines. In Sacramento, Walnut Creek. `" '` Santa Barbara and San Diego, -' city officials have broken new ground by siting new shopping malls downtown. near transit, rather than off freeways. The benefits include both a new surge of economic activity for downtown businesses and a reduction in auto use and the associated nega- tive air quality impacts. The Califor- nia Air Resources Board has noted that over 60 percent of the people arriving at San Diego's downtown mall. Horton Plaza, arrive via 1 , transit or walking. Developer - proposed, large - scale, new development is also reflecting the influence of the Ahwahnee Principles. The 1,000 -acre, Playa Vista infill project in Los Angeles will include the preservation of 300 acres of wetlands. As it is designed now, the development will feature moderately — d dense housing built around small neighborhood parks. Large offices, small retail stores. restaurants, gro- cery stores and small telecommuting offices will be integrated, allowing residents to walk when they go to work, shop, or go out to dinner. A bicycle and pedestrian esplanade will link the town with the beach. Rialto's Mayor John Longville is working with the developer of LEAGUE Or CALIF=ORNIA CITIES' a 3,000 -acre development near the Ontario airport to incorporate the concepts of the Ahwahnee Principles in that project. With the assistance of urban designer Michael Freedman, the City of Cathedral City is no longer focusing solely on den- sity and the control of uses as a means of guiding its future growth. At a joint meeting of the city council, planning commission, and architectural review committee, Freedman presented the Ahwahnee Principles and the key role of local government in future planning and general plan development. - athedral City-adopted the Ahwahnee Principles by resolution and has started to incorporate them into its general plan. With only 50 percent of the city built out and develop- ment plans on the table, the city council acknowledged the importance of having planning guidelines. An innovative city in the desert region. Cathedral City understands the best way to deliver good planning principles is to work both Fifth the community and the building indus- try to develop a comprehensive strategy of planning more livable neighborhoods. Even the federal government has embraced the Ahwahnee Principles. Archi- tect Peter Calthorpe reports that the plan- ning concepts outlined by the . Ahwahnee Principles have been written into a guidance document recently published the federal government. Calthorpe was a coauthor of the document. Vision/ Reality produced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for local government officials interested in applying for Community Development Block Grant program and other funds. A number of city planners believe that, if they can just solve the problem of traf- fic, they can solve the major problems of their cities. Yet, the simple needs of the automobile are far more easily under- stood and accommodated than the com- plex needs of people. The Ahwahnee Principles outline a set of ideas for plan- ning more livable communities built for people, not just cars, and provide a vision for an alternative to urban sprawl. This new vision will lead to neighborhoods where people no longer live in houses with isolated rear yards. They will live in homes with comfortable relationships to their streets which are part of a neigh- borhood. Tree -lined sidewalks with nar- row streets will induce cars to drive slow- er. Children will be safer when they play in the neighborhood and the sense of community will add a feeling of security. When they need to go to school, to the store, or to baseball practice, children will be able to walk or ride bikes rather than being dependent on someone's dri- ving them there. The top down, traditional planning of yesterday is no longer an acceptable means of making cities. The people served must be involved. When people come together and openly discuss their visions for the future, a sense of community will result Bringing citizens into the process of developing and revising the general plan will also result in new development which both serves the needs of the com- munity and is used and respected by the residents it serves. To make better, more livable cities, local governments must take PREAMBLE: Existing patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quali- ty of life. The symptoms are: more con- gestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automo- biles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequit- able distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community. By drawing upon the best from the past and the present, we can, first, infill exist- ing communities and, second, plan new communities that will more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work within them. Such planning should adhere to these fundamental principles: COMMUNITY PRINCIPLES: 1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essen- tial to the daily life of the residents. 2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. 4. A community should contain a diver- sity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. 5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents. charge of the process of planning while involving and utilizing its best asset, the people who work, live and play in our com- munities. ■ ABOUT THE ARCHITECTS The architects whogathered in 1991 to de- velop the Ahwahnee Principles are all inter- nationally known for their inspirational work and innovative ideas. Peter Calthorpe, is one of the leaders of the New Urbanism" movement and was cited by Newsweek mag- azine as one of 25 innovators on the cutting edge. "Michael Corbett *, aformerMayorof the City of Davis, has received international recognition for his design of the resource -efJi- cient Village Homes development in Davis. a 6. The location and character of the com- munity should be consistent with a larger transit network. 7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial. civic, cul- tural and recreational uses. 8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares. greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through place- ment and design. 9. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night. 10. Each community or cluster of commu- nities should have a well defined edge. such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development. 