The URL can be used to link to this page

1f Livable Communities Act 2000CITYOF CHAN Er 2 Citr Ce,terDfitv, PO 3ox 147 ?l~,mham,, Mi,,esota 5~317 Pho,v 612. ~3 Z 1900 Ge,cml ~.r 612.937. 5~9 )~gi, eefi,~ 32v 612. 93 Z 9152 ~blic 5,¢[?' t-;t.x' 612. MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community DevelopmentD~rector.,,'~ ~ .... ,?_.~_r, DATE: December 6, 1999 SUB J: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Goals Agreement Background In 1995, the city agreed to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The city stated that they reserved the right to negotiate these goals every two years. Attached are the goals that were last revised and approved in 1998. This resolution is agreeing to pmlicipate. The goals have not changed. The goals are negotiated every 2 years. They will be reevaluated next year (2000). They are attached for your review. As a part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the housing element was updated. Participation in the Livable Communities Act is a part of the city's housing policy. There were several public hearings held on the Comprehensive Plan. I am confident the housing goals and policies adopted by the City and approved by the Metropolitan Council reflect the community's values. The 1999 Strategic Plan also supports "housing diversity" including several action steps. Agreement to participate in the LCA is consistent with the city's adopted Comprehensive and Strategic Plan. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the 2000 Livable Communities Act Housing Goals Agreement. Attachments 2. 3. 4. Resolution Housing Goals Background on LCA Staff report on LCA and Action Plan CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2000 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statues Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Mim~esota Statues section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycling housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions of the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program may do so by the end of the calendar year each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 2000, a metropolitan area municipality that participated in the Local, Housing Incentives Account Program during the calendar year 1999, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statues section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 2000. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day of December, 1999. ATTEST: Scott Botcher, City Clerk/Manager YES NO Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor ABSENT HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES Tile City of Chanhassen supports: I. A balanced housing supply, xvith housing available for people of all income levels. o The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people itl all stages of the life-cycle. A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Housing development that respects tile natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate tile need for a variety of'housing types and costs. The availability cfa full range oFservices and Facilities £or its residents, and the improvement of access to an linka,,e= between housina· ~ and employment. GO.-\LS To carry out the above }~ousing principles, the City of Chanhassen agrees to rise the benchmark indicators for communities of' similar location and stage oFdcvelopmcnt as affordable and lifo- 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 Chanhasscn reserves tile right to negotiate the goals after 2 years. Chanhasscn agrees that tile Metropolitan Council will use other market indicators to evaluate goals. These indicators nlay include land prices, interest rates, cost of construction, and environmental Factors including trees and wetlands. Cit?' Index I Benchnmrk I Goal AfFordability Ownership 37% 60-69% 30% Rental 44% 35-37% 35% Life-Cycle Type (Non-single family detached) 19% 35-37% 34% 1991 Comp Plan Owner/Renter Mix 85/15% 67-75/25-33% 90/10 Density Single-Family Detached 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 1.8 Multi Family I 1/acre 10-14/acre 9-10 Chanhassen Affordable Housing Goals Progress under the Livable Communities Act Goals Long term Goals Results Percent of Long- 1995-2010 To-Date Term Goals Owner -Occupied New Construction 1,562 units 475 units 30% Rental New Construction 202 units 39 units 19 % Total 1,764 units 514 units 29% Owner Occupied New Construction Project Year Units Mission Hills 1995 200 North Bay 1995 35 Autumn Ridge 1996 112 Walnut Grove 1997 128 Total 475 Rental New Construction Year Units Project Centennial Hills 1996 39 Total 39 These numbers are based on the current housing goals that were adopted as a part of the Livable Communities Act and the Comprehensive Plan. The goals have changed since the city first agreed to participate. Assuming a 90/10 owner/rental mix of the projected 5,784 dwelling units; 30% of the owner occupied (5,206 units) were to meet the standards for affordability and. 35% of the rental units (578 units) were to meet the standards for affordability. LCA Progress Report Page 2 City financial assistance to date has been on two projects one rental and one owner occupied. Centennial Hills Land Acquisition $100,000 Approximately $300,000 is being held in escrow should the a project short fall occur (30 years) · All units subsidized at approximately $1,500 (no property taxes) · Subsidy approximately $61,199 per unit). This subsidy is based on tax forgiveness. This project pays $28,000 a year in taxes versus a market rate project would pay approximately $130,000. ((Example $130,000- $28,000=$102,000/65 units=l,569 tax per unit * 39 affordable units = $61,199.00)) North Bay · $700,000 (not including interest) subsidy of 35 units through the HRA for the creation of a housing district · 18 units will be for first time homebuyers ($95,000) · 17 units will be affordable by the LCA standards (under $120,000) · Subsidy approximately $20,000. 12-83-1996 8:3BAN FRON P. 2 MUNICIPALITIES ELECTING TO PARTICII?ATE IN THE METROPOLITA.N LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM 1999 Ad~OKA COUNTY Anoka Blaine Centerville Circle Pines Columbia Heights Coon Rapids Fridley Hilltop Lexington Linc Lakes Oak Grove Ramsey St, Francis Spring Lake Park C,~VER COUNTY Carver Chanhassen Chaska Cologne Hamburg Mayer New Gem~any Norwood/Young America Victoria Waoorti a Watertown DAKOTA COUNU[3-r Apple Valley Bumsvillc Farmington Hastings Inver Grove Hgts, Lakeville Mendota Hgts. Rosemount So. St. Paul Sunfish Lake W. St. Paul ttENNEPIN .COUNTY Bloomington Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Corcorall Crystal Dayton Eden Prairie Edlna Excelsior Golden Valley Hopkins Independence Long Lake Maple Grove Medina Minneapolis Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound New Hope Orono Osseo Plymouth Richfield Robbinsdale Rogers St. Anthony St. Bonifacius St. Louis Park Wayzata RAMSEY Arden I-Iills Falcon Heights Lauderdale Little Canada Maplewood Mounds View New Brighton North Oaks North St. Paul. Roseville St. Paul Shoreview Vadnais Heights White Bear Twp. White Bear Lake SCOTT COUNTY Belle Plaine Jordan Prior Lake Savage Shakopee WASItXNGTON COUNTY Aftorl Bayport Cottage Grove Lake Elmo Lake St. Croix Beach Landfall Newport Oakdale Oak Park Heights St. Paul Park. Stillwater Willemie Woodbury v:klibraryk:ommundv 'klo-utjerklca kpar199.doc LIVABLE COMMUNITIES 'QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. What is the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act? The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act ("Act") was enacted in June 1995 and is the Legislature's attempt to address various issues facing the seven-county metropolitan area. The Act establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which consists of three accounts: the Tax Base Revitalization Account; the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and the Local Housing Incentives Account. Metropolitan municipalities are not required to participate in the programs under the Act, but the Act provides incentives and funding to those municipalities that do participate. 2. What is the incentive to participate? The benefits are clear. Cities, towns and, in some cases, count&s have access to resources that will improve their communities and neighborhoods. In addition, the legislation puts local units of govern- ment in the driver's seat. Communities can not only choose whether to participate; they also have flexibility in determining how they're going to use the resources available. 3. What is the incentive to provide lower-cost housing in our community? Affordable housing is an investment in communities and their residents. It fulfills a commitment to young families, single people and older residents that they can find a home they can afford in the com- munity of their choice. ,, 9, 4. What are affordable housing and "life-cycle" housing? Housing is "affordable" if it costs no more than 30percent of a family's income. For ownership hous- ing this income amount is 80 percent of median, an amount that in 1994 could afford a home costing approximately $H5,000. For rental housing this income is 50percent of median. In 1990 this was approximately $500 per month. "Life-cycle" housing refers to housing available for people at all stages of their lives, offering a choice and variety of housing types and cost to accommodate people's changing needs and preferences as their incomes and circumstances change. 5. What are the affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities amount? The Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount ("ALHOA amount") is an amount, established by formula in the Act, that a participating municipality must spend to create affordable and life-cycle housing or to maintain existing affordable and life- cycle housing. A participating municipality's ALHOA amount is established each year. 6. Does the ALHOA amount have to be a property tax levy? No. The ALHOA amount can be derived from a levy, or it can be derived from fundsfrom another source. Regardless of the source of funds for the municipality's ALHOA amount, a participating munici- pality that did not meet its negotiated affordable and life- cycle housing goals, and did not spend 85 percent of its ALHOA amount to create affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities in the previous year, must distribute the entire ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority to create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities in the municipality, or to the Metropolitan Council for distribution through the Local Housing Incentives Program. 7. If my municipality elects by November 15, 1995, to participate in the Local Housing Incen- tives Account Program, must the municipality spend an ALHOA amount in calendar year 19967 No. Because of various timing provisions in the Act, the ALHOA amount requirement does not apply until your municipality's election to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program made by November 15, 1996, for calendar year 1997. 8. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995, but is unable to agree on housing goals with the Metropolitan Council, must the municipality participate in the program? No. A municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program unless two conditions have been met: a. The municipality has elected to participate in the program; and b. The Metropolitan Council and the municipality have negotiated and agreed on affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality. If the municipality and the Metropolitan Council do not successfully negotiate housing goals, your municipality may not participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 9. Must my municipality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? No. Participation in the program is voluntary, but a municipality that does not participate may at some later time elect to participate in the program. However, a municipality which later elects to participate must establish that it has spent or agrees to spend on affordable and life-cycle housing an amount equivalent to what it would have spent on affordable and life-cycle housing had goals been established for the period in which the municipality was not participating. 10. If my municipality has met its housing goals in the previous calendar year, may my munici- pality participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program? Yes. However, your municipality will not be eligible to receive grants from the Local Housing Incentives Account Program if it met its affordable and life-cycle housing goals. Your municipality still will be eligible for grants and loans under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account programs. 11. What if my municipality chooses not to participate in the Local Housing incentives Ac- count Program? Municipalities that elect not to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program are not eligible to participate in the Tax Base Revitalization Account and Livable Communities Demonstration Account programs under the Act. The Metropolitan Council is required by the Act to take into account your municipality's participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program when making discretionary funding decisions. In addition, your municipality will not be eligible to apply for funds under the Department of Trade and Economic Development's polluted sites clean-up program if your municipality is not participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 12. If my municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program, but does not have the capacity to create additional affordable and life- cycle housing opportunities, can my municipality give its ALHOA amounts to other municipalities to meet negotiated housing goals? Yes. A municipality that has negotiated housing goals, but might not have adequate resources to create or maintain affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities still could be considered a participating mu- nicipality. However, the municipality would be required to distribute its ALHOA amount to the Metro- politan Council for distribution to other participating municipalities or distribute its ALHOA amount to a local housing and redevelopment authority for creating affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities within the municipality. The Act permits municipalities to enter into agreements with adjacent municipali- ties to cooperatively provide affordable and life-cycle housing. The Metropolitan Council will work with municipalities to help municipalities create affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities and avail themselves of the incentives and funding available under the Act and from other sources. 13. ' If my municipality is using local resources to make payments on a mortgage for an afford- able or life-cycle housing opportunity created prior to the Act, can these resources count toward expenditures of the municipality's ALHOA amount? Yes. As long as the use of the funds is directly related to your municipality's efforts to meet its afford- able and life-cycle housing goals, these local resources can be considered an expenditure of ALHOA amounts. 14. Are the goals for affordable and life-cycle housing, as proposed by the Metropolitan Coun- cil, achievable? The goals proposed by the Metropolitan Council are intended to be "long-term" goals. Your munici- pality will establish an action plan that identifies the steps your municipality intends to take to move toward its long-range goals. Beginning in 1998, your municipality's annuaI progress in meeting its negotiated affordable and life-cyclehousing goals will be measured against the annual goals your municipality sets forth its action plan. Progress toward the goals will depend on private marketplace efforts, the availability of affordable and life-cycle housing resources and the use of local controls to create an environment to meet goals. 15. Do the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set housing goals annually? No. The Act envisions negotiated housing goals as a one-time process. That is why the goals are long term in nature. The Metropolitan Council will propose affordable and life-cycle housing goals that encourage your municipality to address key housing benchmarks. 16. After the Metropolitan Council and a municipality negotiate and set affordable and life- cycle housing goals for the municipality, what happens next? The municipality must prepare an action plan that describes how it intends to meet its negotiated goals. The municipality has until June 30, 1996, to submit the action plan to the Metropolitan Council. 17. Does the Metropolitan Council have to approve the action plan? The Act does not require the Metropolitan Council to approve a municipality's action plan. However, the Metropolitan Council will comment on the plan's content in relation to the negotiated goals that have been established, and it will attempt to identify potential resources available to the municipality to help the municipality meet its negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals. 18. What should the action plan look like? The suggested format will be modeled after the one used for the housing element of your comprehensive plan. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1996 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livab_le Communities Act (1995 Minnesota Laws Chapter 255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentives Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup finding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each munici- pality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, by June 30, 1996, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council must adopt, by resolution after a public heating, the negotiated affordable and life- cycle housing goals for each municipality by January 15, 1996; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Pro- gram must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 1996, a metropolitan area municipality can participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 only if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1995; Co) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; and (c) by January 15, 1996 the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each municipality; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the [specific municipality] hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during calendar year 1996. By: By: Mayor Clerk Funding Accounts The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (MN Stat. Ch. 473,25) created the Livable Communities Fund, consisting of three accounts: · The Tax Base Revitalization Account, which provides grants for polluted site cleanup; The Livable Communities Demonstration Account, designed to fund a variety of community development projects through loans or grants; and The Local Housing Incentives Account, which provides grants to help cities work toward affordable and life cycle housing goals through a voluntary program. Criteria, by law, for the fund (all three accounts) include: · Helping to change long-term market incentives that adversely impact creation and preservation of living-wage jobs in the region's fully developed area. · Creating incentives for developing communities to include a full range of housing opportunities. · Creating incentives to preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing in the fully developed area; and · Creating incentives for all communities to implement compact and efficient development. Each of the accounts is described on the following pages. gideline.pm5 8-16-95 ** DRAFT ** TAX BASE REVITALIZATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA Program Summary and Purpose: The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (MN Stat. Ch. 473.25) created a Tax Base Revitalization Account to make grants to clean up contaminated land for subsequent commercial/ industrial re-development, to make it available for economic redevelopment, job retention and job growth. Amount of Funds Available: Approximately $6.5 million in funds will be available for grants annually; grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Eligible Applicants: Statutory or home role charter cities that are participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Housing Incentives Program are eligible to apply; as are metropolitan counties (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott Washington) for projects in eligible communities. Eligible Uses of Funds: Eligible expenditures under this program include costs to implement an approved Re- sponse Action Plan (RAP) developed in conjunction with the MPCA for hazardous waste, or an abatement program meets requirements of the V-PIC program (for petroleum) or AHERA standards (for asbestos). Costs incurred in the preparation of the plan (e.g., investigating the extent and/or nature of contamination) are not eligible expendi- tm:es under this program. These funds may be used to provide a portion of the local match required for a grant from DTED's Contamination Cleanup Grant Program. Project Selection Criteria: The Metropolitan Council is required to consider certain factors in order to ensure the highest return in public benefits for the public costs incurred. In order to evaluate and rank applications, the following criteria will be assigned point values in order to systematically and fairly cOmpare the applications. Applications will be ranked according to the extent that the address the following: preserve and/or increase living wage jobs in the fully developed area; promote compact and efficient development; increase the tax base of the recipient municipality; represent innovative partnerships among government, private for-profit and non-profit sectors; are not eligible for clean-up funding from other public sources; will not require extensive new infrastructure (beyond that which is already planned); make more efficient use of currently underutilized public service capacity (e.g., roads and highways, transit, wastewater, utilities, telecommunications infrastructure, etc.); result in a net gain in jobs/industry for the region:, increase the number of living wage jobs in/near areas of concentrated poverty and demonstrate sensitivity to linkages with local residents; reflect demonstrated market demand for commercial/industrial land in the proposed site area; and are consistent with the redevelopment component of the municipality's comprehensive plan (in re: Minn. Stat. section 473.859, subd. 5). Application Cycle: Beginning in 1996 there will be two grant cycles per year: a spring cycle (RFPs in February, applications deadlines in May, and awards announced in July) and a fall cycle (RFP in September, application deadline in November and awards announced in January). If applications for grants exceed the available funds for an application cycle, no more than one-half of the funds may be granted to projects in a single city, and no more than three-quarters of the funds may be granted to projects located in cities of the first class. This program is being coordinated with complementary programs at the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and MN Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). Next Steps: Information workshops for this program and DTED's grant program are scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 7 (9:00 am - 12:00 noon), Maplewood City Hall, 1830 E. Co Road B in Maplewood; and Monday, Sept. 11 (I:00 pm - 4:00 pm), Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Rd. in Golden Valley. For more information contact Hal Freshley, Metropolitan Council staff, at 291-6467. 8/22/95 LCATOM.005 EXAMPLES SITE 1: City X is redeveloping a 6.9 acre parcel (formerly a tracking terminal) to create a new industrial park for light manufacturing. The PCA determined that there is extensive petroleum contamination on the site. Since petroleum does not qualify as a hazardous substance, the City applies to MC for $87,000 to pay for treatment of the removed soil. SITE 2: The former owner of this 17.5 acre site went bankrupt, leaving the site in public hands through tax forfeiture. The parcel is in a prime location, with good highway and rail access. An approved clean-up plan will cost $370,000. City Y applies to DTED for 50% of the clean-up cost, pays for 12% out of TIF funds, and applies to MC for the remaining 38% -- $140,600. SITE 3: Zymogen Laboratories in City Z has recently received a very large long-term contract, and will be increas- ing their workforce by 50%, however the company will need additional space for shipping and receiving if they stay at their current location. A parcel adjacent to their current site has a building on it that they could use as a ware- house, but the building has deteriorating asbestos insulation. City Z applies to MC for $12,000 to match the company's investment in removing the asbestos. 8/22/95 LCATOM.005 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA August 1995 Program Summary: The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 473.25) authorizes the Metropolitan Council to establish the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, and make grants · or loans for community development activities to municipalities participating in the Local Housing Incen- fives Program (Ch. 473.254) or to metropolitan area counties on behalf of participating Cities. Purpose: The Act states that the Account may be used for projects that: 1) link development or redevelopment with transit, 2) link affordable housing with employment growth areas, 3) intensify land use that leads to more compact development or redevelopment, 4) involve development or redevelopment that mixes incomes of residents in housing, including introducing higher value housing in lower income areas to achieve a mix of housing opportunities, or 5) encourage public infrastructure investments which connect urban neighborhoods and suburban communities, attract private sector redevelopment investment in commercial and residential properties adjacent to the public improvement, and provide project area residents with expanded opportunities for private sector employment. Amount of Funds Available: Approximately $4.6 million will be available in 1996, and $4.1 million in 1997 and subsequent years. Form of Award: Grants and loans. Grant and loan amounts and terms: To be determined. Eligible Applicants: Municipalities participating in the local housing incentives program. Location of Eligible Projects: Projects must be located in municipalities participating in the local housing incentives program. Eligible Uses of Grant and Loan Funds: Community development projects that meet the purposes of the account (as described above), and support the housing goals, principles for livable communities, or related policies in the 'Regional Blueprint. Eligible uses are expected to be site plans or other site-specific planning costs, design and consulting costs, and construction of demonstration projects. Uses not antici- pated to be eligible include comprehensive planning or other general planning costs. Projects could demonstrate new development, infill or redevelopment on large or small sites, in fully developed or developing communities. Components of proposed projects also could be eligible, and proposals that connect or integrate existing land uses. Mixed-use development proposals are encouraged. Innovation and creativity in project and site design are encouraged. It is expected that applicants could apply in different categories--e.g, new development, redevelopment, locating in proximity to each other or linking housing, jobs and transit. Number and type of categories to be determined. Project Selection Criteria: Priority will be given to proposals using innovative partnerships among government, private for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, and to projects that best meet the purposes in the law. Additional selection criteria will favor projects that result in livable communities. For example, projects that provide walkable, pedestrian-oriented areas; provide good access for transit use and safe, comfort- able places to wait for transit; broaden the mix of housing options (type and affordability level) in a community; foster a sense of place; provide a community or town center; incorporate design for safety in public or private spaces; and involve community residents and businesses in defining needs, desires, land use and design. Application Cycle: One or two cycles yearly, beginning in 1996. If two cycles occur per year, applica- tion deadlines would be in May and November, with awards announced in July and January. If one cycle, applications would be due in September, awards announced in December 1996. NEXT STEPS: TASKS: Finalize Project Criteria, building on criteria in the Livable Communities Act and in the Regional Blueprint. Consider whether priority should be given to certain proposals/locations. Determine Uses of Fund, which uses should receive grants, which should receive loans. In doing this, consider how best to leverage private investment with the available dollars. Discuss grant/loan amounts, terms. COMPLETED: October 1995 PROCESS: Hold roundtable discussions in September to get input from local staff and officials, developers and design practitioners, and others with an interest in livable communities, as well as informal input. Review local and national information sources, including successful models and projects. Consult with administrators of loan/grant programs. Participate in Department of Trade and Economic Development workshops (Sept. 7 and 11) on its contaminated site cleanup grant program, to explain the Demonstration Program, answer questions, get feedback. EXAMPLES Project A is on a portion of a redevelopment site in an older city that had been in industrial use. An adjacent area has been redeveloped as a small business park, providing space for small enterprises includ- ing a sign-making company. The city has been working to redevelop this site as a mixed-use housing and commercial area. The site has transit access along a major collector street that is adjacent to the site. It is close to an older employment concentration, providing jobs paying low to middle-income wages. The city applied for a loan and grant from the Demonstration Account to assist with the housing and commercial part of the project. The city plans to build townhouses and condominiums that will be afford- able to a variety of income levels. Along the collector street, the proposal calls for locating small busi- nesses providing neighborhood services such as a drugstore, convenience store and coffee shop. One business has told the city it will commit to the project, encouraged to do so by the 15 percent tax reduc- tion (enacted by the 1995 Minnesota Legislature) for locating along a transit line. Other businesses have also expressed interest. A small public square is planned in an area near the businesses and transit stop that will connect to the townhouses via a pedestrian walkway. The proposal also calls for rerouting a street from its original configuration to connect directly to the collector street, to allow better pedestrian accessibility to the bus stop and neighborhood businesses. This proposal received a $500,000 loan, as a match for the local contribution, to complete a financing package for the construction of 50 townhouses and two 3-story condominium buildings. The proposal also was awarded a $75,000 grant to undertake a process with community residents and businesses to develop and refine the project's design. 8/22/95 lcda.pm5 TASK: Develop Procedures, Application form(s), Timing of Loan/Grant Cycle, Selection Process. Decide whether to form a grant review committee, or conduct staff review based on predetermined criteria, with recommendations to the Livable Communities Advisory Committee. Discuss weighting system for selection criteria. Determine whether maximum loan/grant amounts should be set, and what those amounts should be. COMPLETED: December 1995 PROCESS: · Consult with staff administering other loan/grant programs, within and outside the Council. · Get input from local staff and officials, developers, others, through meetings described above and other discussions. If you have questions about the Livable Communities Demonstration Program, or to participate in roundtable discussions on the development of the program, contact Joanne Barron of the Metropolitan Council staff at 291-6385. 8/22/95 lcda.pm5 **DRAFT** LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA Program Summary: The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minn. Statutes Chapter 473.25) created the Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) which authorizes the Metropolitan Council to make grants to eligible municipalities to meet negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council. Purpose: The LHIA provides incentives for municipalities'to create and/or maintain affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities. Source and Amount of Available Funds: For 1996, $1,000,000 from the proceeds of solid waste bonds issued by the Council; for 1997 and each subsequent year, $500,000 from the Livable Communities Demon- stration Account; for 1998 and each subsequent year, $1,000,000 from' the Council's general levy. Beginning in 1998, the LHIA may receive funds from cities that have not met their negotiated housing goals and/or have not spent 85 percent of their Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA). The Council is working cooperatively to link the LHIA funds to those of other housing funders, e.g., the Minne- sota Housing Finance Agency, the Family Housing Fund and others; the potential pool for 1996 is $5.1 million. Grant Terms and Amounts: To be determined. Eligible Applicants: Any municipality in the seven-county region that (1) elects to participate in the LHIA program, i.e., negotiates affordable and life-cycle goals with the Council; (2) has its negotiated housing goals adopted by the Council; (3) identifies to the Council the actions it plans to take to meet the established hous- ing goals. Location of Eligible Projects: LHIA funds may be used for affordable and life-cycle housing projects in eligible, participating communities. Eligible Uses of Grant Funds: For certain costs associated with projects that help municipalities meet their housing goals, including, but not limited to acquisition, rehabilitation and construction of permanent afford- able and life-cycle housing. Projects proposing homeownership opportunities for families with low and moderate incomes are strongly encouraged. The LHIA funds must be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the municipality receiving the funds. Project Selection Criteria: The funds in the account must be distributed annually by the Council to munici- palities that have not met their affordable and life-cycle housing goals and are actively funding projects de- signed to help meet the goals. The legislation gives priority to those municipalities that: (1) have net fiscal disparities contributions of $200 or more per household; (2) demonstrate that the proposed project will link employment opportunities with affordable housing and life-cycle housing; (3) provide matching funds from a source other than its ALHOA; and (4) utilize innovative partnerships between government, private for-profit, and nonprofit sectors. The Council may take other criteria into consideration when determining whether an application will be selected, including (a) the documented need for the proposed type of residential housing in the proposed geographic area; (b) projects that serve families and children; (c) the relationship of the proposed development to public facilities, sources of employment, and services, including public transportation, health, education and recreation facilities; (d) participation in the Hollman settlement. Application Cycle: Annually, beginning in 1996. Applications for LHIA funds will be accepted from July through August, with final selection and award by the Council in October. Action Steps Over the next few months, staff intends to contact a number of parties (advocacy and professional groups) believed to have an interest in the design of the LHIA guidelines and criteria and application materials. Staff may also hold special informational sessions and contact staff at certain cities for input. Recommended guide- lines and criteria will be available in October. July/August/September 1995 Staff discussions of draft guidelines and criteria Discuss draft criteria and issues with the Metro HRA Advisory Committee Discuss mutual interests and possible linkages with the MHFA Discuss draft guidelines and criteria with the Housing Implementation GroUp Present draft guidelines and criteria to the LCAC Present draft guidelines and criteria to the CDC Staff meetings and negotiations with municipalities Meet with interested parties (e.g., advocates, professional organizations, etc.) October 1995 Develop recommended guidelines, criteria and application materials November 15, 1995 Cities must elect to participate in the LHIA program December 15, 1995 Submit recommended guidelines, criteria and application materials for approval January 15, 1996 Council adopts goals negotiated goals June 30, 199_6 Housing action plans from municipalities are due to the Council July 1, 1996 Grant application cycle begins August 30, 1996 Grant application cycle ends October 1996 Grant award selections announced Staff Resource: David Long, Office of Local Assistance; telephone: 229-5005. 8/22/95 /hia.pm5 Housing Goals Agreement Definitions Affordability Housing is defined as affordable if it costs no more than 30-percent of a household's income. The Index and Benchmarks in the housing agreement are based on the following: Ownership: homestead values for 1994 of $115,000 or less. This is the approximate unit cost affordable to housholds with incomes at 80-percent of the 1994 regional median income. Rental: 1990 census, rents of $500 or less per month. In 1990 this rent level was affordable to households with incomes at 50- percent of regional median income. Life-Cycle Housing Life-cycle housing is a term used to refer to the availability of housing for people of all stages of their lives. Communities with a wide variety of housing types for ownership and rent are in a good position to meet the people's changing needs as their incomes and preferences change. The Index and Benchmarks in the housing agreement are based on the following: Type: 1993 Council estimate of the percent of all housing units that were not single-family detached. Owner/RenterMix: 1990 census, percent owner-occupied/percent rental housing units, Density Units per acre. Derived from the 1990 census of unit types and the Council's interpretation of 1990 aerial photography of the region. Single-Family Detached: Ail single-family detached housing units and duplexes divided by the Council estimate of acreage with single-family housing. Multi, family: 1990 census count of multifamily units divided by the Council estimate of land with multifamily housing develop- ment~ Index The community's current housing situation. Benchmark The current housing situation for the community's geographic sector and planning area. Goals The community's goals for housing affordability, life-cycle housing and density. goals.pm5 $-16-95 How to Open Doors to Affordable Housing Many factors affect the production and cost of housing. Some ways local govemments 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 aren 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 These actions will help create an environment more conducive to the production of affordable and life- cycle housing, but producing the housing is recognized for what it is -- a difficult task. It requires politi- ca] 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 will provide assistance 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. 