Mixed-Income Housing Myth and Fact

SUMMARY OF TCAAP ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES JANUARY - MARCH 2014

This document provides a summary of the following engagement activities:

 Joint Development Authority meeting - January 6  Planning Commission work session - January 8  Public open house - January 22  Five Cities meeting – March 10  Developer interviews - January 30, February 20, and March 12

Joint Development Authority – January 6, 2014 The draft Master Plan was presented to the JDA for input, a summary of which is below:

 Good balance between housing and business  Water feature is good, but concerns about maintenance and visual aspects – don’t want a swamp  General agreement that a roundabout needs more study – can it handle traffic, is it marketable?  Make sure the ability of the school district to accommodate increase in enrollment is addressed  Connectivity within the site is good, but need to address connectivity to the rest of the city  Questions about the size of the central park facility and the footprint of a potential band shelter/amphitheater

Commissioner Ortega also reported that the Ramsey County Board was very pleased with the plan.

Planning Commission – January 8, 2014 At this TCAAP work session, the Planning Commission was asked to provide feedback on a list of issues raised by the City Council relative to the Master Plan (wetlands, central water feature, and surface water management; roundabout and connection to CR H; residential densities and mix of housing types; green space and active recreation areas; and flex space development).

Overall comments from the Planning Commission on the Master Plan were positive. Specific comments included: good mix of life cycle housing, need for work force housing, like the roundabout, and don’t just give the keys to developers. No specific comments were provided on density.

Open House #2 – January 22, 2014 The second open house for the TCAAP Master Plan was held on January 22, 2014 at the Ramsey County Public Works facility. The purpose of this open house was to provide information about the master plan process, and solicit input on the Draft Master Plan. Over 90 people were in attendance. 34 identified as Arden Hills residents.

The following display boards were available for viewing:  Where are you from?  Illustrative Master Plan  Trails and Transit  Land Use Plan  How should TCAAP be like/different from  Neighborhood Housing Arden Hills?  Open Space and Parks  Analysis and Design Principles  The Town Center and Economic  Design Process Development  Opportunities and Constraints  TCAAP will be like/different from Arden Hills  Design Process – A Systems Approach because…

Other media included:  Handout giving an overview of the project, schedule, and contact information  Brief presentation covering the Master Plan development process looped continuously on TVs in the room Page 1 of 5 March 2014

 An interactive roundabout exercise  Illustrative Plan exercise included large maps set up on tables. Participants placed post-it notes on areas where they had a comment or suggestion. Staff facilitators were present at each table and wrote questions and comments on a flip chart.  Invitation to write on a board posing the question “How should TCAAP be similar/different from Arden Hills?”  Comment cards

Common themes from these exercises include the following:  Prioritize small/independent businesses  Good mix of uses and housing types  Good trail system  Need good connectivity to CR I  Add regional amenities (pool, library, green space, etc.)  Like the walkable town center  Disagreement whether the amount of green space is adequate or if there should be more

All exercise comments:  Traffic on 35W  Like wetland feature x2  No big box retail  Need more connectivity to CR I x4  Keep lighting to a minimum  Include more infiltration to limit rising VOCs  Where is low-income housing x2  Note that basement sealing is for Radon and  Add transit to alleviate traffic VOCs  Add trail crossing at US 10  Add regional amenities x2  Like the buffer between residential and  Pools? Library? X3 highway  Good park elements x2  Want a better wetland meander  Concern with roundabout safety x2  Good neighborhoods and parks x2  Concern with low density nature of flex  Include small retail and restaurants in town business district center x5  Like high-density residential  Trail connections x4  Potential for canoe route on Rice Creek  Good variety of housing and uses x 3  Add sustainable energy features  Good walkable town center x3  Make town center 1 to 2 stories  Like the central park amphitheater  More senior living component  Access to AHATS

Eighteen (18) comment sheets were also submitted. Common themes in written comments included:  Be sure to adequately incorporate safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities  More parks and open space  The plan includes a good amount of parks and open space  No “big box” retail  Be sure to promote small and independent retailers and restaurants

All comments submitted via comment sheets:  Add bike and pedestrian facilities X4  More parks  Make bike and pedestrian improvements  More open space X4 safe X2  No roundabout o Bike/ped underpasses for access to  No “big box” retail X4 the site  Make TCAAP a regional attraction Page 2 of 5 March 2014