11. Streets. pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully -con- nected and interesting routes to all destina- tions. Their design should encourage pedes- trian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings. trees and light- ing; and by discouraging high speed traffic. 12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation of the communi- ty should be preserved with superior exam- ples contained within parks or greenbelts. 13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. 14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant land- scaping and recycling. 15. The street orientation. the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community. WES - FERN C11 SUTENIBER. 1994 project often cited as the best existing example ofsustainable development in the world. The husband -wife team of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk made headlines with their highly successful Seaside develop- ment in Florida and have become highly ac- claimed architects and planners of over 70 new towns and community revitalization pro- jects. Stefanos Polyzoides is an Associate Professor of architecture at the University of Southern Califontia. He and his partner, Elizabeth Moule, are the architects of Los Angeles'downtown strategic plan and Playa Vista in Los Angeles, a model application of the Ahwahnee Principles. 'Alike Corbett and Judy Corbett are husband and wife. REGIONAL PRINCIPLES: 1. The regional land use planning struc- ture should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways. 2. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of green- belt/ wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions. 3. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums. museums. etc.) should be located in the urban core. 4. INIaterials and methods of construc- tion should be specific to the region. exhibiting continuity of history and cul- ture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: 1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles. 2. Rather than allowing developer- initi- ated, piecemeal development, local gov- ernments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, intill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur. 3. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles. With the adoption of specific plans, complying projects could proceed with minimal delay. 4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual mod- els of all planning proposals. The Center for Livable Communi A Project of the Local Government Commission he mission of the Center for Livable Communities is to help communities be proactive in their land use planning and to encourage the adoption of programs and policies that lead to more livable land use patterns. Center programs can help jurisdict ?o,- T: increase transportation alternatives, reduce infrastructure costs, create more affordable housing, improve air quality, preserve natural resources, and restore local econornic and social vitality. The Center provides a range of services including information and referrals, computer simulation, community mediation, planning assistance, awards, workshops and conferences. The following materials are available from the Center: A Model Projects File: Model projects are available from the Center that summarize outstanding examples of pedestrian -and transit - oriented lap:.' use planning. Community Image Surveys: Inspired by the Visual Preference Survey T '", the Community Image Survey is a highly effective mechanism for educating community members about the advantages of pedestrian -and transit- oriented land use planning. Community Image Surve%s, including sets of slides and rating forms, are available on loan from the Center. They can also be customized to meet specific needs. Publications: Current publications of the Center include: Land Use Strategies for More Livable Places, the Energy Aware Planning Guide, the Ahwahnee Principles, and the summaries of the Center's annual Putting Our Communities Back On Their Feet conference. Other publications which are currently being developed include guide- books on participatory planning and infill development. Newsletter: The Center distributes the Local Government Commission's newslet- ter, Livable Places Update, which highlights innovative steps taken to implement pedestrian -and transit- oriented land use planning in communities nationwide. Video Catalogue: The Center has developed a catalogue of videos useful in intro- ducing and implementing the concepts of pedestrian -and transit - oriented land use planning. Those videos not available through other sources are distributed by the Center at minimal cost. Slide Catalogue: The Center offers a catalogue of slides to help you produce your own slide presentation on pedestrian -and transit - oriented land use planning. Speakers List: The Center recommends dynamic and interesting speakers on a variety of topics related to livable communities. General Plan Language and Ordinances: Photocopies of exemplary measures adopted by local governments are currently available from the Center. Bibliographies: The Center provides bibliographies of important books, pamphlets, and articles on pedestrian -and transit- oriented land use planning. For further information, contact: Center for Livable Communities C/o Local Government Commission Illq�p��p�' °!11111 1414 K. Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95814 tel 916 ., -448 -1198 fax 916 -448 -8246 LOCAL COV ERNMENTCOMMISSION Hours: 8:30 -5:00 Pkl PST A \fP %TRANSPnRTATIONPARTN R The Ahwahnee Principles E)dsting patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quality of life. The symptoms are: more congestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources and the loss of a sense of community. By drawing upon the best from the past and the present, we can, first, infill existing communities and, second, plan new communities that will more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work within them. Such planning should adhere to these fundamental principles: Community Principles i. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents. 2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. 4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. 5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents. 6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network. 7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. 8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. 9. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night. io. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development. ii. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully - connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic. 12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage, and veg etation of the community ommunrty should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. 13. The community design should help onserve resources sand minimize waste. 14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of ' natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping aijd recycling, 1 5. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should ' contribute to the energy efficiency of the community. Regional Principles Implementation Strategy 1. The regional land -use planning structure should I inter;, ??�ci - '',within a larger ' transportation network built around transit rather than freeways. 2. Regions should be b,,unded by and provide a continuous systerr. g .. 'abelt/ , wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions. 3. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core. ' 4. Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage ' the development of local character and community identity. 1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles. ' 2. Rather than allowing developer - initiated, piecemeal development, local govern- ments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate ' where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur. 3. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on the plan- ' rung principles. With the adoption of specific plans, complying projects could proceed with minimal delay. 4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process ' should be provided visual models of all planning proposals. Authors: Editors: Peter Calthorpe Judy Corbett ' Michael Corbett Peter Katz Andres Duany Steve Weissman Elizabeth Moule ' Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk Stefanos Polyzoides I CITIZENS OFFER DEVELOPERS AN ALTERNATIVE BY WENOI KALUNS When the developer French Ranch Partners came to the Marin County's San Geronimo Valley, it saw an opportunity to turn a pristine piece of property into million - dollar homes fronting a golf course. But it didn't count on a savvy community with unorthodox community planning methods. By the time the project had found its way through the Marin County planning process in April, 1995, it had been thoroughly tra :sformed. However, both developers and community mem- bers were smiling and shaking hands. This is the story of how a community took hold of its destiny through cooperation and comprehensive planning. A 1978 Community Plan for this scenic area north of San Francisco had recommended preserv- ing the rural flavor, vast open spaces, and commu- nity character defined by the valley's four diverse clustered villages. Armed with this document, a group of activists decided the best way to respond to the French Ranch proposal was to design its own vision of development for this property. The group established a few clear guidelines: • It would follow basic principles of sustainability, including respect for the land and its ecosystems, reductions in the use of resources, recycling of wastes, and promotion of sustainable activities. • It would be as inclusive as possible, inviting all other community groups to participate, seeking their feedback and listening to other perspectives. • It would not demonize the developer, but would always leave room for Bruce Burman — a local res- ident and French Ranch's representative — to work wit hthecommunity. " order to truly He was invited to all y of the planning work- own destiny, a c0 shops.Thegroupsfre- must be able to get b quently exchanged information, resulting the "no development' in a positive relation- stance, and deer ship. sort of developm The community design process began really serve with a walk on the property — S60 acres of grassy slopes and wooded canyons. There, on a knoll overlooking the exist- ing horse ranch, two dozen people including Bur- man brainstormed possible uses for the land, rank- mg each according to priority. A steering committee was selected and different research categories established. People divided into teams. One group explored housing possibilities, studied census data, and tracked real estate sales prices. Another team went to work researching a biological wastewater treatment system. Local farmers put together a comprehensive proposal for its n intensive agriculture. Others gathered information on the property's streams, grasslands, and geology. A month later participants reconvened for a 12- hour design charerte. After a morning of intriguing reports from the committees, they broke into teams and worked with the map to determine the best locations for various elements, especially housing. In the end, stuffed with lasagna from the ' local bistro the activists worked ��. toward a con- \ o sensus position. �. Over the next month, a small group took this information and cre- aced a map and' accom- panying text with a short list of goals. This was then GO �/ s o taken out into the commu- ��t /� FO nity, with group members presenting the plan and getting feedback. When the final Environmental Impact Report on the developers' proposal came out, a second mini - charette was called and the final version of the maps and goals devised. This document was then taken into the community by volunteers who gath- ered 650 signatures (over 20 Ontr01 its percent of the population) on m m u n ity a petition. In its final plan the commu- eyond nit) proposed the same num- ber of homes as the develop - de what er, but clustered everything in or around the existing ranch ent will site, leaving the rest of the eeds property as open space. The community design combined duplexes and triplexes with single family homes. On the eastern end of the property it proposed using eight acres of prime agricultural soils for intensive farming. The horse ranch was moved slightly to the east near a restored wetlands. The local residents proposed creating a constructed - wetlands wastewater treatment system in a joint venture with the neighboring school. The treated water would be used to water the school's playing fields as well as for the project's landscaping. The community design was presented to the county's Planning Department for review alongside continued next page n Geronimo \/alley 1" IMUNITY BASED PLAN R THE FRENCH RANGH This community- developed alternative plan clusters all development at lower left, leaving most of the site as open space. NJ'J.o 4 1 c 1 7 C 1995 NJPA5EP 4 FRENCH RANCH continued from precious page the developer's plan. The county planner on the pro- ject, Scott Davidson, was delighted with the informa- tion and worked openly and