12 Reduce or consolidate reviews by advisory bodies to the municipality s elected council or board. [] Implement a simplified permit process. Linldng up with the financial resources to get affordable housing built. Examples of Local Action: I-! Work with the Metropolitan Council staff to make the best use of currently available programs. Identify tools available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and urban Development, as well as identify local funds that may be available to develop housing opportu- nities. For more information on these and other programs, call the following organizations: Department of Housing and Urban Development (370-3000); Metropolitan Council housing staff (291-6456); and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (296-7608). Communities can make use of such local fiscal initiatives as: Housing Revenue Bonds*: Tax exempt bonds can be used to fund a multi-family development, providing 20-percent of the units for families at 50-percent of the median regional income. Tax Increment Financing (TIF): TW can be used to write down land costs. Restmctions also apply. HOME: This is a federal grant program to rehabilitate existing rental properties. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): These funds facilitate the development of affordable housing. Metropolitan Council Credit Enhancement Program: This program allows HRAs to back their bonds with the Metropolitan Council s AAA credit rating. Employ Local HRA Levy. [] Become informed about available tools and how to use them, and look for ways to provide these opportunities to residents. Seek advice and guidance from the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, local banks or other experts to link complex programs in order to take full advantage of oppommities. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency alone offers 16 different home improvements programs, 14 homeownership programs and 17 rental programs. Some of these are as follows: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: Offers a 10-year reduction in tax liability to owners and investors in these categories: eligible Iow income, new construction, rehab or existing rental housing with rehab. Housing Trust Fund: Provides funds for development, construction, acquisition, preservation and rehab of low-income rental housing and homeownership. Affordable Rental Investment Fund: Provides funds for acquiring, rehabilitating or construct ing new affordable rental housing. Community Reinvestment Act Incentive Program (CRAIP): Provides set-aside of mortgage revenue bond funds (below-market interest rate first mortgage financing) to assist local lenders in meeting homeownership needs of their communities and their Community Reinvestment Act (C.RA).. · 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 rchab or permanent and construction financing for multifamily low- and moderate-income rental housing (minimum of 5 units). Locating affordable housing near employment cOncentrations, or using reverse commute programs to Iink people who live in a distant locale to jobs. Examples 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. Examples of Local Action: Prepare materials and pro,ams 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. Benchmarks: ~ianning Areas .~ectors Fully Developed Area Developing Area Freestanding Growth Center Rural Area Sector names in italics and North Minnea North west Minnea ..... North St. Paul Northeast MAY NGTON t. Paul Southwest --'Minnea 0 South Minneapo. l.i.s.. 10 20 30 I I ! Miles Southeast St. Paul RA~S~ County PAUL City LINWO0[:) Township DRAFT HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PRLNCIPLES The city of Chanhassen supports: 1. A balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. e The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. GOALS To carD' out the above housing principles, the City of Chanhassen agrees to use benchmark indicators for communities of similar location and stage of development as affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the period 1996 to 2010, and to make its best efforts, given market conditions and resource availability, to remain within or make progress toward these benchmarks. Affordability Ownership 37% 60-69% Rental 44% 35-37% Life-Cycle Type (Non-single family 19% 35-37% detached) Owner/renter Mix 85/15% (67-75) / (25-33)',/0 Density Single-Family Detached 1.S/acre 1.8-1.9/acre Multifamily 11/acre 10-14/acre 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 Mayor Date CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Planning Commission Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planing Director March 11, 1996 Livable Communities Act - Action Plan The City Council has agreed to participate in the Livable 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. g:\plan\ka\aclplan.pc CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE · 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 SUB J: 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 until june 30, 1~ to Sumn~it an action plan as to how we will implement our goals. As part of that implementation, the council will then have to budget $50,795 towards affordable housing in 1997. In attendance at the Council meeting will be the two assigned Metropolitan Council staff, Don Bluhm 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 is cyclical. Recently the city has seen more multi-ihmily development. As explained by the Met Council staff; the objective for the city is to mm 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 assunfing 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;6~ 6;500 : ~,400 TH! 21~ :P°~uia{i~n l~§0'~ i.~ ii 4.75- $.5% Household 4,113 6,586 : 8,~09 11~250 6% Household 4,235 7,583:; 10;149 13~82 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 household numbers possible only if all available land in the MUSA develops, which is unlikely. There are all large tractS of property in the current MUSA that may not be developed by the year 2010. These properties include Prince, who has 156 acres guided for low density development, and Eckankar, 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 detached. 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. AfJbrdable 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 GROSS ROW WETLAND PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET NOTES CA~-I~ --!PROJECT NAME ....... ACRES -~ACRES ACRES I_AND !ACRES ' [jNiTS ~ ~ ......... SINGLE-FAMILy DETA~HE'I~ ~3.~-1 S-L?_B~i Highlands 0f_Lak~.St. J~ _ _' ~3-61 .... 0.4 '~.!.54 _ 0' _24:06.. _33 ' 0,92 1.37, _Shoreian~ 93-4 SUB Windmill Run 17.92 3.37 0 0 14.55 35 1,95 2.41 Iarm field 9~-8--s~uB-- ROyal-oaksE_~tat~s~_._._"~._,.' _ :13 _ 2.2 , ' 0 .... 0 '1-0:8 .... -'2~3 ..i.77 2.13 fa-rn~'l~- -_ .... - _. 93- ...................... 10 SUB Lotus Lake Woods 4.47 0.32 _.__0.3 _ . 0 . 3.85 ........ 7 1.57 1.82, W0__o_ded/wet~land 93-11~SUB_ 0a~___at Minne?_as_hta .... _3~.83 . . L 9 ~ _ 3. 8 15:83 ..... ~45 _ 1.26 2.84 93-_12~_SU_B T?w~er H_e. ights ......... 7.1 0.6 0 0 6.5 13 1.83 2.00 9_3-14_s.uB ~h_e__n_andoah B_idge ..... ~.5_ 3.5 ~i01~ i 0 i~---~.....~ ~-20' ~.i.74 2.50 93-15 SUB Church Road 3.3 0 0 0 3.3 4 1.21 1.21' - 93-16 SUB T JO 1.06 0 0 0 1.06 3 2.83 2.83 §_3_'-25~0_B_bli~-~(~rA~_~ition-~- '~_.--". -'9:95-_,_ :5]08 ' _0 "02!5 ' .._7.7~.-_~ ..... '17 - . i.71 2::50 94~-_1 S_UB_ Mi_n?ew_ashtaL_a_n_dings ..... 19.7 ].7 . 0 . 0 .. 1_8 ..... 27 . 1.37, 1.50 beachl_ot/Sh0__rel_anddistdct- 94-3 SUB Olivewood 25.95 4.6 14.8 0 6.55 9 0.35 1.37 shoreland district 94-4_ SUB _ Shadow Ridge . , 15.99 2.15 ]..9 0 11.94 .17 1.06 1.42 3.9 acre ouU9~ yet to be platt_ed 94-5 PUD Mission Hills/Single-family I 7.1 0 0 0 7.1 16 2.25 2.25 94:7'~UB....... ........ Shamr__ock_Fli_dge .............I 37.9 3.67. 617" 0 27.53 .... ~5 --- '11i9 ' 1.63 94-8 SUB Creekside 39.5 4.2 5.7 5 24.6 44 1.11 1.79 9'4:10 SUB Brend~n-P0nd ....... I 23.3 -'3.6 -- 7.2 0 -:i2:5 ' 2i - -0.9~ 1.68 941!_3'~U-B P0i~t.Lai~ I~U(~_~ -~ _~ ._!8~i'5 - 1.6,~ 5.62 0 10.9 -:19 ~:05 1.74 94-14SUB Lake Ann Highlands 35.1 ~ 91:) ..... 0 -" 0 - 2519 -92 -2.62 3.55 i4.Saci~o~MF't0south- ....... i~1.55_0B H~t~e~s_ .W_-!!d_W0~dsF:~_r.m '[_ 1.87 .,. - ._0 _ _~ ._ 0' .i _ 0 . i:~? _-_3 - i.60 1.60 ....... 95-10 SUB Forest Meadows 20.2 2.2 0 5 13 19 0.94 1.46 92_-4__?_U_D_. Me a d_o_ws. ~at ~-o_n_g a c r e s 95 10 24 0 61 112 1.18 1.84 i93-_2__PU_D_ Trott_ersFl_!dge- ........ -. --3~:§ _ 7:'_4,~ .-_~_--5.6~ 0 'i- -1D:46. ' ~_4.9 "-1:5~, :>)52 ~ -"_ .... _. _' .... 91-3 PUD Willow Ridge 30.3 4 8.39 0 17.91 37 1.22 2.07 9~--:1_S0_.'1~-' St~n~[~ek_-~ ~-_ ~-- .~. '- _. '81 '.' - 10.04 -._~.{96 8 '" 62 141 1.74 2.27 92-4 SUB Ithilien Addition 9 1.8 0.9 0 6.3 -(-~ - 1.89 2.70 9~2-~-Sl)B- Bluff C~eel~ E~t~te~ ......... 61.45 7,9 .... 19.7 0 ' 3'3.i]5 '- 78 -1.27 ~.30 ........ 93;3-POD~ Woods-ai Lon-g-~cr~ ........ 96.77 ..... i'3.i -' ~0.87' ' 0 - ' 72~8 "'-1'i-5 1.i9 i:58 93-{~-PUD- Roge~s/_Dol~js_i '80.8 ' 20,2 --' 0.5 ' .5:3' _ 5~.8 ~¢4 1.66' 2~45 - ~JB'FoT~,L--'871.71-- 128.9 ---127.68 31.45 583.68 1195 ......... iSERCEiqT ....... -1'5'°1o -- 15% 4% 67%- '~,VG i.37 2.05 ....... MULTI-FAMILY 94.:_18 P_UD Autum_n_ Ri_dg~ ....... 1 lr5 _ 0 0 0 _ 1_ ! :5 46 4,00 4,00 92-3 PUD Oak Pond/Oak Hills 24.19 2.09 1.8 0 20.3 147 6.08 7.24 94-7 SP Prairie Creek Townhomes 4.6 0 0 0 4.6 24 5.22 5.22 17.~PUD-'-Po-w~r-~-Pla~,~- ............. 9..7- ~ 0 0 9.7 .... 48 '4.95 - 4.95 95-~-S~ [.~ke S~san ~l-ill~T~n~-~ome~- -'-7.-29 ' - -0 0 .... 0 - 7;29 ...... 34 4.66 4.66 95-8 SP Centenial Hills 2.2 0 0 0 2.2 65 29.55 29.55 .... .52:i-- -2:92 - ...... _2.6:38 -.; .... .76 t.46 5:37 '.. - ....... - ...... _ SUBTOTAL 158.76 16.61 16.33 26.38 99.44 648 PERCENT 10% 10% 17% 63% AVG 4.08 6.52 ............ ~ ..... TOTALS- '1~0~4'~ - 145151 144~01 57.83 683.12 i843 PERCENT 14% 14% 6% 66% AVG i.79 - 2170 Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 5 Commercial Office/Industrial 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 Table 3 1991 Comprehensive Plan Land Uses Source: 1991 Comprehensive Plan 272.50 1,1.10/43 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 2% 0% 17% 8% 10% 33% 4% 2% 1% 9% 6% 100% 7,083 3, 1,683 413 13,241 1.80 5'6:00 8.00 5~i~00 1.99 avg. 2o/,;' 59% 23% 13% 3o/o! 100% DENSITY GOALS 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 Housing Goals Agreement Single -Family Detached 1.5/acre 1:8z 1.9/acre 1.8/acre net multifamilY I0:: I,./aCre ~ 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. Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 7 Table 5 Housing Goals Agreement Type (Non -Single Family 19% 35z37% 34%* ~991Comp Detached) i plan Owner/renter Mix I 85/15~ 80720.~, AFFORDABLE The definition of affordable owner occupied units are those units under $1159 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 determine the number of owner occupied 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 $72,001 ~$i] i ~1006 $115,000-$150,000 1,436 $ ! 50i001 ~$20016:6 $2oO,OOO Total Livable Communities October 16, 1995 Page 8 Table 7 Housing Goals Agreement Ownership 37% 60-69%: 50 % Rental ~4o/0-" '~'~:"~b ~-'~ ,, , RECOMMENDATION Staffis 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. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. o A community of well maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. o Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 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 Chanhas'sen 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. Affordability City Index I Benchmark I Goal Ownership 37% 6O-69% 50% Rental 44% 35-37% 35% Life-Cycle Type fNon-single family detached) 19% 35-37% 34% 1991 Comp Plan Owner/Renter Mix '85/15% 67-75/25-33% 80/20 Density 1.5/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 1.8 Single-Family Detached Multifamily 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 Date (2/91) Approval of grading, filling and excavation plans to ensure that erosion and siltation are minimized. HOUSING GOAL POLICIES Utilizing state, federal and programs where appropriate, the city should operate diseased tree removal programs to assist in curtailing tree diseases and noxious weeds that ~mpact 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. To provide housing opportunities residents, consistent with the community development goal. for al 1 identified 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. 8 (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 City of Chanhassen will cooperate with 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. 9 (2/91) New residential development should be discouraged from encroaching upon vital 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 building 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 continue to ensure non- discrimination in the sale and rental of housing units. Citizen participation in developing plans and implementing housing programs is encouraged in redevelopment, rehabilitation, and in the planning for future housing. RECREATION GOAL POLICIES The City of Chanhassen will provide recreational open space areas which will reasonably meet the outdoor recreation needs of the community's residents, 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 9I DMc 25 Jan 91 reprol I Paving the Way for Affordable Housing Mention "affordable housing" to 20 differenYPeople', and you'll get 20 different opinions of how' it ~;ill look, Where'~t should go. and how it should be regulateg~- ;At least some of those people will agree that affordable hop. '~ing is a)good idea as tong as it is built in someone else's co',m. Phunity: " Nonetheless, the truth is that eveW munici .p3t. i.ly needs to ' require at least 6,000 square feet. Faiffax County, Vi~inia. ?. and San Antomo permit lots of 4,200 and 4.000 square feet, ,}."respectively. Even thoueh these lots wilt seem plenty small' to.,3ome homeowners and city officials, some planners want tb/~e even smaller lots. ~:~itotd Rvbczvnski and Avl Friedman, professors at the M~I1 UnixTersit~y School of Architecture in Montreal, are p~;op0nents of the Grow Home, a small house designed at th~g:~chool. These are two-story row houses. 14 feet wide, have housing for people of modest income.',Ho\v can . (with a 1,000-square-foot footprint. Lots as small as t,500 planning and zoning officials write ordinanc~th~/~ will .allow' i, :~square feet can accommodate a Grow Home with a small developers to provide attractive units for a citv'~'?~rm.~:~:~I:>~'' backyard garden. families and retired people, as well as for teachers. flrefighters, janitors, and shop clerks who provide necessary se~,ices for modest wages? Small lots, small units, density bonuses, reduced building and infrastructure costs, and efficient proposal reviews ali form part of the answer. SmalI Houses on Small Lots One common technique used to encourage lower-cost units is to include in the zoning code a district that permits tots smaller than the local standard. The various methods of ~oing 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-tot-line homes on 5.000-square-foot lots, while conventionally sited houses Donald MacDonald thinks that even smaller is beautiful. The San Francisco architect-turned-developer has designed single-family detached units that are so small they have only 300 to 900 Square feet of living space. But these are not necessarily overgrown doll houses~MacDonatd packs quite a bit into that space. His larger units are two stories high and include two bedrooms, plus a loft for either storage or sleeping. One of the bedrooms cmn be replaced with a garage. Bedrooms are on the first floor, with living and dining areas and the kitchen on the second. He makes the second floor Four of the houses designed by architect Donald MacDonald fit on a 4,000-square~foot San'Francisco lot. Inside, living spaces are tighrO' clustered, with a sleeping loft overhead. Reprinted with permission from the American Planning Association, 1/31/96. "~ more attractive ¥~'.-addi,~ 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, wiSh, the lot ~owned in common through a condominium-type association. The average density of these units, measuring 20 by 20 feet, is 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, appealing to buyers at the lower end of the spectrum. A Grow Home would sell for about $62,000 in Montreal; U.S. prices would vary according to land prices. MacDonald's houses have sold for between $115,000 and $165,000 in San Francisco---bargain prices in that tight real estate market. Though the houses are less expensive than larger units, Witold Rybczynski cautions that their affordability ought not to be the only selling point. Terms like "affordable housing" raise too many fears of crime-ridden, poorly maintained, low-income high rises. Small lots can also be the key to attractive neighborhoods with many services within walking distance. Like the neotraditionalists, Rybczynski appreciates the pleasant neighborhood feeling of a well designed but densely populated area. While few communities have chosen to allow units as small as those that Rybczynski, Friedman, and MacDonald advocate, some communities have provided for a variety of housing types by allowing smaller than standard lots. Standard lot sizes in San Antonio are 6,000 square feet, which is considered the bare minimum for single-family lots in other parts of the country. However, the zoning ordinance permits lots as small as 4,200 square feet. Mike O'Neal, a planner in San Antonio, says that from 1983 through 1986, many houses were built on these smaller lots. Most appealed to moderate-income buyers, selling for about $45,000 in 1986. Even though San Antonio did not have a severe housing crunch, the downsized units met a local need and sold well. O'Neal says that the neighborhoods are attractive and do not look overcrowded unless the houses on the smaller lots are too big. In small-lot subdivisions, he notes, there are still a few of the larger lots, relieving the appearance of density. Also, 75 percent of the units must be zero-lot-line. This creates the illusion that there is more open space and gives each owner enough room on the side of the house for a usable yard. 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 2 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. ~l"he 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 s!mply scaled down. The ordinance builds in additional flexibility by reducing minimum lot widths in some zones and by permitting pipestem lots as long as the stem is 25 feet wide. Infrastructure and Building Design Standards A controversial, but often effective, way to reduce building costs is to reduce the cost of the surrounding infrastructure. Smaller lot sizes can help accomplish this without any reduction in infrastructure standards because pipes need not stretch as far and roads need not cover as many miles. However, some advocates are pushing for a reduction in the standards themselves. For instance, according to a May 1990 Urban Land article, Durham, North Carolina, allowed a developer to use rolled (smooth-curved) rather than standard (square-cut) curbs. To save pavement costs and achieve more uniform lot sizes, the city allowed the builder to use hammerhead (T-shaped) cul de sacs. It also permitted several houses to tap into the pipe leading into the main sewer and water line rather than requiring each house to have its own pipes all the way to the main line. There can be problems with this if the shared line breaks. There must be a clear agreement between the municipal government, the homeowners, and perhaps a homeowners' association concerning the responsibility for maintaining the shared lines. Building codes also need to catch up with improved technology. Plastic pipes are durable, easy to install, and less expensive than copper. The required diameter of the pipe should be no larger than necessary. Another place to cut costs is on neighborhood streets. According to a forthcoming publication on affordable housing by the National Associaton of Homebuilders (NAHB), many streets are overdesigned. If streets are too wide, they not only are expensive to build, but they become unsafe by encouraging drivers to speed. They also detract from the neighborhood's residential character. NAHB encourages communities to rethink their sidewalk requirements, as well. Infrequently traveled areas may not need sidewalks at all, while busier streets may need them on only one side. Although a valid case can be made for 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 PUBS:ZN Feb 91 DMc 25 Jan 91 reprol 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 comers. 