 Engage surrounding municipalities to make  Add schools sure there is sufficient access to the site  Good parking layout  How will the infrastructure be paid for? Will  Good lifecycle housing City/County taxpayers be reimbursed?  Concerns about not enough access  Parks are appropriate size and in good  AH needs more independent retailers and location X2 restaurants X3  Incorporate a transit hub  No large townhome developments  Use sustainable features and design  Like mixed-use space standards  Athletic facility  Will AHATS be cleaned as well?  Civic center

Five Cities Meeting – March 10, 2014  The Mayor of Mounds View noted that trails and connections to existing trails are an important feature for the entire area. He expressed concerns about surface water being directed to Rice Creek and Mounds View.

 The Mayor of Roseville, based on that city’s experience with the Twin Lakes project, advised that the City not be too restrictive in the definition of uses allowed in the business park.

 The Mayor of Shoreview emphasized the importance of improving transit service to the area.

 The Shoreview City Manager thought that the central surface water feature, if done well, could be a big asset for the development. He compared the plan to the Centennial Lakes development in Edina which created an amenity out of stormwater infrastructure. He also compared the draft master plan to the West End development in St. Louis Park which mixes a fitness club, restaurants, and theaters with office. The mix of uses support shared parking facilities.

 The Shoreview City Manager expressed concerns with the thumb connection to County Road I. Specifically, he was concerned that the new road would be used as a bypass for I-35W from County Road J to County Road H. The City of Shoreview is also opposed to changes to the County Road I interchange which would eliminate access points.

 General comments included very positive feedback on the draft master plan and advice that the City should adhere to the plan as development occurs. There was strong support for the roundabout. Attendees had questions regarding density and comments about lot sizes for single-family homes and the type of residential development that can work with smaller lots.

DEVELOPER INTERVIEWS – January - March 2014

City of Arden Hills staff, Ramsey County staff, and consultants interviewed representatives from Opus, Lennar (residential), Mattamy Homes, Ryan Companies, and United Properties during the months of January, February, and March.

Key Takeaways:  Site is planned effectively – uses are in balance and the locations are appropriate  Residential will drive retail  Let market conditions dictate exact boundaries of different users (retail/office)  Mixed use/town center will be challenging and should be developed last

Page 3 of 5 March 2014

 Retail component can have regional appeal and should also cater to all-day (residential) and daytime (office) users of the site  Amenities are a differentiator - the planned water and open space is attractive  It’s OK to send the message that you want to do something different here – but recognize initial users may not be “brave” (especially retail) – but later, there may be more opportunities for innovation  Key to success – making people feel like they’re part of something smaller, not just one big development  Keep the process as flexible as possible

Common themes by category:

Land Uses  Office o The Thumb is a compelling site – wait for the right user o Western edge of site is attractive, good for visibility o Currently market not there for speculative office, but some users out there for build-to-suit o Consider consumer/professional services office ( dentist, chiropractic, banks, financial planners, insurance, etc.)

 Flex Business o Industrial market has been active lately o Location is desirable to potential labor force o Access and site configuration doesn’t lend to heavy truck distributors o Substantial flex space may need phased infrastructure

 Residential (primarily comments from Lennar and Mattamy Homes) o Plan of three distinct neighborhoods is attractive, appeals to varied users o People buy communities, not homes o Density can be achieved by mix of single- and multi-family o Mix of lot sizes in single family neighborhoods - typical lots tend to be 65’ or 75’ (50’ or 60’ product) o Use smaller lots/alley loaded homes and multifamily to transition between single-family and town center, maybe single row townhomes o Lot depths could be reduced by implementing smaller front setbacks, emphasis on porch, etc. o Sees Creek Neighborhood as entirely single-family o A second entrance into Creek Neighborhood would be preferable o Residential developers will want fewer roads adjacent to parks so that costs can be absorbed by housing on both sides of road o Buyers will be concerned about the image at the entrance points to neighborhoods o Could see a mix of multifamily types – garden apartments, large complexes, senior housing o Rental market seems to be expanding, and amenities are desired – “it’s OK to rent” o Walkable spaces are important