cooperatively with com- munity representatives. To their amazement, the plan- ning department recommended merging the two plans, embracing the concept of clustered neighborhoods over the developer's desire for large, isolated houses, The county also recommended a maximum aggregate squ. >re footage on the developm.:,t in recognition of the communiry's desire to limit the size of the houses rather than the number of homes. Its formula would give the developer full buildout only if he reduced the siic of rile homes. While the volunteers didn't get the shared -wall houses that they wanted, the opportunity for diversity was encouraged. Davidson also embraced the commu- nity's idea of creating a wetlands to treat wastewater. Many other initia- tives were approved including dedi- cation of trails, open space management by the Open Space District, protection of grass- lands and wetlands, on -site affordable housing and an equestrian center. The planning depart- ment did not support the request for preser- vation of the prime soils, nor the community's desire to keep the eastern end of the property, which borders an important open space preserve, free of develop- ment. This was dune in deference to the developers' insistence that thest were the most valuable homesires on the property, ignoring the fact that the property was zoned fur agriculture in the first place. The planning commission moved the project even fur- ther in the community's direction by requesting more affordable housing and supporting the concept of cohousing. At the hearing 160 local residents showed up, including school kids and a chorus singing the prais- es of Mother Earth. The commission was duly. impressed, not only with the citizen's passion and orga- nization but with their knowledge of the land and posi tive suggestions. They were confounded that a commu- nit) could actually be able to say "yes" to development. The plan was then sent on to the Board of Supervi- sors and some serious negotiations. The activists chose one of their own, Steve Kinsey, to act as their represen- tative in negotiations. Kinsey had been hiking this prop- erty for years and knew every inch of the land. As an architect he was trained in design and planning and was a skilled and accomplished diplomat. In the eleventh hour, Kinsey and Burman worked out a new idea to use a state law allowing a density bonus for low- income housing to create more opportunities for diversity and affordability. And Bruce finally pulled out his trump card: open space dedication. Only one local group decided to hold out and not sign the deal, choosing to he the standard bear- er for the original community -based plan of agri- culture and attached housing. But the six other groups went into the Supervisors' hearing with a signed deal supported by the m.tjurity of the com- iounity representatives. It was an his toric occasion and everyone knew it. As three of the four supervi- .:ors said aye, the room erupted in cheer,. The French Ranch process broke ground in many areas. From its limitations on total square fourage to the biological wastewater treatment, from the cordial and friendly relationship with the developer to the cooperation from the county, the San Geron- imo Valley has forged a very new way of looking at development. In order to truly control its own des- tiny, a community must be able to get beyond the "no development" stance, and decide whar sort of development will really serve its needs. Former UE board member Wlendi l jlhn, helped create the community design for French Ranch. HALCYON COMMONS continued from page 3 The grassroots planning effort for Halcyon Com- mons involved more then SO local residents. Com- mons- building offered a motivating and positive focus for residents that crisis - driven actions like "crime - watch" or earthquake preparedness could not. In addition to creating the park, neighbors have banded together to dig up sidewalks, plant 23 street trees, and hold four -block collective yard sales two years in a row. Flowers have mysteriously appeared around many of the street trees, and the streets have become cleaner. Most important, neighbors have gotten to know one another and have shown greater concern for each other. The immediate crime rare has coinci- dentally declined over the past year. Halcyon Commons shows how residents can take responsibility for planning the future of their neigh- borhood. It's a collective statement that "I care about the community." In this partnership approach to neighborhood design, citizens, city staff, and local businesses have worked together to create a model for future park improvements and urban greening efforts. For more information, contact the author at (510) 849.1969. John Steere is a resident of Halycon Court and a planner for the Contra Costa Water District. i NEW PATTERNS OF GROWTH TO FIT THE NEW CALIFORNIA al fo171ia is at a unique atld unprecedented polllt in Its histoi) —a point at which we face profound questions about owrfiaw growth that will determine the state's economic vitality and quality of life for the nett gener- ation and beyond. One of the most fundamental questions we face is whether California can afford to support the pattern of urban and suburban development, often referred to as "sprawl," that has characterised its growth suite World «gar II. There is no question that this pat- tern of growth has helped fuel California's unparalleled economic and population boom, and that it has enabled millions of Californians to real- ize the enduring dream of home owner- ship. But as we approach the 21st century, it is clear that sprawl has creat- ed enormous costs that California can no longer afford. Ironically, unchecked sprawl has shifted from an engine of California's growth to a force that now threatens to inhibit growth and degrade the quality of our life. This report, sponsored by a diverse coalition of organizations, is meant to serve as a call for California to move beyond sprawl and rethink the way we will grow in the future. This is not a new idea, but it is one that has never been more critical or urgent. Despite dramatic changes in California over the last decade, traditional devel- opment patterns have accelerated. Urban job centers have decentralized to the suburbs. New housing tracts have moved even deeper into agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas. Private auto use continues to rise. This acceleration of sprawl has sur- faced enormous social, environmental and economic costs, which until now have been hidden, ignored, or quietly bome by society. The burden of these costs is becoming