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 luxuries, 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 clevelopment 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 ~tandards, 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 Williford and council member James Greenwood, who sponsored 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. Fine for the Record Book The largest 'known 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 S325.000. The home belongs to Peter Viviano, who owns a San Jose ~mcking company. Viviano built his home on a lot overlooking Monterey Bay in I984. The commission originally approved a site plan that allowed the home to be 6.800 square feet. In t986, building inspectors found that it had grown to 13,264 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 ¥iviano to reduce the size of his home to 11.000 square feet and to screen it from public view. The commission wilI use the money for coastal improvement projects within Santa Cruz County, but at least Sl 00,000 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 Ihe 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 ciD' 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 News is a momhly newsletter published by thc American Planning Association. Subscriptions arc available for S32 (U.S.) and S38 (foreign), Israel Stollman. Executive Director; Frank S, So, Deputy Executive Director. Zoning News is pr~uced at APA. J~m Schwab. Editox David Be~mmn. Fay Dolnick. C~s H&wis, Carolyn Kennedy. MaD~a Mo~s. Ho~lls Russ~nof. Amy Van Doren. Rc~nc~: Paul ~omas, Assistant ~tor. Co?>~ght ~!991 by American Planning Ass~ialion, I313 E. 60th SI,, C~icago, IL 6~37. ~c American Planning Ass~iation has headqu~ters offices at 1776 M~mchus~s Ave., N.W., Washington. DC 20036. Ali fights rosco'cd. No pan of this publication may ~ repr~uccd or ut(!ized in any fo~ or by ~ny mc~s, electronic or mechanical, including p~o:ocopying, recording. or by any ~nfo~al~on s~omgc and retrieval system, without pcm~iss~on ~n writing from Ibc Amcfic~ P!~nning Association. 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~ federal district court on the grounds that the ban i vio-'[~s his First Amendment fight to freedom of expression. His attorney, Robert Fioretti, argues that, since'truck bitlboards are still permitted on the streets of Chicago, the ban unfairly singles out one form of mobile advertising. Fioretti also contends that the city has no jurisdiction over what is considered a federally controlled waterway. However, Illinois state taw ~ants ali 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 Dream, is a 65-foot converted houseboat that supports a 180-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 obsh"ucts the natural beauty of Chicago's waterways. Barbara Lynne, the planning board's executive director, argues that the sign is "polluting the scenic beauty of the riveffront." The group cites as its other major concern the lack of respect for the citizens' right not to be overwhelmed with commercial advertising even'where 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 the>, needed a permit. They come armed with petitions with 2,000 signatures and this ditty: If you tike 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 get the zoning board to change its tune. You guessed it. The yogurt sisters won. J.S. Call for Information The Ptannina Advisor, Service is gathering information for a report on transportation management ordinances. We would like 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. I3 t3 E. 60th St.. Chicago. tL 60637. LNY LL SHE TU%NS frS BACK ON C055q Sq10N Iingle-fatally 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 infdl sites in older sections of mature metro areas like Denver? Kephart Architects of Denver has used such high-density detached houses in designing Observatory Green, a prototype for infiH devel- opment within the exist- ing grid of Denver's streets and alleys. Eliminating streets on the site enables density tn be pushed to 15 units per acre. In site locations with streets, Kephart says the density could be about 12 du/acre. The 10 houses at Observatory Green are oriented inward with front porches facing a common pedestrian court. Rear oriented garages can be accessed from the surrounding streets and alleys. The color scheme for all the single-f~mily detached units is similar to the approach used for a multffamfly building. Colors used on all roofs, siding and trim are con- sistent. 'The idea is tn make one good, strong unified impactf says Kephzrt. The houses, bu/lt by Johnstown Design of Denver, are 1400 to ][460 square feet, bigger and Houses on an infil! s'rle in Denver use surrounding streets and alleys to reach t~e rear-oaeated garages. The end units are 10 feet from the street; other units are the same distance h'om the property line. The houses are 22 feet wide, 50 feet deep. with more amenities than comparable older houses in the area. At sales prices of $160,000 to $200,000, the homes cost about the same as existing for-sale homes in the neighborhood. Reprinted from PROFESSIONAL BUILDER August, 1994 © 1994 by Cahners Publishing Comoany 758 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, CO 80203 (303) 832-4474 FAX (303) 832-4476 MY13I: private! S~ lot homes ~-c less tHTIM T; Privacy in small lot designs may actually be superior to that for homes on larger lots, particularly v,'hen the large lot designs are based on the erroneous assumption that privacy ~-ill simply occur. C~ to any sand lot concept is the p~ming for pr~. ... ,-.:~ 71- "-..-- '. -.--. I :-- · .-~~.':~ ~'~ I i . .', ' ."' . '.:., ', ' ' ,~ Illlllt~ F,. ,.~/ / I,? ,...,.-,.~','~.~....ut AT ~. I, .¥. · ,.' .~-','~ Z 2I ~s: . j / ... . ~.. ~.~ ( . · ,.~ ~, ~.% ~ . .-- 1'" '~ ~ '"T'~' ~ ~ ~ Where is a conceptual difference be~een large lot and small lot design. The home on a large lot if it had no neighbor. Page 1 When Is A Lot Small? In western cities, small (4000 to 5000 sq. ft.) lots are writ-Len 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. Small is Relative! 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 choose your time and your place very carefully and describe your concepts clearly. '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. 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. Page 2 31yth: Single family detached homes are always more acceptable than attached homes. To buyers, probably -- but to city officials and neighborhood groups, almost never. Boring developments built in the past are often cited as the reasons neighborhood groups and city officials Municipalities understand town- houses and are perfectly comfortable with the higher densities in town- house developments. The negative focus on small lot single family is on the small lot. It may not be logical or understandable, but it's a fact. One basic principal to follow is to 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. 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 d~erent from .;. townhouses or other multi-family~ forms '" · Have large yards, big setbacks, wide elevations, etc. etc. · Be like my p~rents' home Page 3 'Have you ever worked with a peri~t site? It wouldn't have an odd shape, easements, wetlands, or any of the other constraints found on most pieces of land. I developed the "Perieet l~eneit~ Te~t" 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 Aetual density will typically be 70 tm B0% of perfeet density. Ground Coverage - Up to seven homes per acre (perfect density). Open space decreases with greater density, as the ground coverage of homes and stxeets increases. The swi~cch tn ~arrow lots increases open slmce, and using private stxeets and clus~rs continues this pad'cern. MYTH: Unlimited Density P~ssibillties The potential density wi~h 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 s~eets 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 s~ree~s. Net Density - Takes streets out of the calculation of land area and falsely increases density. Page 5 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 m~klng. YlYTH: "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. Page 6 The Typical Ho,~e used in this and following illustrations is 50'x 30', with a two-car garage. It has approximately 1000 scl, ft. of living space on the first floor, and could be as large as 2200 sq. ft. including a second floor within this footprint. Driveways are included in "open space," and the "street" area includes the entire right-of-way width for public streets. Houses are the smallest element of ground coverage, typical of all large lots. Page 7 The 60' x 110' lot is the smallest of my large lot examples, i:~edictably, while density increases open space decl/nes, and houses and streets take up more and more of the land area. ,~'arrow and Deep £o~s 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 fhe 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 Private lload~ can increase density with no loss in open space. As density goes up the homes cover more of the site, but the reduction in street area compensates for the loss and 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. 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. % of 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). P~ge 9 MYTH: Unbelievably High Densities Streets are already in place or are not counted as part of the land area. Note: See cover page for illustrations of this development. 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 TYPES OF SM.aT.T. LOTS ALTERNATE WIDTH LOTS ATRIUM HOM~ES BOUTIQUE LOTS CLUSTERS COURTYARD S FAN LOTS FlAG LOTS Homes are oriented alternately. Wide,. narrow, wide, narrow, along the street for vafi"e'W in the streetscape. This may require two separate groups of plans for each type of lot. (See Keyhole lots.) Private yard space is contained within the confines of the home. Greater privacy is achieved at the expense of distances between homes. Traditional small lots on public streets. They are generally more narrow than deep, and are traditional in that they have room for small front and rear yards. Any closely knit grouping of lots and homes. (See page 2). Private driveways are combined into a common paved auto court that serves as a combination of automobile access, front yard, and pedestrian walkway. A specific tTpe 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.) 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. KEYltOLE 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 is common with Keyhole and Zipper lots. Page 11 NARROW LOTS Simply put, these lots are wider than._~t, hey are deep. .Exaggerations of the concept can be as narrow as the one-car (or no) garage and the minimum space permitted between homes. "NOT~ LOTS Zane Yost introduced this concept for affordable 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 wide and shallow (odd lots). The same homes work on both configurations, but elevations, entries, etc., change depending on the lot shape. WIDE & SH),LLOW Wider than deep small lots provide greater width 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 potential density. "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 ZIPPER LOTS Any of several concepts that place one side of a home on the property line to increase yard space on the opposite side. Use easements for this area facilitates the concept without the need for setback variances. Close design of homes and lots results in private rear yards on very small lots (4000 sq. ft. or less). Back-to-back homes share the large rear yard open space. Page 12 A Handbook: Building Consensus { or Affordable Housin ©Copyright 1989 Michael Wheeler This publication has been reprinted with permission from the copyright holder. A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 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. Wtfile 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 GETTING STARTED Affordable Housing Mediation Four fundamental questions need to be addressed as an initial step in building consensus for afford- able housing: M Why is affordable housing needed? -- What is the purpose of gaining consensus? w 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 prosperity, there are those who have no place to sleep but in the streets or in makeshift 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 mm, may have access to special funding. Private land-owners may control key parcels; and developers may be able to package an affordable 39 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 parmership if they wish to see their goals fulfilled. This coalition, in mm, 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 atiy ethc~r kind of development, is subject iv x :gulation by a number of local and state authorities. To achieve the goals of affordable housing, each of these decision-making bodies must be 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 approvaIprocess 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 must identify other people in the community who feel a pinch from the lack of affordable housing in the area. They must create a parmership of interests to accomplish their goals. Such people who would add to the parmership 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 mm, by a 4O 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 oppommi- ties they encounter personally and professionally. Others may join out o£ a more general sense of commtmity responsibility. Yet each will share a belief that affordable housing is a problem of immediate concern for the community, and that the problem is not just an abstraction. Enlistment of local elected officials, board members, 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 parmership should be regu- larly informed of its progress. Moreover, proponents have to be sensitive to political concerns. A coalition or partnership that bills itself as the alternative to a 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 cimle 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 cai/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 qualifies are rarely found in perfect balance in any one person, but they should be reflected in the group as a whole. A~hieving 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; leaming 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 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 roles do not usually promote brain-storming and problem solving. Although the make-up and smacture of affordable housing coalitions or parmerships 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- minafion to get the job done. Creating yet another community task force to study an issue and releases 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 general need for affordable housing in the community. In these circumstances, losing the baffle can also mean losing the war. Third, live by a standard of conduct throughout the process that others can emulate. The parmership 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 parmership 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 parmership 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 Affordable Housing Mediation project goes forward immediately. Although hard to quantify, by-products like improved relationships, trust, and cooperation among public officials and private citizens can yield positive results on many fronts. In the best of all worlds, a parmership 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 become critical. But focusing on the affordable housing issue, the most important mark of a parmership'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 created simultane- ously by the action can be mitigated. Efficiency, in turn, requires that the strategy chosen be, on balance, the best one available; a parmership 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 parmership'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. 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 gre.ater 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, beuer-functioning housing units for the same dollar amount as a routine design. An axtractive look may promote community acceptance, regulatory approval, and t-mancing. While lis~ag basic techniques is s~raighfforward, understanding the specific forms they can take requires technical information and -- patience. There are, for example, any number of land use cont~'ols 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 parmership 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 maybe 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. How it's managed. property. , , Affordable Housing Mediation People may also disagree about the desirability of the community managing the 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 or 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 developmem policy may nevertheless be willing to say yes to a project that they can evaluate in detail. Similarly, when an affordable housing proposal is submitled 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 commullity is establishing a precedent for furore 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 developmem pressure in recent years. Whenever any development is being discussed, legitimate concerns are voiced about about specific impacts and the character of the commljIlity. 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 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 oppommifies 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 daffiness." Issues are cast as matters of uncom- promisable principle, and people dig in for a long, hard fight. Disputants too rarely stop to analyze the underlying causes of their conllict. Proper conflict diagno- sis is a prerequisite for finding the right way to overcome impasse. The best-intended efforts won't help if they are misdirected in this way. As an initial aproach, it is important, to distinguish among problems of 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 treaUnent. 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 in which the issue may revive old political battles is a third. These points are emphasized because they 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 ..... Affor, dable 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 prot~: ' .of communication. If opponents are not convinced to support the project by public relations gimmicks, developers usually write them 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 carry 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 A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING are they using different model~ 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 site is cleared and housing erected, it is virtually impossible to remm 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 rnore fruiO~ul 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 clef'ming a mutually-accept- able answer than to try td reach agreement on the definition of the issue. SOLUTION: Search for outcomes that satisfy the interests of the people involved in the 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: Defining the stakeholders. Land use laws, environmental regulations, and other ordi- 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 f'fle an appeal; even if the developer and the permitth'~g agencies are ultimately vindicated, the costs of adjudication -- in terms ol~ time as well as money ..... may overwhelm the benefits. If there are many stakeholders, the process of negotiation becomes as much of a ehatlenge 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 coordinate their collective work. Sometimes this can be a local planning official, but if the city is talcing an advocacy role in the developmer; ::~meone perceived as more neutral may be needed. It is never easy to manage a multi-party 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, ithas 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 renegotiafion in the future provides a degree of disci- pl/ne. In collective barga/ning, 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 parties 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- A HANDBOOK: BUILDING CONSENSUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING agreements. Establish checkpoints to insure that the process is moving forward. 