 Retail o Retail node near CR H is a great spot o Opportunity for regional appeal – implement a good mix of uses/options so people will come to spend their time o Larger format regional/smaller format neighborhood = appealing o Get residential in and retail will follow o Will need an anchor – grocery, smaller-format big box o Restaurants, dry cleaning, health club would be attractive for corporate users as well as residents o Consider neighborhood retail along 96

Page 4 of 5 March 2014

o Think about shared parking opportunities – entertainment (movie theater), health clubs are good for sharing with office, retail o Retail is becoming more about the experience rather than simply buying goods

 Mixed Use o Vertical mixed use/town center can be difficult/expensive o This should be the last piece to develop; leave open for options including horizontal mixed use o Challenging but also exciting/unique if market is strong

Site Access/Infrastructure  CR H improvements are critical to retail development  Connections to County Road I are important  If spine road and utilities are in – huge benefit  No particularly strong feelings on roundabouts

Site Amenities  Regional stormwater - very efficient way to look at land, saves developers from going through approval process and implementing on-site ponding; also unique amenity for site users  People are buying experiences vs things – connectivity, trails, etc.

Development Process  Questions about how someone can quote or gain control of the land  Will JDA have ability to provide incentives - “what will you give us to come here?”  Think about what developers or their attorney would need to see  Flexibility = easier process  Assuring land bases will be competitive will be an advantage for the site

Page 5 of 5 March 2014

Approved: February 5, 2014

CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014 8:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the work session meeting at 8:45 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Sam Scott, and Roberta Thompson.

Absent: Commissioners Clayton Zimmerman and Angela Hames.

Also present were: Council Liaison Fran Holmes; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and City Planner Ryan Streff

APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JANUARY 8, 2014

The Agenda was approved as presented.

UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS

A. TCAAP Master Plan

City Planner Streff reported that the City Council reviewed the first draft of the TCAAP Master Plan on December 16, 2013. Consultants presented information on the process through which site characteristics and potential land use scenarios were considered and how options were eliminated, combined, or adjusted to maximize assets and minimize the impact of constraints in the development of the draft Master Plan.

City Planner Streff reported that following the December 16, meeting, the City Council scheduled a special work session for December 26, 2013, to give the consultants an opportunity to respond to Council questions regarding the draft plan prior to additional meetings being held. Scheduled public meetings include the TCAAP Joint Development Authority meeting on January 6, the Planning Commission meeting on January 8, and the TCAAP Open House on January 22. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – JANUARY 8, 2014 2

The consultants’ December 16 and 26, presentations are included with the staff memo to the Planning Commission, along with a Kimley-Horn memo addressing traffic and transportation questions. At the December 26, 2013, special City Council work session, the Council identified a list of Master Plan discussion items. The Council is seeking JDA, Planning Commission, and public feedback on these discussion items and on all aspects of the Master Plan. The Council will consider feedback prior to making changes to the draft plan in February/March.

Council Liaison Holmes explained that the City Council welcomes any and all comments on the draft Master Plan from the Planning Commission. The City Council reviewed the draft Master Plan at two work sessions in December 2013, and noted that the following areas of the draft Master Plan need additional discussion:

1. Wetlands, central water feature, and surface water management

2. Roundabout and connection to County Road H

3. Residential densities and mix of housing types

4. Green space and active recreation areas

5. Flex space development

Andrew Dresdner, Cuningham Group, presented the Planning Commission with detailed information on the TCAAP Master Plan. He reviewed what the consultants have heard thus far, the existing conditions on the site, and how the City can move forward with sound planning and design. A proposed layout for the TCAAP site, with three distinct neighborhoods was reviewed. The proposed density and housing styles were discussed. Staff then asked the Commission for comments or questions.

Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions.

Council Liaison Holmes noted the proposed Master Plan was very preliminary. She commented the lot sizes within the neighborhoods are yet to be determined.

Commissioner Scott asked if there was contamination on the primer-tracer area.

Chair Larson understood that this area did have contamination.

Commissioner Holewa suggested the City consider harnessing energy from the water on site. He indicated it would be interesting to see smaller sized lots in comparison to the current single- family residential lots in Arden Hills. He was supportive of providing workforce housing options on the site.

Commissioner Thompson wanted to see the site take advantage of the water energy on site as well. She wanted to see the TCAAP site be pedestrian friendly. She encouraged staff to consider smaller housing options for empty nesters and not simply large single-family homes. This would allow residents to age in Arden Hills.