very clear. Businesses suffer from higher costs, a loss in work- er productivity, and underutilized investments in older communities. California's business climate becomes less attractive than surround- ing states. Suburban residents pay a heavy price in taxation and automobile expenses, while residents of older cities and suburbs lose access to jobs, social stability, and political power. Agri- culture and ecosystems also suffer. There is a fundamental dynamic to growth, whether it be the growth of a community or a corporation, that evolves from expansion to maturity. The early stages of growth are often exuberant and unchecked —that has certainly been the case in post -World War 1I California. But unchecked growth cannot be sustained forever. At some point this initial surge must mature into more managed, strategic growth. This is the point where we now stand in California. We can no longer afford the luxury of sprawl. Our demographics are shift- ing in dramatic ways. Our economy is restructuring. Our environment is under increasing stress. We cannot shape California's future successfully unless we move beyond sprawl. This is not a call for limiting growth, but a call for California to be smarter about how it grows —to invent ways we can create compact and effi- cient growth patterns that are responsive to the needs of people at all income levels, and also help maintain California's quality of life and economic competitiveness. SPONSOR'S NOTE 'This report suggests new ideas about how California can continue to grow while sill fostering the economic vitality and quality of life that makes it such a vibrant place to live and work. It is sponsored by a diverse coalition —the California Resources Agency, a government conservation agency; Bank of America, California's largest bank: Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area's citizen conservation and plarming organization; and the Low Income Housing Fund, a nonprofit organization dedicated to low- income housing. The fact that such a diverse group has reached consensus on the ideas in this report reflects how important the issue of growth is to all Californians. We hope this report will make a meaningful contribution to the public dialogue about the quality and direction of California's growth in the 21 st century. "Even as our econonly and our society are being reinvented daily, we continue to abandon people and investments ill older communities as development leap- frogs ozit to fringe areas to acconllnodate another generation of lox'- density living." 0 "Continued sprawl may seent inexpensive for a new homebuyer or a growing business on the suburban fringe, but the ultimate cost —to those homeowners, to the government, and to society at large —is potentially crippling." 0 "lVithin the last geltel'at1011, the pOStwar° formula for success has become overwhelmed by its ox'll consequences." BEYOND SPRAWL It is a tall order --one that calls for us to rise above our occasional isolation as individuals and interest groups, and , ,ddress these profound chalierages as a community. All of us— government agen- cies, businesses, community organizations and citizens —play a role. Our actions should be guided by the following goals: ■ To provide more certainty in determining where new devel- opment should and should not occur. ■ To make more efficient use of land that has already been developed, including a stror:g foc... on job creation and housii -g in established urban areas. ■ To establish a legal and procedural framework that will create the desired certainty and send the right economic signals to investors. ■ To build a broad -based constituency to combat sprawl that includes environmentalists, community organizations, businesses, farmers, government leaders and others. Californians are already taking some of these steps. We have attempted in this report to not only point out the obstacles to sustained growth, but also to highlight the positive actions that are occurring to better manage growth. Our fundamental message is that we must build on these early suc- cesses and take more comprehensive and decisive steps over the next few years to meet this challenge. To build a strong, vibrant economy and ensure a high quality of life for the 21st century, we must move beyond sprawl in the few remaining years of the 20th century. C alifornia is at the crossroads of change. Our economy is emerging from its worst downturn in 60 years —a downturn that has required nearly all of the state's major indus- tries to retool for greater competitiveness in a global marketplace. Our demographic profile is changing dramatically. New racial and immigration patterns are rapidly producing a truly multicultural society, creating a variety of related social and economic issues. At the same time, California has emerged as one of the most urbanized states in the union, as our metropolitan areas continue to grow in popu- lation and scale. In the face of this change, California remains shackled to costly patterns of sub- urban sprawl. Even as our economy and our society are being reinvented daily, we continue to abandon people and invest - rnn nts in older communities as develop- ment leap -frogs out to fringe areas to accommodate another generation of low - density living. And we continue to create communities that rely almost exclusively on automobiles for transportation. In short, the "new" California —with 32 million peop and coun'i rf.._i using land and other resources in much the same fashion as the "old" California, with only 10 mil - lior, peop:z* We cannot afford another generation of sprawl. As the Governor's Growth Management Council stated in a recent report: "What may have been possible with 10 or even 20 million people is simply not sustainable for a population of twice that much in the same space." Continued sprawl may seem inexpensive for a new homebuyer or a growing business on the suburban fringe, but the ultimate cost —to those homeowners, to the government, and to society at large —is potentially crippling. Allowing sprawl may be politically expe- dient in the short run, but in the long run it will make California economically uncom- petitive and create social, environmental and political problems we may not be able to solve. At a time when economic growth is slow and social tensions are high, it is easy to dismiss an issue like suburban sprawl as superfluous. Yet it lies at the heart of the very economic, social and environmental issues that we face today. Rapid population growth and economic change are occurrin,a in a state increasingly characterized by a limited supply