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. Unfommately, some individuals seem to take perverse pleasure in being contentious; for such people, the battle itself is more important than any prize. SOLUTION: Make an objective assessment of how much support is needed to achieve your ends° Often you can have a stable outcome 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 way in which consensus was reached (was anyone excluded; were all options evaluated?) than it is with 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. 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 5O 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-maklrig, of course, simply help us get our beatings. By themselves they do not get us closer to our destination. Effective consensus-builders must also be energetic, pemuasive, trustworthy, creative, well-organized and patient. Without a good sense of direc- tion, however, all these qualifies, no matter how perfected, cannot bring about success. 51 Wednesday, January 31, 1996 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon Minneapolis Convention Center [] Minneapolis, Minnesota Co-sponsored by: · Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities · Minnesota Chapter, American Planning Association · Minnesota ChaRter, Urban Land Institute · Minneapolis Urban Design Committee, American Institute of Architecture · City of Mat~le Grove 'OCUS ,velopers and planners in other parts of the country have had success creating :elopments that break from standard post-World War II development prac- ~S. e principles they have followed are collectively termed "New Urbanism," an ~roach that can result in communities that accommodate both the pedestrian :1 the car, and foster a sense of place and community. .w Urbanism includes many elements that are not really new--it employs ne traditional planning techniques commonly used before widespread use of car. And, it is not exclusively urban--its principles apply to urban, suburban I rural locations. Because the New Urbanism approach is an interdisciplinary one, we have invited practitioners in housing development, design, market- lng 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. ATURED SPEAKERS ,niel M. Cary, South Florida Water Management District Daniel Cary is currently the Director of the Planning Department of thc 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 back.ground is in biolog7 and he is now working to merge urban and environmental planning processes regionally. rnes Constantine, Community Planning & Research, Princeton, NJ Mr. Constantine is a practicing planner with a focus on qualitative research 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 waterfrofits,' tra~dit~onal neighborhood development, redevelopment, historic in fill and rural neotraditional villages. He is a regular speaker before planners, developers, realtors, and lendors and serves on the NAHB's Land Developers Committee. ~bert 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 widel7 published in retail planning, development design and the New Urbanism movement. He was formerly the site planning coordinator with the Taubman Company, the regional shopping center developers, and project planner wlth J JR, a national planning and design firm. :rtis 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 cu trent 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. dd Zimmerman, 7Ammerman~o~ Associates, Clinton, NJ Mr. Zimmerman is a real estate advisor, specializing iffmarket feasibility and trend analysis. The firm's proprietary target market analysis technique is designed to be a vital tool in understanding the critical residcntlal, recreational, retail and civic space dynamics required for a successful town center. Mr. Zimmerman has 25 years of experience in traditional town planning, housing affordabilit7 and sustainable development. He is frequentl7 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 fiousing, civic planning:, dcmo~raphlcs and ta~et markets. By Donald Canty Oonald Canty is former editor-in-chief of Architecture, the maga- zine of the American in- stitute o! Architects, and of City, a national urban affairs magazine, Now based in Seattle, Canty is the architecture critic for the Seattle Post-lntelfi- gencer and editor of Cascadia Forum, a regional journal of urban design and development. Defining "The New Urbamsm" Ido not especially like the term "urban- ism." It makes concern about urban problems and patterns of urban devel- opment seem like matters of ideolog7 or fashion, like Marxism or modernism. In actuality, of course, these are matters that deeply affect the nation's quality of life and social equity. WHAT IS "THE NEW URBANISM"? "The new urbanism" that is the tide of one book reviewed here and the subject of all three is less ideologs' than a set of pragmatic urban planning and design prin- ciples that is gaining wide credence among architects, planners, public offi- cials, and even some developers. It is not really new either, but a re-,, turn to pre-automotive precepts of com- munity building that produced some of our most cherished places. Another of the three books more accurately labels it "neotraditional town planning." By whatever label, adherents of the movement have clear ideas about the kinds of communities they would have us build. They are summarized as follows in Philip Langdon's A Better Place to Live. · "There should be a generous net- work of streets and sidewalks" with sweets conceived as outdoor "public rooms" de. fined by building fronts and "other...ele- ments such as trees, hedges and fences." , · "The character of the houses should enhance these p~tb~ic rooms. Garages should be relegated to back alleys or other inconspicuous locations." · "Neighborhoods should contain housing in a mixture of sizes,' prices, and types, so that a variety of people and households can come together." · "Neighborhoods should be laid out so that in a few minutes residents can walk from their homes to parks, stores, services, and other amenities of daily life.' · "Communities should avoid regnla- .tions that require large lots and large ~ houses. Moderate- to high-density neigh- borhoods are much more apt to obtain public transit service, which allows the old and young to get around more readily and generally reduces dependence on private automobiles." A community that met these pre- scriptions would, of course, bear little re- See page 220 Just when you thought that you understood TNDs, along comes "the new urbanism." Here's a look at three books on this important planning movement. "There is a DrowinD sense of frustration and placeless- ness in our suburban landscape." --Peter Calthorpe 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 Calthox:pe is an architect whose plans for Laguna West and other new communities put the new urbanism's principles into practice. 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 overwhehning 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 main~ns 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- f..rent backgrounds and outlooks might enc. ounter 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." CiD' after city was torn apart to allow the automobile free rein in hope of attract- ing shoppers from the growing suburbs. "Instead," Scully wTites, "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." See page 222 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 Elitabeth 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- · fleshing relief from the ' 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 plan. He retained the original revenue-gener- ating elements, but ar: ganized them around "defined public spaces and amenities: a village green, town hall, main street, and neighborhood parks.":. The 3,400-unit community has a lO0- 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." "Bad architecture can blind people to what's good aboutthe planning." --Philip Langdon 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- promises in architecture and craftsman- ship are common" in production home building. He acknowledges that these compromises sometimes stem from a need to rein in costs so that more buyers can afford the housing. But he argues that "much of the cheapening of architectural ' 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 this 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- and construction quality comes from a ' hood; too much on interior luxury and too more dubious motive--a desire to spend inhabi~,.'hnt~' money on wet bars in the fam- ily roomz lavish bathrooms in the master suites, a~! 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." little on public amenity." In The Next American Metropolis, Calthorpe also ch~.ltenges the idea that "our commm6ties' ' physical form is the result of free :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 r~arketing strategies are 'increasingly out of sync with today's culture." See page 224 A Better .Place To Live Author: Philip Langdon Langdon's is a more personal and opin- ionated book. He says of Kentlands, 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 ..... -.,-;........,~...~..,..~;......~.& :-~. :~.,..,..k~; ...o..-' ~..,.;;.:~.;-'~; '.~ .~ adding porches to the fronts and making garages less conspicuous. In a prototype community as widely her- aided 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 7~o' Live is based on a decade of crisscrosging 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." 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 peoplc cspe- 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. e building of ?De-scale ,velopments ould be ]proached as ; building of mrnunities. The New Urbanism from page 222 In the decades since the suburban dream emerged, "our household makeup ha.s changed dramatically, the work place and the work force have been trans- formed, average daily wealth is shfinldng, 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 i/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 protectiorvof 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- feting public facilities and amenities. · Each neighborhood should offer a wide variety of housing Wpes and all the necessities of daily life within walking dis- tance of one another. I 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,/.here must be changes not only in public policy and private practices but also in premises kmbedded 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 serf. 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 ~e suburbs. [] The Next American Metropolis Author: Peter Calthorp8 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." qde streets and big 'ards are popular with people who :hoose no! to live n TN Ds. Lot size and price turn off consumers who shop TNDs and don't buy there, says real estate analyst John Schleimer. His compa- ny, Market Perspectives in Carmichael, Calif., surveyed qualified "hot prospects" who visited traditional neighborhood de- velopments in 1993, but who either bought elsewhere or have not yet pur- chased a home. The TNDs they shopped include Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Md., Harbor Town in Memphis, Laguna West near Sacramento, and Lake Park near Charlotte. (The study is a follow-up to one 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. [] They're a bit less affluent. TNO 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% TND nonbuyers 14% DESIGN PREFERENCES Though nonbuyers expressed doubts about TNDs, they liked many of the same design aspects that buyers did: [] Shallower setbacks. IND buyers 69% TND nonbuyers 58% [] Front porches. TND buyers 80% TND nonbuyers 65% [] Alleys and rear garages. TND buyers 55% TND nonbuyers 57% [] Narrower streets. TND buy~}r~ 61% TND nonbuyers 41% BOUGHT ELSEWHERE Of the 142 nonbuyers surveyed, 41 have bought homes elsewhere. The rest are still shopping, and more than a third of those say they haven't ruled out a home in a TND. Here's what Schleimer learned about ttfe people who opted to buy someplace other than a TND. [] Most bought new homes... New home 79% Resale 21% [] ...on large lots. Less than 5,000 s.f. 8% 5,001-7,000 s.f. 25% 7,001-9,000 s.f. 0% 9,001-12,000 s.f. 42% 12,000+ s.f. 25% [] More than half paid less than 8150,000 for their house. Less than $150,000 57% $150,001-$200,000 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%* Not'enough value for price 27%~ Lots too small 15%~ Concludes Schleimer, "Most of the people who x4sit these communities seem to like the fabric of neotraditionalism-- 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 the location, prod- uct, and pricing are fight."--Susan Bradford "It'S tOO expensive here to be a diverse community. And it's too planned and controlling. It's my house-- I'!1 paint the damn door orange if I want to. I don't want to ask anyone else if it's okay." --Kentlands prospect II 'he New Urbanism's ;ailtoArms :rom October 8 through l I in Alexandria, :rtrglnia, the Congress for the New Urb~sra CNU) held the first of four conferences danned through 1994. The 200 participants ncluded architects, planners, and academics rom the United States and Canada, as well s real estate developers, lenders, cMl engi- leers, and public officials, including M. ilwau- ee Mayor John Norquist. In day-long sessions running from 9:00 .m. to 10:00 p.m., the Congress set forth n ambitious national agenda: a s-weeping eformation in the development of Ameri.- an tiles to change .~nerican urban and uburban life for the better. Joel Schwartz, an architect, builder, and :al estate developer in New Jersey, believes that "t3Tical suburban land planning and de- velopment don't work any more and need to be fi.xed." He remlk, %Vh~n I was rrmk-ing a speech recently, I asked the audience to name a New Jersey communlu/built in the past 50 years that is a re::lly good place. You [mow what? Nobody could name a single ]oc~fion. "But development patterns aren't going to change for the better just bemuse people want more aesthetic, more satis6ing communities. Americans are profoundly consen'afive about choosing a place to live, and the3, base man), of their decisions on economics. As more people realize that the cost of constructing and main- mining tTpical suburbia has gotten out of hand, they are starring to think about innova- tire ways to plan and build new communities and retrofit e.-dsting ones." The Congress for the New Urbanism is a response to the failures of America's built emfronment. "The movement to reform American ur- banism is prevailing," claim the CNU's six coordinators--Peter Calthorpe, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Moule, Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk, Stefanos Polyzoides, and Daniel Solomon. "The ex-idence is everpa'here. At least 100,000 acres have been designed cording to new principles by several special- ized firms. Even the established planning firms most responsible for suburban sprawl now offer tiffs t3~e of urbanism as an option." According to its coordinators, the CNLT is not just another visionary t_kink tank. Plater-Zyberk describes the organization as "a mulddisciplinary way to address the future of our cities, proactively rather than reactively, with a prescription for change rather than a mere reflection of ex/sting disorder." The New Urbanism's planning and development principles are quite straight- forward: The built environment must be ,.,, .... .. .-----~_~_,....,. ,.,, ~ ../-5 rata Monica, Califor- :'s 45-acre civic cenler an isolated cbster of blic buildinDs, RAND ~dq,mmrs, and sur- :e parkJnD lots occupy- , a st~tegic position ia - ch'y's th~ng down- ~n. ~sI H0vemb~r, :cily c0unc~ approved animously a plan by ROMA Design Group t0 redevelop the site in accordance with many principles of the New Urbanism. Incorporating an expansion by RAND, 350 residen~l i'~, new cullural facilities, parting structures, and open space, the new cMc center will repair this hole in Santa Monica's urban fabric, encourage walking and bicycling in the down- m, and open access to ocean beaches. Traffic calming element~ like wide sidewalks, roundabouts, a town square that, among other functions, will serve as an interchange point for ; buses and loc21 shuttle services, and a new east-west street/promenade are a major focus of the plan. -lometown i~n, was ~dopted in October. hough the structure of the ;xJCdng flowntown-a - 'hain street at the center :f small blocks-is tradi:. ~onal, the random place- 'nent of newer buildings, Hale roads and nan'ow idewalks, end a prepon- Jerance of commereial ',nd pa~ng uses have dis- ;ouraged pedestrian use. ,'he Hometown Pian ap- ,7' I1 / ~lies the principles of the New Urbanism to create more activity. Buildings are placed to form street spaces into public "moms." Mixed uses, including apartments and offices above hops, 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- ;reased. The f. failecO 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- .owa Plan is ex, acted to occur through small development projects following a precise design code and various incenses, instead of through land use controls. :liverse 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 ~eflecdng the ecology and culture of the region. X, Vorking 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 ~fmetropolkan areas but also kigher-densir3, and mixed-use projects in central cites and exfsting suburbs. Public officials and real estate develop- '.rs who attended the conference in .~lex- andria believe that the American public increasingly supports the New Urbanism's principles. ~In many parts of the countas,, a funda- mental revolution is occurring in the devel- 2pment industn.,, a shift in paradigm, a shift in values toward man), of these principles," said Dan Can.,, 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 many lec- tures to citizens groups. When I talk about the form and str~cmre of traditional to~vns, I walk them through a perfect to~:n model built in 1900 that still functions well in terms of cveTTday life 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 ),ears. People have broken doxvn 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 ternatives.' Despite emerging public support for the New Urbanism, two growing threats could limit its long-term impact on metro- politan development. In recent ),ears, 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 tox~ 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 "neotradifionalism" and broaden the public discussion of the CN-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- ficipants, some developers and architects have grafted a few ofneotradifionalism's most obvious features--a front porch here, a picket fence there--onto typical suburban subdivisions and then labeled these projects "neotradidonal developments." "These developers have latched onto the New Urbanism's grouSng success to sell sub- dMsions 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 inabilit7 to discriminate between Fcl,~?