John Petro
Making Housing Affordable and Sustainable: Densification is the key
I was invited by New American City to live blog an event today and NYU's Furman Center. The two-day conference is called "A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Transforming America's Housing Policy."
The live blog is here.
All of the panelists agree that increasing the densities of our communities is key in making our housing more affordable and our living patterns more sustainable. However, Enrique Penalosa, former mayor of Bogota, Columbia, pointed out that most Americans do not want to live in more dense environments. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center showed that when Americans are asked about what their ideal community type would be, 30% say they would most like to live in a small town, 25% in a suburb, 23% in a city and 21% in a rural area.
I would argue that, while this is currently the case, we are beginning to see a shift of preferences in community types. Younger generations are no longer clamoring for a house in the suburbs and a two car garage. Indeed, the study points out that younger people prefer cities over suburbs or small towns. Whether these individuals will still prefer cities as they get older and have families is uncertain.
Mr. Penalosa suggested that cities should focus on providing the types of services and amenities that the suburbs offer. Of course a city dweller will not be able to have as much personal green space or personal living space as a suburban homeowner, at least for the same amount of money. But cities can provide some of these goods through improving the public realm. Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board suggested that cities should provide increased community benefits to those communities that agree to increased density.
One way of achieving this is through Tax Increment Financing districts. These districts capture a portion of the increased property values and sends it back to the community. So, if a community were to agree to a rezoning that increases the allowed density, the land values of that area would likely increase, since landowners and developers can fit more units on a parcel of land. A portion of these increased property values is captured and spent on improvements in the district, such as transit improvements, new public buildings such as libraries, improving schools, and increasing the amount or quality of parks or public plazas. In San Francisco, developers pay a fee that goes into community improvements as part of the new Eastern Neighborhoods Plan.
Portland, on the other hand, is taking steps to change the types of housing options in the city that would appeal to those who are looking for more greenspace.
In 2007, the City of Portland invited architects from around the world to share ideas on the design possibilities of housing oriented to shared courtyards. Portland is promoting courtyard housing as an additional infill housing type that can provide a quality living environment at densities higher than conventional detached housing.• How can courtyard housing be designed to serve as an attractive option for families with children?
• How can courtyards serve as useable outdoor space while also providing environmental sustainability benefits, act as a setting for community interaction while also respecting privacy needs, or serve as a pedestrian-oriented space while also accommodating cars?
• How can courtyard housing avoid a purely inward focus and contribute to Portland’s tradition of street-oriented urbanism?
John Petro: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 3:32 PM, Feb 12, 2009 in
Urban Affairs
Permalink | Email to Friend