of developable land, environmental stress at the metropolitan fringe, and older communities in transition. With the onset of economic recovery, the next few years will give rise to land -use decisions of fundamental importance. They will help determine whether our state can succeed in re- establishing the economic and social vitality that have made it such a successful place to live and work for more than 140 years. Suburban Sprawl and the "Old" California In the decades after World War II, California emerged as an economic and Political powerhouse, providing jobs. hous- ing and prosperity for most of its rapidly growing population. _• , y v. - voreri I e�'Irr'et - .. BEYOND SPRAWL n Underlying this success was a devel- opment pattern that emphasized expanding metropolitan areas, conversion of farmland and natural areas to residential use, and heavy use of the automobile. In the postwar era, this way of life worked for California. With a prosperous and land -rich state, most families were able to rise to the middle class and achieve the dream of home own- ership. Government agencies and private businesses were able to provide the infra- structure of growth —new homes, roads, schools, water systems, sewage treatment facilities, and extensions of gas and electric distribution. Within the last generation, however, this postwar formula for success has become overwhelmed by its own conse- quences. Since the 1970s, housing has become more expensive, roads have become more congested, the supply of developable land has dwindled, and, because of increasing costs, government agencies have not been able to keep up with the demand for public services. Since the late 1970s, several efforts have been initiated to address the question of how to manage California's growth, but all have failed —some for lack of consen sus, some for lack of engaged constituency, some simply because of bad timing. 4�� Elhl,"l1t�FGHNIA; n the 1990s, California is undergoing change of such scale and significance that it will literally redefine the state. To succeed, the new California must recog- nize and build upon the following changes in positive ways. Population Gronth California's population continues to grow at a remarkably fast pace. Today's total of approximately 32 million people represents a doubling of the population since the mid - 1960s, when California became the nation's most populous state. During the boom years of the 1980s, California added more than 6 million new residents, a population larger than all but a few of the 49 other states. Even during the bust years of the early 1990s, the state's population grew at a rate of almost a half - million people per year —in effect, adding another Oakland or Fresno every year — even as we have suffered a net loss in the number of jobs. This continuing surge in population puts pressure on both existing communities and on the remaining supply of undevel- oped land, making it extremely difficult for traditional suburban patterns to accommo- date more people. Changing Demographics While growing rapidly, California's popu- lation is also changing in significant ways. The demographic changes are well docu- mented. Latinos —whose roots extend to Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean —are growing rapidly in number and may outnumber Anglos a gen- eration from now. Californians of Asian ancestry now make up almost 10 percent of the population. African - Americans remain an important racial group, and the state's mosaic is rounded out by Native Americans, immigrants from South Asia and the Middle East, and others who bring great diversity to the state. California is truly one of the world's most multicultural societies. Underneath the racial diversity lies another important change in the state's population patterns that will have a profound effect on California's attitudes toward growth over the next generation. Traditionally, the popular perception has been that California's population grows because of migration from other parts of the United States. However popular, this perception is no longer true. Most new Californians now come from other coun- tries, principally in Latin America and Asia. The birth rate is also an increasing source of population growth. During the 1990s recession, "natural increase" —the net total of births over deaths —has accounted for almost 400,000 new people each year. Tomorrow's California will include —for the first time —a vast pool of people who are Californians from birth. They will want what Californians before them have wanted —education, jobs and housing. Most will expect the state to find a way to accommodate them. But their numbers are so huge that they probably cannot be sustained by traditional suburban development patterns. "California's continuing surge W population puts pressure on both existing communities and on the remaining supply of undeveloped land, making it extremely difficult for traditional suburban patterns to accommodate more people." 0 "Tomorrow's California will include for the first time —a vast pool of people who are Californians from birth. They will want what Californians before their have wanted — education, jobs and housing." Economic Change During the recession, California has undergone an unprecedented economic restructuring. The state has lost 400,000 a�. ,. BEYOND SPRAWL manufacturing jobs since 1990, causing traditional suburban development patterns " Easy m obili t y for the I businesses and workers alile to rethink old have continued. In a state with such power - assumptions about how to ensure prosperity. ful growth dynamics, the results are aston- m iddle class has caused Traditional foundations of the state's ishing• The following trends are typical of economy, such as aerospace and dctense, the effects of sprawl over the last 10 to the171 to abandon Illally have been drastically reduced and will 20 years: probably never return, at least not in their older neighborhoods, previous form. Others —such as entertain- ■ Employment centers have decen- disrupting social ment, technology, the garment industry and agriculture— remain just as important as tralized dramatically. While jobs stability an il)CY8asl11 l' ever. But they too have undergone tremen- dous used to be concentrated in central cities, most are now created in the change, becoming leaner and more the economic disparity efficient in response to global competition. newer suburbs. For example, the complex And small businesses remain the largest of office centers around : older source of new job creation. I the near John Wayne Airport in Orange - future, the