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION – JANUARY 8, 2014 3

Chair Larson discussed the demographics in Arden Hills.

Council Liaison Holmes requested further information on the proposed roundabout.

Mr. Dresdner discussed the location of the proposed roundabout and discussed how traffic would move through this intersection.

Chair Larson stated he did not want to see the development cut off on the south end as this would be a detriment.

Commissioner Thompson did not oppose the roundabout, as they keep traffic moving and have a way of slowing traffic.

Council Liaison Holmes questioned the roundabout’s ability to move traffic in and out of the TCAAP site. She wondered if people would want to live on the TCAAP property if they had to use a roundabout daily to enter and exit the site.

Commissioner Thompson and Chair Larson did not see this being a problem.

Commissioner Holewa encouraged the City to consider how bicycle and pedestrian traffic would move through the TCAAP site while drafting the Master Plan.

Commissioner Thompson suggested a small hotel/retreat center be considered on the TCAAP site.

Mr. Dresdner indicated this could be considered.

Council Liaison Holmes invited the Planning Commissioners to attend the TCAAP Master Plan Open House on January 22nd.

Chair Larson thanked everyone for their input this evening. He suggested all further comments or questions be directed to Community Development Director Hutmacher.

ADJOURN

Chair Larson adjourned the work session meeting at 10:19 p.m.

MEMORANDUM

DATE: April 25, 2014

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator

FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Self-Guided Development Tour

The City Council has indicated that it would like to discuss residential densities and the flex space land use in further detail prior to approval of the master plan map. These discussions are tentatively scheduled for May 19, 2014. Prior to those discussions, it may be helpful for the Council to have some background information on development densities and to view some built examples of different types of development.

Options for a self-guided development tour are provided along with maps of each development area and a suggested circle route. As Councilmembers visit the development areas, please note what works and what could be improved upon for reference in upcoming regulations discussions.

Background Information

David Sand, JDA Chair, has recommended two articles that provide background information on density and development policy. The article from the Urban Land Institute uses facts to dispel myths related to high-density development. The chapter from Visualizing Density describes the challenge and necessity of developing in denser patterns and concludes that design is critical to successful density.

 Higher Density Development – Myth and Fact; Urban Land Institute  Chapter One, Visualizing Density; Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean

For a very quick tutorial on “good” vs “bad” density, visit A Bird’s Eye View of Density at http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/visualizing-density/tour/t1.aspx. This website provides twelve mini-seminars (about a paragraph each) with graphics that highlight more and less successful ways in which density can be accommodated. The City Council will be discussing design elements during the regulations and policies phase of the master planning process.

Page 1 of 7

Residential Development

Residential development at TCAAP is proposed to include single-family homes of varying lot sizes, townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and senior housing. It has been generally assumed that density will be higher in areas closest to the town center and lower in the Hill and Creek neighborhoods which will be predominantly single-family and townhomes.

Five development areas featuring various types and styles of residential development are suggested. Note how development styles have changed from the early 1990’s (Centennial Lakes) to today (Wooddale St ation). Things to look for include:  For single-family homes, what are front yard setbacks and landscaping? How does that effect the pedestrian environment?  For side-attached garages, are they even with or tucked back from the house façade?  Are townhomes single- (each unit has a front and back façade) or double-loaded (back-to-back)?  Is parking for townhomes and apartments attached to the side, tuck-under, or underground?  Are there courtyards, plazas, or open space provided around multi-family units?  Is there variation or monotony among façades?  Are there sidewalks? Are there off-street trails?

Wooddale Station This neighborhood surrounds the planned southwest LRT station at Wooddale and West 36th Street in St. Louis Park. Although the retail space is not fully leased yet, this area is expected to be a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood once the transit investment occurs. The redevelopment area provides good examples of recently-built, urban-style apartments and townhomes.

Page 2 of 7

Excelsior/Grand This redevelopment area in St. Louis Park replaced an outdated strip retail center and several free-standing buildings in the mid-2000’s. The four- and five-story apartment buildings are built up to the street and have interesting variations in exterior materials. The interior courtyard areas which provide play space, green space, and a pool, can be viewed from the public parking ramps.

