Afi-Soa-2008-Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Alley Flat Initiative Topics in Sustainable Development 2008 Report Editors Steven A. Moore Sergio Palleroni Legend LOT WITH ALLEY FLAT POTENTIAL* ALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA SECONDARY APARTMENT INFILL TOOL ADOPTION (BY NPA / SUBDISTRICT) NO YES MAJOR ROAD MINOR ROAD STREET LADY BIRD LAKE * ALL LOTS WITH ALLEY FLAT POTENTIAL SHOWN ON MAP ARE ZONED SF-3. csd Center for Sustainable Development i THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 1 UNIVERSITY STATION B7500; AUSTIN, TX DR. ELIZABETH MUELLER, DIRECTOR WORKING PAPER SERIES JULY 2008 ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ALLEY FLATS IN FOUR CITIES 2. CONDITIONS IN AUSTIN: LANDSCAPE OF OPPORTUNITY (ELIZABETH) 2.1 REVIEW OF LOTS WITH ALLEY FLAT POTENTIAL 2.2 REVIEW OF LOTS WITH POTENTIAL FOR SECONDARY UNITS IN GENERAL 2.3 BEGINNING WITH EAST AUSTIN BECAUSE… 3. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE AUSTIN’S ALLEY FLAT INITIATIVE 4. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 4.1 THREE CASES OF AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 4.2 REGULATION 5. OWNERSHIP AND FINANCING STRUCTURES 5.1 OWNERSHIP STRUCTURES AND THEIR SUITABILITY 5.2 FUNDING SOURCES AND THEIR SUITABILITY 6. DISTRIBUTED INFRASTRUCTURE 6.1 WATER 6.2 ELECTRICITY 6.3 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS APPENDICES A. GIS METHODS B. LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTNERSHIPS C. OWNERSHIP AND FINANCING STRUCTURES iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was initially supported by a generous research grant from the Henry Luce Foundation and has subsequently been supported by the Austin Community Foundation, Perry Lorenz, and anonymous donors. Support for construction of the initial prototype has been received from Autodesk, Lincoln Properties, Wells Fargo Bank, Walter Elcock Family, HG TV, Suzi Sosa, Bercy‐Chen, Alexa Werner, Michael Casias, Meridian Energy, DXS‐Daikin, Z‐Works, Ecocreto, and Pat Flanary. The format of our investigation has depended upon the generous investment of time by other UT faculty members, community activists and City of Austin employees who participated in our class discussions, answered endless questions, and inspired us. They include: Susana Almanza People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources Ellen Beasley Independent Historic Preservation Scholar Kent Butler UT Community and Regional Planning Program Reynaldo Cantu URS Corporation Michael Gatto Austin Community Design and Development Center John Hennenberger Texas Low Income Housing Information Service Sylvia Herrera People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources Matt Hollon City of Austin, Watershed Protection and Development Review Andrew Jamison Aalborg University, Denmark Andy Karvonen UT Community and Regional Planning Program Sonia Lopez City of Austin, Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Department Chris Maxwell‐Gaines Innovative Water Solutions Elizabeth Mueller UT Community and Regional Planning Program iv Michael Oden UT Community and Regional Planning Program Dick Peterson Environmental Program Coordinator, Austin Energy Green Building Program Mark Rogers Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation JT Stewart URS Corporation Dave Sullivan City of Austin Planning Commission Kelly Weiss PeopleTrust, a support organization of PeopleFund To this list of guest contributors we must, of course, acknowledge the work of students: Christopher Allnatt Law Erin Bernstein Landscape Architecture Julienne Bautista Community and Regional Planning Joanne Crompton Public Policy and Latin American Studies Richard Crum Architecture Lindsay Eriksson Law Jennifer Diamond Public Policy Guy Fimmers Architecture Colleen Flynn Community and Regional Planning Eva Gitzes Public Policy Aziz Hussaini Architectural Engineering Stephanie Perrone Sustainable Design Tiberiu Petricia Business Devon Ponds Business Bennett Powell Community and Regional Planning Meng Qi Community and Regional Planning Christopher Short Sustainable Design Jennifer Todd Community and Regional Planning Elizabeth Walsh Community and Regional Planning v Katherine Wayland Public Policy In Jang Young Community and Regional Planning In sum, this transdisciplinary team didn’t always agree about what action to take, but they did agree about the severity of the problem and thus opened up new directions for research that we did not anticipate at the beginning—a sure sign that we learned something through our collaboration across the disciplines. Dr. Steven Moore, Bartlett Cocke Professor of Architecture and Planning Sergio Palleroni, Adjunct Associate Professor of Architecture. vi PREFACE What we now call “alley flats” had different names in different places. Some were called “back houses,” others “granny flats,” “mother‐in‐law