impact of the Nord American C ounty —built on taW that w•a., untat C017117tIlIlltleS and Free Trade Agreement will begin to be fel a generation ago, cultivated for lima These economic changes are also beans— recently surpassed downtown newer s u burbs." putting pressure on the state's land use pat- San Francisco as the second - largest _ terns. The loss of manufacturing jobs is employment center in the state. emptying out the state's long- established M New housing tracts have pushed industrial areas, usually located in older deeper into agricultural and envi- communities. Downsizing and technolo ronmentally sensitive areas. Job _ cal change in other industries is also ren- centers in suburban San Jose and the Bering older buildings obsolete and creat- East Bay area have opened up Tracy, " The decentralization of ing a demand for new buildings -- -often in Manteca, Modesto, and other Central gobs has hit older new suburbs —that are both inexpensive Valley towns as "bedroom suburbs," and flexible. The closure of many military while job growth in the San neighborhoods bases is bringing a huge amount of land to Fernando Valley has stimulated the real estate market that will either housing construction 40 miles to the especially har because extend sprawl or encourag , e new north in the Antelope Valley. This development patterns, depending on how development has created metropolis - hell' jobs are ltOlt' that land is used. es virtually unmanageable in size. virt ually inaccessible to Spreading Urbanization In response to both demographic and eco 0 Dependence on the automobile has the poor and the nomic pressure, California has become the increased. According to the California Energy Commission. working class." most urbanized state in the union. According to the 1990 Census, more than between ]970 and 1990 the state's 80 percent of all Californians live in metro- population grew by 50 percent, but politan areas of 1 million people or more, the total number of miles traveled by with 30 percent of the state's population cars and trucks grew by 100 percent. living in Los Angeles County alone. Isolation of older communities, This large -scale urbanization means including central cities and "first that California's people and businesses wave" suburbs built in the 1940s " The The engine of Sprawl compete intensely with each other for and 1950s, has increased. Easy to live and work. The edges of mobility for the middle class has is fueled by a mi Of metropolitan areas continue to grow to caused them to abandon many older accommodate expansion of population and neighborhoods, disrupting social sta- indivi choices, economic activity, while some neglected bility and increasing the economic ma1'liet forces, and inner -city areas are left behind. These patterns increase the stress of daily life disparity between older communities and newer suburbs. The decentral- govel'nmellt policies, w•hile, at the same time, put more pressure on land and environmental resources at the ization of jobs has hit older neigh - borhoods especially hard, because 1710St Of which Ilave metropolitan fringe. new jobs are now virtually inaccessi ble to the poor and the work ino only become more ,l '�' 1 - 1 ' 1' � tE ' yy ' It i`y�'� " class. Also left behind are infrastruc- elltrellched over tulle. A increased Il of these factors — a growing pop ulation, a changing economy, ture investments, which are tremen dously expensive to replicate in new and urbanization — have been suburbs. present in California for many years. But Even though the consequences of sprawl they have accelerated in the 1990s. while have been understood for at leapt two decades, BEYOND SPRAWL attempts to combat it have been fragmented ' and ineffective. The engine of sprawl is fueled by a mix of individual choices, market forces, ' and government policies, most of which have only become more entrenched over time. These forces include: 1 ■ A perception that new suburbs are safer and more desirable than existing communities. Many people believe that suburbs provide them with good value —safe streets, neigh- borhood schools, a "small- town" atmosphere, close proximity to their local governments, and new (though not necessarily better) community infrastructure. ■ A perception that suburbs are cheaper than urban alternatives. Owning a starter home in a distant new suburb is still within the finan- cial reach of a typical family, despite the increased commuting costs. The family's financial equation, howev- er, does not take into account the larger cost to society of far -flung suburbs —a cost the family will eventually share in paying. ■ A belief that suburban communities will give businesses more flexibility to grow. Businesses welcome the tax incentives and freedom from heavy regulation that are often provided in newer suburban commu- nities trying to develop a strong business base. Businesses also view suburban locations as safer —a view reflected in the cost of insurance — and they perceive they will have access to a better-educated work force. ■ Technological changes that have decentralized employment away from traditional centers. This phenomenon permits dispersal of both jobs and houses across a huge area. The emergence of the "infor- mation superhighway" may acceler- ate this trend. ■ Highway and automobile subsidies that have traditionally fueled sub- urban growth remain in place today. Since the 1950s, automobile use has been encouraged by govern- ment- financed road - building pro- grams, and for the most part the "external costs" of automobile use i.e., air pollution) have not been the direct financial responsibility of the individual motorist. • Local land -use policies that inad- vertently cause sprawl. In many older suburban communities, "slow - growth" attitudes restrict new devel- opment, pushing employment and housing growth to the metropolitan fringe. With a lack of regional plan- ning, each community pursues its own self- interests, regardless of costs imposed on other communities. • Fiscal incentives that encourage local governments to "cherry - pick" land uses based on tax con- siderations. Under Proposition 13's property -tax limitations, there is lit- tle fiscal incentive for many commu- nities to accept affordable housing — and when such housing is built, developers must usually pay heavy development fees. Meanwhile, because communities must raise rev- enues to provide mandated services, auto dealers and retailers, both big sales -tax producers, receive subsi- dies to locate in communities. The result of all these factors is a severe regional imbalance. Housing, jobs. shopping. and other activities are scattered across a huge area and long auto trips are often required to connect them. Such a development pattern imposes a considerable cost on all who use it. though the costs are often hidden and those who pay them are not always aware of it. lWAWbN1:1 :to-.t hits) .1J:I.