~aT')' 1994 · Urban La,d 11 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- [erence, Plater-Zyberk threw down the ]auntlet: %Ve must move from the mar- fins, as objects of media curiosity, to a ~ore central role in reforming urban life. This ambition must be played out on .b. ree battlefields." The New Urbanism already has em- barked on the first ~vo battles--to do ~4th cademia and practice. '.?he third struggl% ~'hich concerns pohc7 ~nd h~ just begtm, ~4tl determine the ultimate success or fail- zre of the movement. How ~511 the Congress for the New Ur- mnism fight these bat-des to reform the de- 'elopment of America's cities and suburbs a its vision? Through organization, unit),, and hard · ork, say its organizers. "You have been in- ired here not so much to learn but because · ou have something to teach," Duany told ~e CNWO audience. In the morning sessions, participants ttended lectures covering the history of aburban development, identified many of 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 CMo Center and South Miami's do~:ntown redevelopment plan. (See illustrations on preceding pages.) Future conferences, commented arcM- tect Boris Dramov of ROMA Design Group in San Francisco, should explore ho~, the New Urbarfism's principles can retrofit exSsto lng 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 CNU's implementation strategies--for example, rewriting the codes that affect all development and are a prereq- uisite for the success of the CNU's agenda, or wor 'king with lenders who say go or no- go to proposed projects. The next three conferences ,~511 give par- ficipants the opportunity to discuss ideas and projects in greater detail and forge these implementation strategies. "The future conferences also ~a411 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,,afionists, re;idents of center cities, even residents of older suburbs that are experiencing the same decline that center cities did a generation ago. X~qth such a broad-based alliance, the CNU can really make profound changes for the better in .~rnerica's metropolitan development." Note: The Congv'ess for the New UrbanLem will hold its second meeting May 20-23 in Los Angeles. The CNU II is tqqed ~The Buildh~g, the Block, and the Street, "and it will~cus priman'ly on cemer d~y planning and dvvelopmeat issues. At preseng membership in the Congr~ for the New Urbanirm and attemtance at its conferences are IO, invitation enO,. ---Charles Lockwood Charles Lock-wood is the author of s~,en books about Amevqcan architecture and cities. BEST CHARLO'VrE COMMERCIAL LOCATION For sale or development 50~_ Ac, Charlotte,NC, Zoned Business; 9+ Ac residential, Zoned R-3, ERVIN CO,, CAROLINE R, ERVIN- Telephone 704-542-6550, Fax 704-542-5419, Kentlands is one of the first exam- ples of a new town- planning concept based on traditional neighborhood de- sign. Judges liked the core ideas: · A pedestrian- fi-iendly 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." · Proximity of work, housing, and recreation. The site includes 1.5 million square feet of office and retail space, a loan hall, a child care center, school, church, and cultural arts center. The project, which opened in 1990, will eventually have 1,700 units ranging fi.om 750 to 4,500 square feel Rents are $750 to $1,100; for-sale units are $165,000 to $550,000. Construc- tion costs range fi.om $45 to $60 a fool Nearly all of the rentals released have been leased; more than haft of the released for-sale housing has been sold.--~.F. COMMUNITIES KERi'LANDS CATEGORY Master planned community PROJECT LOCATION Gaithersburo, Md, ENTRANTJl_AND PLANNER Andres Ouany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Architects, Gaithersburg DEVELOPER Joseph Alfandre & Co,, Rockville, Md. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Garr Campbell Associates. Ballimore 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 [ibr 50 years. Here's how to get our communities back on track. Moving day at Kentlands, the neotraditionaI suburb in MaD, land where houses are close to the street and to each other l~OR DECADES, ANTON NELESSON OF }{UTGERS 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 I{ermission to re-create ancient Pompeii on the site of an old Go Kart track, the town's planners com- mission Ne]esson to survey the populace and determine if that's what they'd actually like there. Using photographs, models and questionnaires, Ne]esson has surveyed people M1 over thc country, and these are some of the things he's found: · "Everybody will call £or a green open space in the middle- that's automatic. They will put' the major communib, 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 ~dde. 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 la~m." I"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, ff ever. But they in- stinctively choose it an)~,ay. The premise of the new urbanism is that people can have the kinds of neighborhoods they sa), 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 ofh0 years of doing things the wrong way.., and the application of a few simple rules. · 4~ NEWSWEEK MAY ~5, 1995 ~IVE UP ~IG LAWNS ONE USEFUL WAY TO DEFINE A SUBURB is "a place that grows ]awns." The great postwar disillusionment began for any Americans when they left the city in arch of a simpler life and discovered that atering, fertilizing, weeding and mowing e measliest yard takes more time over a .ar than the average New Yorker spends oking for parking. And the expanses of mt lawn themselves serve no purpose but eir o~mers' vanity- except that most sub- 'ban · communiti,~s require them, on the cory that large se{backs help preserve the Jcolic character ora community. ~l'haI may have been true in the 1920s, hen suburbs were being settled 30 houses 'a time. But when highways opened up ~ge' areas of countryside after the war, rge-lot zoning had the opposite effect: by }reading population over a larger, area, it ~celerated sprawl. If zoning boards weren't · fearful of"density." they could require welopers to cluster houses and set aside nd nearby for open space and recreation. tis is also a more efficient way to build a ~mmunit): Houses that are 100 feet apart, Mously. have 100 feet of unused road and ility lines between them. School buses we that much farther to travel. And the goal of making a walkable corn- unity is defeated when houses are spread it on huge lots. Even the depth of the front rd turns out to make a crucial psychologi- I difference. When houses are set back .hind 30 feet of la.m, the streetscape be- mes oppressively desolate; your perspec- ,e changes so slowly you don't feel you're aching a destination. Probably no single ange would improve the quality of subur~ n life as much as shrinking the size of ts-and it would actually make. houses caper. :. ? {RING BACK THE ~ORNER STORE "I'H E SUBURBAN CONDITION, SAYS architect Peter Calthorpe, "is a land- Iscape of absolute segregation ... not st in terms of income, age or ethnicity, but mple functional uses." This is so obvious at most people no longer see the absurdi- of malting a five-mile round trip for a ]oaf ..2: JOIIN IlL'MIlLE This wide street in Temecula, Calif., is fine for cars but not.for kids and other pedestrians MAKE THE STREETS SKINNY Modern subdivisions are designed to be driven, not 'xvalked. Even little-used streets are 86 feet or 40 feet wide, w/th big sweeping cm-ves 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, fight-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 beth a big problem in old nabes in cities like New York and Boston. bread. That is, as long as they have a car; for anyone not so essed-children, the elderly or handicapped, people who can't lord a ear for every member of the family-it's nuts. Again, this is a function of good intentions undone by the explo- >n of suburbia. What worked in a compact neighborhood in a _ty-a dry cleaner, a drugstore, a comer grocery-became gro- sque when blov, m up a hundredfold and applied to whole coun- ts. Shopping strips stretched for dozens of miles along the highways, while the curving streets of suburbia xvormed their way ever deeper into the countryside. Obviously, malls and supermarkets, w/th their vast selections and economies of scale, will never be supplanted by neighborhood shopping streets and comer 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 ]5, ~995 NE~VSWEEK 47 DRoP THE CUL-DE-SAC 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 wa/ting to make a left turn at the same intersection. 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 $ percent of the contiguous 48 states (plus all of Canada and Me.,rico 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 · ~sult 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 indidduals 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 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- or-y, 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-grm~"th boundary: Portlahd, Ore. In Oregon, naturally, no one would prevent the hypothetical businessman from 1Mng-on a farm; he just couldn't sell it off for a subdMsion when he re- tired to Palm Springs. More than 20 years ago, planners for the Portland 'metropolitan area drew a line around 325 square miles--covering 24 munici- palities and parts of three counties- and designated it to receive virtually all population growth. Along the way they have reduced the average lot size for detached houses from 15,000 square feet to an average of 8,500 square feet- roughly the difference between putting three and five units on an acre. The proposed future goal is an even mingier 6,600 square feet. Between now and the year 20-10, Portland's planners ex'peet the population to grow some 77 per- cent, but they are committed to an in- crease of residential land use of only 6 percent. Instead of planting more "edge cities" at the arbitrary points where freeways intersect, Portland has con- centrated job growth in its downtown. The urban-growth boundary has been st) .~uccessful that even a conservative property-rights group, Oregonians in Action, endorses the concept (although it argues with some details). Imagine how Los Angeles would look today flit had done tbJs 20 years ago. JAMES D. WILSON- NtP,','SWKEK Leading new urbanist Nothing Irks Peter Calthorpe more than "naysayers who say that Americans don't want to live in high-densit~ cities--they w~nt suburbs, as though there were only t~o choices!" According to the San Francisco architect, "The answer is to understand there are a huge number of people with different Ilfestyles. There are different densities in new urbanism, some Iow, some high. Neighborhoods that have dlversity'caf6s, recreation, casual social encounters-- will be increasingly Important. Suburbs aren't just about bedrooms anymore." MAY 15, 1995 NF. WSW~F.~ 49 HIDE THE GARAGE "~Most suburban houses give the ap- ~pearance that they are first of all places to park, turning to the w°rld 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 by alleys. J@HN IIUMBLE Multicar garages turn an unwelcomingface to the street MIX HOUSINO TYPES ., [OF ALI. 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 ex"il, a dechne 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, where 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 vMd 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 oMc life before television clamped its monopoly on public discourse and entertainment. So in 1987, when Turley bought a l$5-acre vacant plot on an island in the Mississippi five minutes from downtox~m Memphis, he embarked on a radically different 'kind of development, which began not by asking "What 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 To.m, 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 nm the gamut from $271,990 to $$16,990. 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 watching the sun set over the river, s0he set the houses close together and built cozy village squares. The hOUses themselves are an eye-popping collection of styles, including Charlestown provin- cial, Cape Cod and Bauhaus modem, 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 Nothing humanizes a street more than a row of trees shading the sidewalk. 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 . EW LIFE DLD MALLS GOT FOUNTAINS, HANGING d ice rinks, and ffyou stay in I enough you may eventually _a Lineman" rescorecl for 140 most shopping malls are, es- :t vast sheds that consumers ~gh until, with nothing left to ~.re spit out into the parking lot. people are so quick to desert - bigger one opens up down the malls are no longer a rare sight Phoenix has at least two, in- . right across the street from ts largest office buildings. But · y occupy can, a5th some inge- lot of money, become the nucle- neighborhood, an architectural rather than a hulking blight. ess is happening first with strip :nters~ which are usually older ed malls and less complex archi- -he first step is to transcend the fa''shopping cenler" as a group- hied stores in the middle of a That pretty much described the ~ry Shopping Center, a dreary 'trip mall on a busy highway in Mass., about 70 miles from Bos- adc ago, the owners decided lo it on a radically different scheme, m a New England town. New re laid out in what had been the I: new shops were built in the area behind the existing ones. A ,velopment plan was draxvn up, g a substantial community: of- }rar); a church and a senior-citi- e have already been built. was redistributed along the the new internal streets. This some congestion and inefficien- ssens the frustration of trudging '!. aisles of parked cars toward a ail entrance. Developer Douglas 's that shoppers find the strength s much as half a mile down the of what is now called Mashpee , passing shop x~-indows, benches rets. The same people reach the : of exasperation wben they have ]ore than 400 feet from the door to ,.fy mall. are other examples, including ark, in Boca Raton, Fla., where a opping cenler was replaced with a nixed-use development organized new public park. To be sure, not opers Mil be this ambitious x~fith perties. But as a first step, hiding collection of Dumpsters and load- s on the backsides of strip malls minate a lot of suburban blight. In Portland, Ore., these comm'uters are choosing to ride the rails PLAN FOil MASS TB NSIT 0 Is there any way to get Americans out of their cars and into buses and trains? In Los Angeles, not even an earthquake sufficed; only about 2 per- cent of drivers sxv/tched to mass transit after their freeways fell down last year, and most of them went right back to driving as soon as the roads were patched up. The problem is that transit seems to need a critical mass to work, and many metropolitan areas (Los Ange- les among them) are just too spread out. Many commut- ers seem to think that if you have to drive to the train station anyway, you might as ,,veil just keep going to the office. Hence Caltho~e's idea for the "pedestrian pocket": a relatively dense settlement within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop. In Portland, Ore., they're building the transit line first-putting stops literally in the middle of empty fields-in the expectation that the development will folio,,,,,. LINKWORKTO HOME 1 SUBURBS ARE NO LONGER JUST BEDROOM communities; the dispersal of employ- ment out of the central cities has been going on for a generation. (As the writer William H. Whyte demonstrated two decades ago, big corporations 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 a token fuzz of grass and a giant parking lot-is just a higher class of sprawl than the gas stations and fried-chicken places that would have been built there instead. If companies don't want to be downtown, they should at least attempt to integrate their of- rices--or factories, for that matter-into commu- nities. Nobody wants to live next to a steel mill, naturally. But in Laguna West, outside Sacramen- to, people are happy to live within a quarter-mile of an Apple Computer plant, which provides 1,200 white-collar and assembly-line jobs. Apple agreed to locate there after the community was already planned; developer Phil Angel/des says the com- pany liked the idea that executives and workers could afford to live in the same community. Playa Vista, a ne~v-urbanist commurfity being planned for Los Angeles, has been mentioned as a possible home for the DreamWorks SKG multimedia com- pany. It could be an updated-and very upscale-- version of the company tovm, 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. Cahhorpe believes that more businesses will move to new- urbanist projects as they grow disillusioned with the traiF~c and isolation of their ottice parks. "The idea is not necessarily to live in A 'different approach Mixing Income levels In a mighborlu~i is a urbanlst credo, and nobody does that better than planner Oscar Newrnan.~His scattered- site Iow-Income housing for Yonkers, N.Y., Is a model of Its kind. But Newman is no fan of the new urbanists. "Instead of saying, 'This Is what's wrong [with suburbs],' they should ask, 'Why do people feel it's worth it to live there?'" 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 3 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. But it is also a curse; the vast acreage given over to asphalt is useless for any other purpose, and goes unused more than half the time anyway. Most plan- ners regard parking as a prerequisite for economic growth, like water. But dow-ntown Portland, Ore., which strictly regulates parking, has been thriving with essentially the same space for cars as it had 20 years ago. Developers often build more parking than they actually need; a half-empty lot is presumed to reassure prospective tenants that they'll never run out of space for their cars. Yet a bank, a movie theater and a church are all full at different times. One simple improvement to`Gms can make is to look for ways to share and pool par 'k/ng space among different users. The ideal-although expensive-solution to the parking problem is for cars to vanish underground when they get where they're going. A shopping center surrounded by acres of striped asphalt, whether it's empty or full, might as well put up a moat against pedestrians..Large parking lots should be 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 traffm, but others consider it a danger to children running out between the cars. MAKE A TOWN CENTER ,1 t[~ Every town needs a center: a plaza, I square 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 mails are a poor substitute; the area they serve is too diffuse, and in any case their civic function 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 subdMsion. ~o~ .OM~L~ A garish street lamp in Maryvale, a neighborhood in Phoenix TURN DOWN THE LIGHTS It is probably true that illuminating a suburban 4 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? THINK GREEN 5 OUr BEYOND THE BELT~'AY, where the roads are narrow and blacktop, past the point at which the dwh~dling 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, fali~ winter, spring. There's.nothing to buy there, nowhere to park'; it.doesn,t 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 moxSng out- ward; pick any spot and it's just a matter oft/me 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 xdewed as the l~arbingers of civilization rather than discount muffler outlets. And as surely as our society made those decisions, it can change them, before la~m meets lawn and asphalt meets asphalt, cover- ing the land in a seamless carpet of sprawl. Developer Turley on the village green in Harbor Town AHWAHNEE PRINCIPLES for Reso~rce-Efficien~ Communities Reprinted from Western City Magazine, September, 1994 Santa Barbara. American Institute of Architects. Cal,fornia Council .1!1" 1]11 Seaside, Florida. DPZ architects '"?i :i?