apartments,” “dependencies,” “secondary suites,” or “laneway houses.” In contemporary zoning ordinances they are typically, and more technically, called “secondary dwelling units” (SDUs) or “accessory dwelling units” (ADUs). In our study of these small houses we have learned that each type emerged from particular conditions in particular cities. The back‐houses of 19th C Galveston, for example, have a very different history than the alley‐flats now popping up in 21st C Austin. Where the small houses of Galveston were initially built as slave‐ dwellings that reflected and enforced the political economy of that time, the small houses of Austin are appearing in response to explosive population growth, decreasing social equity, and degrading environmental conditions. These are very different conditions indeed and, as one would expect, the two things backhouses and alley flats have in common is little more than their relative size and placement. What we have come to call The Alley Flat Initiative (AFI) has developed over the past five years and is today a collaboration of the University of Texas Center for Sustainable Development (UTCSD), the Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation (GNDC), and the Austin Community Design and Development Center (ACDDC). This team emerged from a conversation between faculty and students at the University of Texas School of Architecture that engaged local housing and environmental activists. We are all very aware of the uneven history that university/community relations have experienced. None‐the‐less, our conversation has been educational on both sides and has catalyzed an immediate and a long‐term goal: The immediate goal has been to build two prototype alley flats – one for each of two very different families in East Austin – that will showcase both the innovative design and environmental sustainability features of the alley flat homes. These prototypes will demonstrate how sustainable housing can support growing communities by being 1 affordable and adaptable. The first prototype was completed in May 2008 and the second will begin construction in October 2008. These prototypes will be tested over the next two years to compare their operation to conventional suburban houses which are the primary alternative. The long‐term objective of the Alley Flat Initiative is to create a flexible and self‐ perpetuating delivery system for sustainable and affordable housing in Austin. The “delivery system” will include not only efficient housing designs constructed with sustainable technologies, but also innovative methods of financing and home ownership that equitably benefit all neighborhoods in Austin. Having (almost) satisfied our short‐term goal, the purpose of this report is two‐ fold: First, to assess how we are doing in satisfying long‐term goals. And second, to broaden community participation in the project and thereby improve the flow of information required for success. Building two modest homes that demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits of sustainable design is an achievement of which students and our partners are understandably proud. But even this achievement pales in the face of the larger project. Creating a self‐perpetuating housing delivery system that is efficient, equitable, and sustainable requires that we think about housing, not only as units of consumption (which is the conventional understanding of housing development), but also as units of production. In making this distinction we hope to demonstrate that conventional affordable housing is too often conceived as a place to warehouse members of society who have modest incomes and are therefore characterized by some as being unproductive. Seen through such lenses it is not hard to understand why governments are reluctant to invest scarce resources in “solving the housing problem.” If, however, we frame the problem somewhat differently, we might find new and more successful solutions. All new housing, be it suburban, high‐rise or infill, puts demands on urban infrastructure—the roads, wires, and pipes that enable the comforts of modern life. 2 Suburban housing requires the city to extend infrastructure into new, previously undeveloped territory at great economic and environmental cost. High‐rise apartment or condominium housing generally requires utility upgrades because of its single‐point density. In contrast, urban infill housing is less costly, but it too runs the risk of over‐ burdening antiquated or under‐sized infrastructure systems. If however, new infill housing is designed to increase rather than decrease the capacity of existing electrical and water infrastructures, for example, it can be understood as contributing to the economic viability of existing neighborhoods, to the viability of aging infrastructure, and to the ecological health of the city as a whole. This kind of affordable housing is not a warehouse for unproductive people,