%I,4 ' T he cost and consequences of sprawl have been documented among acad- emics and planning experts for more than two decades. In the early 1970s. plan- ning consultants Lawrence Livingston and John Blayney produced a landmark study showing that in some cases, a California community would be better off financially if it used a combination of zoning and land acquisition instead of permitting develop- ment of low- density subdivisions. A few years later, the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality produced its land- mark report, The Cost of Sprawl —the first comprehensive analysis of sprawl's true expense to society. As fiscal and cost -bene- fit analysis techniques have become more refined, the true cost of sprawl has become much more apparent. Today, no one in California is unaffect- ed by the cost of sprawl. Its consequences spread across all groups, regardless of geography, race, income, or political status. "Housing, jobs, shopping, and other activities are scattered across a huge area and long auto trips are often required to connect them. Such a development pattern imposes a considerable cost on all who use it, though the costs are often hidden and those who pay them are not always aware of it." 0 "Today, no one in California is unaffected by the cost of sprawl. Its consequences spread across all groups, regardless of geography, race, income, or political status." Fi EXEC -6776 1.55 i► Recycled �w Paper r Q: Is neotraditional town planning a good alternative? poking to the past for inspiration, many land use professionals have be- gun to espouse the merits of neotra- ditional town planning, with its mix of uses, grid street patterns, and compact lots, as an antidote to automobile- dependent conven- tional suburban development. In last month's issue of Urban Land, Marc Hochstein re- viewed several books that call on land use professionals to reassess suburban develop- ment practices. A series of articles in Urban Land by Lloyd W. Bookout explains the basic con- cepts of neotraditional town planning and compares them with conventional postwar suburban development. Bookout identifies and explores the key planning anti design considerations surrounding neotraditional planning, namely: land use mix, density, street patterns, pedestrian circulation, open spaces, architectural character, and sense of community. Bookout provides a balanced account of neotraditional plan- ning, relating both its merits and limita- tions in the marketplace. William Winburn IZ' discusses his expe- riences with the team developing Kentlands, a traditional neighborhood development in Gaithersburg, Maryland. VVinburn describes the inherent difficulties such a project faces when it confronts regulatory and economic systems designed to accommodate suburban planned unit developments. In Towns and Town- Alaking Principles, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater - Zyberk (who are among the neotraditional town planning movement's earliest and best - known spokespeople) discuss the fundamental prin- ciples behind neotraditional planning and of- fer design examples from more than a dozen developments with which they have been in- volved. ]'he book is illustrated with maps, photos, and site plans for these projects, and also includes a discussion of regulatory codes in neotraditional developments. The Pedestrian Pocket Book is the result of a week -long design charrette spearheaded by Peter Calthorpe and held at the Univer- sity of Washington. The charrette was con- vened to produce a plan for a 90 -acre site in Auburn, Washington, that would include 56 UjLan Land • Alovc7nbrt 1994 residential, commercial, and back -office de- velopment using a suburban development strategy called pedestrian pockets (which the book defines as "simple clusters of housing, retail space and offices within a quarter -mile walking radius of a transit system. ") The book describes the four proposals produced by the charrette. Peter H. Brown discusses the develop- ment of Four Mile Creek, a neotraditional project in Boulder, Colorado. lie describes the economic and social advantages that neo- traditional town planning can offer by com- paring conventional subdivision development with the neotraditional design adopted at Four ;Mile Creek. John Schleimer relates the results of a survey of homebuyers in four popular neotraditional communities. More than 8.1 percent of owners at three of the communi- ties (Kentlands, Harbor Town, and Laguna West) said they would prefer their same homes in a neotraditional community rather than in a conventional subdivision. —David A. Mulvihill David A. A9mlvihill is an information specialist in ULI's Development Information Service. I I I M" .. ee ryL a ,.. s 11--11.1 1 ..r Ah References Bookout, Uoyd W. "Neotraditional Town Planning: A New Vrsion for the Suburbs." Urban Land, January 1992, pp. 20-26. "Neotraditional Town Planning: Cars, Pedestrians, and Transit." Urban Land February 1992, pp. 10-15. . "Neotraditional Town Planning: Bucking Conventional Codes and Standards." Urban Land, April 1992, pp.18 -25. . "Neotraditional Town Planning: The Test of the Marketplace." Urban Land, June 1992, pp. 12 -11. . "Neotraditional Town Planning: Toward a Blending of Design Approaches" Urban Land, August 1992, pp. 14 -19. Brown, Peter H. "The Economics of Traditional Neighbor- hoods: Competing for theZonom Line with Conven- tional Subdivisions -A Case Study of Four Mile Creek" Land Development, Fag 1993, pp. 20-24. Duarry, Andres, and Gizabeth Plater - Zyberk. Towns and Town -making Principles. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University School cf Design, 1991. 120 pp. Hochstein, Marc. "A New Urbanist Library." Urban Land, October 199.4, pp. 79 -81. The Pedestrian Pocket Book New York Princeton Archi- tectural Press, 1989.68 pp. Schleimer, John. "Market Research: Buyers of Homes in Neotraditional Communities Voice Their Opinions." Land Development, Spring/Summer 1993, pp. 4-6. Winbum, Wliam A, IV. The Development Realities of Traditional Town Design." Urban Land, August 1991, pp. 20-21, 47. For additional references and a copy of many of the above - mentioned articles, as well as others, see "Neotraditional Planning," ULI InfoPacket #338 tav - able at $49 for UU members, $61 for nonmembers).