- ' Pedeslzian-oriented street in Santa Monica. ROMA Design Group Horlon Plaza -- \~ere the mall ',','as sited downlown. C,"tv ~¥'Scn Dwgo Iities everywhere are facing similar problems - increasing traffic congestion and worsening air pollution, the continuing loss of open space, the need for costly improvembrrts 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. *]'any of our social, economic and envi- ronmental problems can be traced to land use practices adopted since World War II. In the late 1940s we began to adopt a notion that life would be better and we would all have more freedom if we planned and built our communities around the automobile. Gradually, rather than increa~ lng our freedom, auto-oriented land use planning has reduced our options. Nmv, it takes much more time than it used to cany out our daily activities. We must go ever.vwhere by car - there is no other option. We must take a car to the store for a gallon of milk. drive the children to Little League practice, even spend part of the lunch hour driving to a place to eat. And as roads become increasingly clogged and ser¥ices further from our home, we spend our time as anonymous individuals wait- lng for the traffic light to change rather than chatting with friends at the corner store or playing ball on the lawn with the neighborhood kids. LE.\(iL'[~ OF C..\i. II-'()I,~NIA CITIES 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 .",Iayor 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 Wpes fi-om apartments over stores to single-family units with front porches facing tree-lined. narrow streets -these towns provided a life sb'le 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 s~,le of devel- opment and a sWle 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 CorbetI is the Executive Director of the ix~cal Gm'ct, merit Commissio,. a nonprofit, nonparlisan membership organizatiou of local dccted o.~Scials corn mirtcd to finding local solu- lions lo problcms of slate and national signifi- cance. Joe Velasqucz is a Council 3[ember 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 Calthc.,~e. 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 bv attorney Steve Weissman into a would be useful to local elected ials and provide a vision for an alternative to urban sprawl. A preamble, topics of spe- cific ideas, community principles. regional principles and implen~entation of the principles was presented in the fall of 1991 to about 100 local elected oflScials at a conference at the .-U~wahnee Hotel in Yosemite. Ttnere they received both a higNy enthusiastic response and their title- the .4J~wahnee Principles. ~..OA~/v~U N ITY PRIN(IPL£5 The communib' principles dele a corn- / ~-' t:" '" .- · muniw where housing and a l the things / 9~?~'.-.'"" "~<:';7''~ , - . ..... ~;~ ,: ;.:- · . ~ - needed to meet the daffy needs ot rest- / ~i.=.':~%4 · ' . .-~ . . - . . . dents ~e located x~a~n walMng d~s~ce ~-.~.~.~.- .~.. .- . ..~. =~ ~,~.~.:-~ :.. -.~-~.~=. of one ~other ~ey call Ih' return ng / ~."?'<;-':'..:~:~=~CT~-A:S~*:-~?;':' to Nstonc population dens,ties around / trans t stops to prov de the critical / ~~' ', mass oI people and act~vmes m these / ~ ~-. · areas needed to make transit eco- / -~; nomically xSable ~ev call for hous- / ~;%';?7.?- ~ng which aro~ndes places to ~ve for - ,. .... ' · ' a v~eW of people within a s~ngle h ~~3.-..:' neighborhood in~tead of separat- ~ ~g people bv income level, age or family ~mat~o . ~e .~wahnee Principles state that de~~ velopment should be compact but M~ o~n space provided in the forn~ of squares ~ . , . ~. ~. p~ks. U~ desirer ~ hchael Fr~ describes this as space-making rather "._. than space-occupving development. '"' " Rather than sugounding buildings in ':..... the center of unusable landscaped ~eas (spac~ctq~p}~g development). Freedman says we should use build- ings to Dame public space (place- maMng design). Co,tin ;ted Growth in Population and Vehicle Miles Traveled 1968.88 Ca~i~' 1968.$8 1969.83 · POP ¥~T POP ¥~1 PeP Y~T POP= Popula~bn Grv,,Ah YMT:¥eMIe Miles Trev~ 77~e Ahwahnee Principles: Toward More Livable Communities, Continued 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 creates places that feel more safer. 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 wildli£e 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 ~low traffic and make it safer for pedestrians and bicycles. Narrow streets also create more attractive, more people-friendly neigh- borhoods and shopping districts. Finally. the corm~mnity 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 CalLfomia Solar Rights Act of 1978) to take advantnge of the sun for heating and nat- ural breezes for cooling. Modal-Split (as percentage of total trips) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40 % 30% 205'0 10% 0% United Stales Great Brilain · Auto France West Switzerland Austria Germany · Wolking/Bicycle Public Transil Netherlands ' Olher Sweden LEA(;L'E 01: C.-\I_IF()IiXI..\ CITIES 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 do~mtowns 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. Jb4PLlr/~ E NTATI O N PRIN(.IPLE5 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 tile planning process rather than simply continuing to react to piecemeal proposals. Prior to any development, a ~pecific 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. tile architects put forth the most critical principle of all: "Ptans should be developed lhrough an open process and panicipams in tl~t~ 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 serf-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 con~nunity has more benefits than just d~e creation ora 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 lite?ally see concrete examples of their options. ?mother useful technique is com- puter simulation where tile visual results of a physical plan can be created on the computer. :Lnother method involves tak- ing participants on a walk through their o,ann town to determine which portions of the communitT look good and func- tion well and which do not. [?v~PLEbAENTIN6 THE AHWAHN£E 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 gui& lng principle which states, "Pasadena will be a ciLy where people can cir- culate without cars." The plan lays out where growth shoukl occur- primarily along light rail stations and in neighborhood commercial areas within walking distance of Conlimtcd .f 7he AJ~wahnee Principles: Toward More 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 downto,~-n 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 ex/sting 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 con]- prehensive zoning code update that will create zoning designations to 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 .~r Resources Board has noted that over 60 percent of the people arrMng at San Diego's downtown mall. Horton Plaza, arrive via 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- dense housing built around small neighborhood parks. Large offices, small retail stores, restaurants, gro- cery stores and small teleconm~uting 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 Longx'ille is working with the developer of LEAGL'E OF CALIFORNIA 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. Cathedral 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..am innovative city. in the desert region. Cathedral City understands the best way to deliver good planning principles is to work both with the community and the building indus- try. to develop a comprehensive strate~' of planning more livable neighborhoods. Even the federal government has embraced the Ahwahnee Principles. Mchi- tect Peter Cahhorpe reports that the plan- ning concepts outlined by the .&~wahnee Principles have been x~viuen into a guidance document recently published the federal government. Calthorpe was a coauthor of the document. Vision/' Reality produced by the U.S. Deparm~ent of Housing and Urban Development for local government officials interested in applying for Comnaunits' Development Block Grant program and other funds. A number of ciD' 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 cornmunities 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 o£ developing and revising the general plan will also result in new development which boih 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 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 who gathered in 1991 to de- velop the Ahwahnee Pffnciples are all inter- nationally known for their inspirational work and innovative ideas. Peter Calthorpe, is one of the leaders of the hVew Urbanism" movement and was cited by Newsweek mag- azine as "one of 25 innovators on the cutting edge.' Michael Corbett*, a former 3layor of the City of Davis, has received international recognition/or iris design of the resource~effi- cient Village Homes development in Davis. a project often cited as the best existing example of sustainable development in &e world. The husband-wife team o/Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk made headlines with their highly successful Seaside develop- ment in Floffda and have become highly ac- claimed architects and planners of over 70 new towns and community re~qtalization pro- jects. Stefanos Polyzoides is an Associate Professor of architecture at the University of Southern California. He and his partner, Elizabeth Moule, are the architects of Los Angeles' downtown strategic plan and Playa Vista in Los Angelks, a model application of the Ahwahnee Pn'nciples. 'Mike Cor~ett and Judy Cor~ett are husband and w,fe. PREAMBI.E: 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 ser~qces, the inequit- zble 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, ~rst, infill exist- lng 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: C~OMMUNITY PRINCl PLES: 1. :UJ p]anrdng 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. Con'mmnJty 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 communi~, should contain a diver- sity of housing ~.,pes 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 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 communiLy 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. ~2. 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. '~VVWI'I:T,'\' ("lTV ~ITI~FIT.%lT*~T?T~ REGIONAl. PRINCIPLES: 1. The regional land use planning struc- ture should be integrated within a larger transportation nem'ork built around transit rather than freeways. 2. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of green- belt/wildlife corridors to be deterwfined by natural conditions. 3. Regional institutions and'services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core. 4. Materials and methods of construc- tion shouId be specific to the region, exhibiting continuity of history and cut- ture and compatibilib' with the climate to encourage the development of local character and communi~' 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 gay- ernments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infil] 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 Communities A Project of the Local Government Cornmission The 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 jurisdictions increase transportation alternatives, reduce infrastructure costs, create more affordable housing, improve air quality, preserve natural resources, and restore local economic 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 land use planning. Community Linage Surveys: Inspired by the Visual Preference Survey m, the Community Image Survey is a highly effective mechanism for educating commurdty .members about the advantages of pedestrian-and transit-oriented land use planning. Community, Image Surveys, 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 participatou, plain'ring and irffil] 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 ),our own slide presentation on pedestrian-and transit-oriented land use planning. Speakers List: The Center recommends dynamic and interesting speakers on a varietv of topics related to livable communities. General Plan Language and Ordinances: Photocopies of exemplary measures adopted bv 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 1414 K. Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95814 [ ~ ;. tel 916-448-1198 ~Jk~, fax 916-448-8246 ...~ LOCAL GOV[RNMENT COMMISSION Hou rs: S:30-5:00 ?M PST ~'. ~v\ T~.x%'SP~RTATION PARTN[R The Ahwahnee Principles 2oramunity Principles Exdsting patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quality of life. The symptoms are: more congestion and air pollution resulting fi.om our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for cosdy 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 pre~ent, we can, tint, infill existing communities and, second, pLan new communities that w/Il more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work w/thin them. Such planning should adhere to these fundamental principles: All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work phces, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents. 2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, chily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3. As many activities as possible should be located w/thin easy walldng distance of transit stops. 4.- A community should contain a diversity ofhoushag types to enable citizens fi'om a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live w/thin 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 w/th a larger transit network. 7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses. IO. II. The community should contain an ample supply ofspedalized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected fi.om development. 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. oional Principles vlementation Strategy ~2. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. ~ 3. The community design should help conserve resources and minirn/ze waste. ~4. Communities should provide for the efficient use ofwater through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recTcling. ~5. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community. The regional land-use l~hnning structure should be integrated within a hrger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/ wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core. 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. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles. Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local govern- ments should take charge ofthe phnning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment w/Il be allowed to occur. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on the plan-. ning principles. With the adoption of specific plans, comply/ng projects could proceed with minimal dehy. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the procegs should be provided visual models of all planning proposals. Authors: Peter Calthorpe Michael Corbett Andres Duany Elizabeth Moule Elizabeth Plater- Zyberk 'Stefanos Polyzoides Editors: Judy Corbett Peter Katz Steve Weissman CITIZENS OFFER DEVELOPERS AN ALTERNATIVE BY WENDI KALLINS 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 savW community with unorthodox community planning methods. By the time the project had found its Way through the Matin 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 clu~tcred villages. Armed with this document, a group of actMsts 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: o It would follow basic principles of sustainability, including rc~pect for the land and its ecosystems, reductions in the use of resources, recycling of wastes, and promotion of sustainable actMties. o It would be as inclusive as possible, inviting all other communiD' groups to participate, seeking their feedback and listening to other perspectives. · It would not demonize the developer, but would always leave room for Bruce Burmah -- a local res- ident and French Ranch's representative -- to work intensive ag?iculture. Others gathered information on the property's streams, grasslands, and geology. A month later participants reconvened for a 12- hour design charette. 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 .~ ',30~ from the ['~'J'~x local bistro, ' x'~ ', the actMsrs ~~ worked sensus position, k~ Over the next ~- ~'<'~ ~.~?~ ~,.._~~.~...U..~ month, a small X~~<~2~,~ '~, group took th~~ mtormanon ano crc- N ~~~ ~. '~ . p~n¥i~g te~t .... ' ~~ ~mo Volle~'* list oI goals lms was then taken out into the commu- --.f~ '~ FO~ THE F~ENGH ~NGH niw, with group members presenting the plan and getting feedback. This oommuni~-developed alternative plan clusters all When the fina] Environmental Impact Report on development al lower le~, the developers' proposal came out, a second mini- leavinfl most o[ the sile as charette was called and the final version of the o~n space. maps and goals devised. This document was then taken into the community by volunteers who gath- ered 650 signatures (over 20 with the community. He was invited to all of the planning work- shops. The groups fre- quently exchanged information, resulting in a positive relation- ship. The community design process began with a walk on the "In order to truly control its own destiny, a community must be able to get beyond the 'no development' stance, and decide what sort of development will really serve its needs." property -- 560 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- lng each according to priority. A steering committee was selected and different research qategories established. People dMded 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 percent of the population) on a petition. In its final plan the commu- nit)' proposed the same num- ber of homes as the develop- er, but clustered everything in or around the existing ranch site, leaving the rest of the property as open space. The community design combined duplexes and t.riplexes 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- wbtlands 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 ~ontinued next page 1995 NsM~P 4 FRENCH RANCH continued from previous 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. Thc county also recommended a maximum aggregate square footage on the development in recognition of the community's desire to limit the size of the houses rather than the number of homes. Its formula would give tilt. developer full buildot,t only if he reduced the size of tilt' homes. \Vhilc thc volunteers didn't get thc shared-wall houses that they wanted, the opo?tunity for diversit)' was encouraged. Davidson ago embraced the bomrnu- nit)"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- mcat did not support the request for preser- vation of thc prime soig, nor the community's desire to keep thc eastern end of rite property, which borders an important open space preserve, free of develop- mem. This ~va~ done itl deference to the developers' insistence that thest: were thc most valuable homesites on thc propcrt.\', igm~ring thc fact that the property was zoned for agriculture in tile first place. The planning commission moved the project even fur- ther in the communit)"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- five suggestions. The)' were confounded that a commu- nit)' could actually be able to sa)' ")'es" to development. The plan was then scar on to the Board of Supervi- sors and some serious negotiations. The actMsts chose one of their own, Steve Kinsey, to act as their represen- tati\'e in negotiations. Kinsey had been hiking this prop- err)' for years and knew every inch of the land. As an architect hc was trained in design and planning and was a skilled and accomplished diplomat. In the eleventh hour, Kinsey and Burmah worked out a new idea to use a state law allowing a densi%' bonus for Iow-income housing to create more opportunities for diversity and affordabilit).. And Bruce finally pu}led out bis trump card: open space dedication. Only one local group decided to hold o.ut and not sign the deal, choosing to be the standard bear- er for the original community-ba~ed plan of agri- culture and attached housing. But the >ix other groups went into the SupervisoM hearing with a signed deal supported by the majority of the com- munity representatives. It was an historic occasion and everyone knew it. As three of the four supervi- sors said aye, the room erupted in cheers. The French Ranch process broke ground in many areas. From its limitations on total square footage to the biological wastewater treatment, from the cordial and friendly relationship with the developer to the cooperation from the count?', 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 what sort of development will really serve its needs. Former UE board member Wend~ Kalhn~ helped create the communil), design for French Ranch. HALCYON COMMONS conlinued [rom page 3 The grassr.oots planning effort for Halycon Com- mons involved more then 50 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 )'ears in a row. Flowers have mysteriously appeared around many of the street trees, and the streets have become cleaner. Most important, neighbors have gouen to know one another and have shown greater concern for each other. The immediate crime rate has coin& dentally declined over the past )'ear. 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. I:or more in[urination, contact the author at (510) 8q9.1969. ]ohn Stcere is a resident o[ Hal)'con Court and a planner for the Contra Costa Water District. NEW PATTERNS OF GROWTH TO FIT THE NEW CALIFORNIA California is at a unique and unprecedented point in its histoo'--a point at which we face profound questions about our fiaure growth that will determine the state's economic vitality and quality of life for the next gener- ation and beyond. One of the most fimdamental questions we face is whether California can affoM to support the patte~v~ of urban and suburban development, often referred to as "sprawl," that has characterized its growth since World War H. There is no question that this pat- tern of growth has helped fuel California's unparalleled economic and population boom, anti that it has enabled millions of Californians to real- ize the enduring dream of home owner- ship. But as we approach the 21st century.', il is clear thal sprav,,l has creat- ed enomaous costs that California can no longer afford, h'onically, unchecked sprawl has shifted from an engine of California's growth to a force that now threatens to ]nh]hi! growth aad 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 il is one that has never been more critical or urgenl. Despite dramatic changes in California over the last decade, tradilional 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 cosls, which until now have been hidden, ignored, or quietly borne by society. The burden of these costs is becoming vec,' clear. Businesses stiffer from higher costs, a loss in work- er productivity, and underutilized investments in older comn~unities. California's business climate becomes less attractive than SU~TOund- lng slates. Suburban residents pay a heavy price in taxation and automobile SPONSOR'S NOTE This report suggests new ideas about how California can continue ~o grov/while s'ill fostering the economic vitalily m~d quality of life lhat makes it such a vibr,'mt 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 baJlk: Greenbelt Alliance. the Bay Area's citizen conser,,ation and planning organization; and the Low Income Housing Fund, a nonprofit organization dedicated to Iow-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 lhe public dialogue about the quality and direction of California's growth in the 21 sl century. 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, lhat evolves from expansion to maturity. The early stages of growth are often exuberant and unchecked--that has certainly been the case in post-Wot'Id War II California. But unchecked grov,'lh cannot be sustained forever. At some point this initial surge must mature into more managed, strategic growth. 'Iq~is 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 smarwr about how it grows--lo invent ways we can create conapact and effi- cienl 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. BEYOND SPRAWL ttEvell as otlr eCOllOllly attd our society are being rein vented dail>; we continue to abandon people and in vestments in older communities as development leap- frogs out to fi'inge areas to accommodate another generation of lo.'-density living." "Contiuued sprawl may seem i/wxpe/tsive for ct new hot/tebuycr or a growing busiuess on lhe suburban fringe, but the ultimate cost--to [hose holtl~o WIl~l'S~ [o gover/zme/zt, a/rd [o socieO, at large--is potentially crippli.g." "Within the las! generation, the postwar fol'/nttla for Sllccexs has become ove/',,hchued by ils OWl1 COIISCqlICIICUS.~ It is a tall order---one that calls for us to rise above our occasional isolation as individuals and interest groups, and address these profound challenges 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 strong focus on job creation and housing in established urban areas, [] To establish a legal and procedural franmv.'ork that will create the desired certainty and send the right economic signals to investors. [] To build a broad-based constiluency to combat sprawl that includes environmentalists, community organizations, businesses, farmers, government leaders and olhers. Californians are already taking some of these steps. We have attempted in this report to not on]>' point out the obstacles to sustained growth, but also to highlight the positive actions that are occurring 1o better manage growth. Our fundamental message is lhat we must build on these early suc- cesses and take more comprehensive and decisive steps over lhe next fey., >'ears 1o meet this challenge. To build a strong, vibrant economy and ensure a high quality of life for the 21st cenluo', we must move beyond sprawl in the few remaining 3'ears 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 immig],'ation patterns are rapidly producing a truly multicuhural society, creating a variety of related social and economic issues. At the same time, C'Aifomia has emerged a_s 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- ments 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 people and counting--is using land and other resources in much the same fashion as the "old" California, with only 10 mil- lion people. We cannot afford another generation of sprav,'l. 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 cosl--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 il will make California economically uncom- petitive and create social, environmental and political problems we may not be able to solve. At a lime when economic growth is slow and social tensions are high, it is easy to dismiss an issue like suburban sprawl as superfluous. Yet il lies at the heart of the very economic, social and environmental issues that v,'e face today. Rapid population growth and economic change are occurring in a state increasingly characterized by a limited supply of developable land, environmental slress at the metropolitan fringe, and older communities in transition. With the onset of economic recovery, lhe next few >,ears 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 1,40 >'ears. Suburban Sprawl and the "Old" California In the decades after World War California emerged as an economic and political powerhouse, providing jobs. hous- ing and prosperity for most of its rapidly growing population. BEYOND SPRAWL Underlying this success was a devel- opmenz panem 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 overwhehned 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 nol 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. In the 1990s, California is undergoing chance of such scale and simfificance that it will literally redefine lhe state. To succeed, the new California must recog- nize and build upon the following changes in positive ways. Population Grov~lh 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 3'cars of the 1980s, California added more than 6 million new residents, a population larger ttian all but a few of the 49 other states. Even during the bust years of the earl)' 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 pros 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 ,,','ho bring great diversity to the state. California is truly one of the world's most multicultura] societies. Underneath the racial diversity lies another important change in the state's population patterns that ,.,,'ill have a profound effect on California's attitudes toward growth over the next generation. Traditionally, the popular perception has been that California's population gro``vs 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 ahnost 400,000 new ~eople each ),ear. Tomorrow's California will include--for the first time--a vast pool of people ',`"ho are Californians from birth. They ``','ill want what Californians before them have wanted--education, jobs and housing. Most will expect the state to find a way to accomxnodate them. But their numbers are so huge that they probably cannot be sustained by traditional suburban development patterns. Economic Change During the recession, California has undergone an unprecedented economic restructuring. The state has lost 400,000 "California's continuing · surge in population puts pressure on both existing communities and on the remaining supply of undeveloped lan.& making it extreme¢, difficult for traditional suburban patterns to accommodate more people." "Tomorrow's California .'ill inchtde--for the first time--a vast pool of people who are Californian,s from birth. They will want Californiat~s before them ha~,e wanted-- educatiott, jobs and housing." BEYOND SPRAWL ', "Easy mobility fo/' the middle class has caused them to abandon many older neighborhoods, disrupting social stability and increasing the economic disparity ;between older 7. ~ communities ? ~ newer $1lbllrbs." :. "The decentral&atio/t of jobs has hit olde/' neighborhoods especially haM, because new jobs are/to}t, virtually inaccessible to the poor a/rd the working class'." "The engine of sprawl is fiteled b3' a mix of individual choices, market forces, and government policies, most of which have only become more entrenched over time." manufacturing jobs since 1990, causing businesses and workers alike to rethink old assumptions about how to ensure prosperity. Traditional foundations of the state's economy, such as aerospace and defense, have been drastically reduced and will probably never return, at least not in their previous form. Others--such as entertain- ment, technology, the garment industry and agriculture--remain just as important as ever. But they 19o have undergone tremen- dous change, becoming leaner and more efficient in response to global competition. And small businesses remain the largest source of new job creation. In the near future, the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement will begin to be felt. These economic changes are also putting pressure on the state's land-use pat- terns. The loss of manufacturing jobs is emptying out the state's long-established industrial areas, usually located in older communities. Downsizing and technologi- cal change in other industries is also ren- dering older buildings obsolete and creat- ing a demand for new buildings---often in new suburbs--that are both inexpensive and flexible. The closure of many military bases is bringing a huge amount of land to thc real estate market that will either extend sprawl or encourage ne,,',' development patterns, depending on how that land is used. Spreading Urbanization In response to both demographic and eco- nomic pressure, California has become the most urbanized state in the union. According to the 1990 Census, more than 80 percent of all Californians live in metro- politan areas of I million people or more, v,,ilh 30 percent of the state's population living in Los Angeles County alone. This large-scale urbanization means /hal California's people and businesses compele intensely v.'ith each other for space to live and work. The edges of metropolitan areas continue to grow to accommodate expansion of population and economic activity, while some neglected inner-ciD, areas are left behind. These patterns increase the stress of daily life while, at lhe sanle time, put more pressure on land and environmental resources at lhe metropolitan fringe. All of these factors--a growing pop- ulation, a changing economy, and .increased urbanization--have been present in California for many years. But Ihcy have accelerated in the 1990s. while traditional suburban development patterns have continued. In a state with such power- ful growth dynamics, the results are aston- ishing. The following trends are typical of the effects of sprawl over the last I0 to 20 years: · Employment centers have decen- tralized dramatically. While jobs used to be concentrated in central cities, most are now created in the newer suburbs. For example, the complex of office centers around John Wayne Airport in Orange County--built on land that was, until a generation ago, cultivated for lima beans--recently surpassed downtown San Francisco as the second-largest employment center in the state. [] New housing tracts have pushed deeper into agricultural and envi- ronmentally sensitive areas. Job centers in suburban San Jose and the East Bay area have opened up Tracy, Manteca, Modesto, and other Central Valley lowns as "bedroom suburbs," while job growth in the San Fernando Valle), has stimulated hous.ing construction 40 miles to the north in the Antelope Valley. This development has created metropolis- es virtually unmanageable in size. [] Dependence on the automobile has increased. According to the California Energy Commission, between 1970 and 1990 the state's population grew by 50 percent, but the total number of miles traveled by cars and trucks grew by 100 percent. [] Isolation of older communities, including central cities and "first wave" suburbs built in the 1940s and 1950s, has increased. Easy mobility for the middle class has caused them to abandon many older neighborhoods, disrupting social sta- bility and increasing the economic disparity between older communilies and newer suburbs. The decentral- ization of jobs has hit older neigh- borhoods especially hard, because new jobs are now ,.,ir~ually inaccessi- ble to the poor and the working class. Also left behind are infraslruc- lure inveslments, which are tremen- dously expensive to replicate in new suburbs. Even though the consequences of 'sprawl have beeu underslood for at lcasl Ix~O decades. BEYOND SPRAWL anempts to combat it have been fragmented and ineffective. 'Fne engine of sprawl is fueled by a mix of indMdual choices, market forces, and government policies, most of which have only become more entrenched over time. These forces include: [] 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 infrhsti-ucture. [] A perception that suburbs are cheaper than urban alternatives. Owning a starter home in a distaut 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 tile larger cost to society of far-flung suburbs--a cost the family will eventually share in paying. [] A beliefthat suburban communities will give businesses moreflexibility 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 the)' perceive they will have access to a better<-ducated work fi>rec. [] Technological changes that have decentralized employment away from traditional centers. This phenomenon pernlits dispersal of both jobs and houses across a huge area. Tile emergence of thc "infor- mation superhighway" may acceler- ate this trend. [] Highway and automobile subsidies that have traditionally fueled sub- urban growth remain in place today. Since tile 1950s, automobile use has been encouraged by govern- ment-financed road-building pro- grams, and for the most part the "external cosls" of automobile use (i.e., air pollution) have not beeu tile direct financial responsibility of tile individual motorisl. [] 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 ince. ntives that encourage local governments to "cherry- pick" land uses based on tax con- siderations. Under Proposition lYs 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 sen'ices, 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 il. though the costs are often hidden and those who pay them are not always aware of it. The 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 )'ears later, lhe 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." "Today, no one in California is uuaffected by the cost of sprawl. Its consequences spread across all groups, regardless of geography, race, income, or political status." ~: Is neotradifional town planning a tood alternative? Looking to the past for inspiration, many land use professionals have be- [,mn 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 'ssue of Urbm~ La~d, Marc Hochstein re- viewed several boo'ks that call on land use professionals to reassess suburban develop- mcnt practices. A series of articles in Urban La~td by Lloyd \V. Bookout explains the basic con- copts of neotTaditional town planning and compares them with conventional postwar suburban development. Bookout identifies and cxph)rcs fi~c key planning and design considerations surrounding ncotraditional planning, namely: land use mix, densiw, street patterns, pedestrian circulntion, open spaces, architec~ral charncter, and sense of community. Bookout provides a balanced account of ncotraditiona) plan- ning, relating both its merits and limita- tions in the marketplace. William Winburn IV discusses his expe- riences with &e team developing Kentlands, a traditional neighborhood development iu Gaithersburg, Ma~'land. Winburn describes the iqherent difficulties such a project faces when it confronts re~lato~T and economic systems designed to accommodate suburban pla~ed unit developments. ~ Toa,~s and Tow~-,~'laking Prindpks, ~dres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk (who are among the neotraditional town planning movement's earliest and best-~own spokespeople) discuss the fundamental prin- ciples bchlnd neotraditional planning and of- fer design examples from more than a dozen developments with which they have been volved. Thc book is illustrated with maps, photos, and site plans for these projects, and also b~cludes a dimussion of reDflatoD, codes in neo~aditional development. The Pedcs~ian Pocket Book is the result of a week-long design charrcue spearheaded by Peter Cahhorpc and hchl at the Univer- si~ of ~Vaslfingqon. The charreue was con- vened to produce a plan for a 90-acre site in Auburn, ~¥ashin~on, that would include 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. He describes the economic and social advantages that neo- traditional town plarmiflg can offer by com- paring conventional subdkqsion development with the neotraditional design adopted at Four Mile Creek· John Schleimer relates the results of a sup'ey of homebuyers in four popular neotraditional communities. More than 84 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.--Dax4d A. Muk4hill David,.t. ~.hdvihill is an i~fo~wtatio, specialist in ULI's Developmem b~fo~wmtio~ Se~-oice. References Bookout, Uoyd W. "NeotradiSonal To~q Planning: A New V?Jon for the Suburbs." Ud)an Land, January 1992, pp. 20-26. __. "Neo~ditional Town Manning: Cars, Pedesiriar~, ard Tra.,~t" Urban Land, February 1992, pp. 10-15. __. "Neotraditional Town Manning: B~king ConvenSonal Codes and Slanc~ards." Urban L~nd, &on] 1992, pp.18-25. · "Neo~ditional Town Manning: l~e Test of ~e Marketplace." Urban Land, June 1992, pp. 12-17. · "Neo~rlitional Town Planning: Toward a Blending of Design &oproaches." Urban Land, August 1992, pp. 14-19. Brown, Peter H. "The Economics of Traditional Neighbor- hoods: Competing for the,8oMom Line with Conven- tional SobdMsions-A Case Study of Four Mile Creek." Land DeveloPmenf, Fa~ 1993, pp. 20-24. Duany, Andres, a~ Fl~betfl Maler-Zyberk. Towns and Town-maMng Principles. Cambridge, Massachuse~: Harvard Un~rs~/School of Design, 1991. 120 pp. Hochstein, Marc. "A New Urbanist Ubrary." Utf~an Land, October 1994, pp. 79-81. /be Pede.~rbn ,~kef Book. New York: Princeton Archi- lectural Press, 1989.68 pp. ,Sch~eimer, John. "Market Research: Buyers of Homes in Neotrad~Jonal Comrnunftie. s Voice 'l~e~r Opinions." Land Development, Sprin~/Summer 1993, pp. 4-6. Whbum, Will~am A., iV. 'The Developmenl Rea~ifes of Traditional Town Design." Urban Land, August 1992, pp. 20-21, 47. Fo~ additional refere~es and a copy of maw of the above--men,ned articles, as we~ as others, see "NeotradilJonal Mannir~g," UU InfoPacket ~,32~ (~vzl- aSe at $49 for UU members, ~1 ~ nomnen'6e~P. ~r~ L~md * Not,tvnbcr 1994