Cloverleaf Ridge Chaska’s Cloverleaf Ridge is a mixed housing neighborhood that includes single-family homes, many of which have rear or detached garages, and townhomes.

Page 3 of 7

Centennial Lakes The Centennial Lakes area was redeveloped from a former gravel mining pit in the early-1990’s. Luxury townhomes on the east side of the lake have private outdoor areas, underground parking, and off-street trails providing connections to the park. The apartments located south of the townhomes take advantage of the park setting.

Page 4 of 7

Cobblestone Lake Cobblestone Lake in Apple Valley is a former gravel mining pit that began redevelopment in the early 2000’s and continues today. Housing includes large-, medium-, and small-lot single- family, some with rear garages, and townhomes. Note the difference between newly constructed neighborhoods with those whose landscaping has had time to mature. Interesting design features include:  Rear garages along the parkway and side-attached garages on interior residential streets;  Significant variety of architectural styles among single-family homes; and  Coordinated directional signage.

Page 5 of 7

Flex Space Development

The flex space proposed for TCAAP could also be described as business or office park space. The flex space could include offices, manufacturing, research and development, light industrial, warehousing, or even hotels. Some commonalities of these types of development include:  Primarily one- or two-story buildings;  Surface parking;  Campus or park-like setting with extensive landscaping and sometimes trail connections;  Buildings that combine high-quality office space with manufacturing, warehousing, or research/development;  Truck docks and industrial infrastructure are mostly hidden in the rear of buildings and out of view from the public street.

Limits on these uses in terms of exterior appearance and building materials, restrictions on the amount of space used for warehousing/distribution, or minimum floor area ratio will be established in the regulations and policies.

Three locations are suggested as examples of this type of development.

Bren Road/Opus Despite the confusing system of one-way ring roads, this office park development just west of Highway 169/Bren Road has successfully mixed large corporate headquarters (United Health), a full-service conference hotel, office, professional, and light industrial buildings.

Page 6 of 7

Mendota Heights Business park development is located along Mendota Heights Boulevard and along Corporate Center Drive.

Phalen Boulevard Corridor New development along Olive Street and Cuyuga Street off of Phalen Boulevard (just east of I- 35E) largely occurred following improvements to Phalen Boulevard.

Page 7 of 7

Precedent Development Self-Guided Tour

Directions to Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7, St. Louis Park

Apartments and townhomes Directions to Excelsior & Grand, St. Louis Park:

Apartments and condominiums

Directions to Bren Road Business Park, Minnetonka

Flex business

Directions to Clover Ridge, Chaska:

Townhomes and single-family residential Directions to Centennial Lakes, Edina

Apartments and townhomes

Directions to Cobblestone Lake, Apple Valley:

Mix of low, medium, and high density residential

Directions to Mendota Heights/Eagan Pilot Knob Road Business Park:

Flex Businesses

Directions to Phalen Boulevard Business Park:

Flex Businesses Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

Directions for Precedent Development Self-Guided Tour from Arden Hills City Hall 109 mi – about 2 hours 28 mins

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Arden+Hills+City+Office,+High... 4/21/2014 Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

Arden Hills City Office 1245 Hwy 96 W, Arden Hills, MN 55112 1. Head west on County Hwy 96/Hwy 96 W toward Hamline Ave N go 1.6 mi About 3 mins total 1.6 mi 2. Turn left to merge onto I-35W S go 0.6 mi About 51 secs total 2.2 mi 3. Take exit 27B to merge onto I-694 W go 5.4 mi About 6 mins total 7.6 mi 4. Take exit 35A to merge onto MN-100 S go 10.5 mi About 11 mins total 18.1 mi 5. Take the exit toward W 36th St go 0.3 mi total 18.4 mi 6. Slight right onto Wooddale Ave S go 0.1 mi total 18.6 mi Total: 18.6 mi – about 21 mins Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7, St. Louis Park total 0.0 mi

7. Head northwest on Wooddale Ave S go 446 ft total 446 ft 8. Take the 1st right onto W 36th St go 0.8 mi About 2 mins total 0.9 mi 9. Continue onto Monterey Dr go 0.2 mi total 1.1 mi 10. Turn right onto Excelsior Blvd go 0.2 mi total 1.2 mi 11. Take the 2nd right onto Grand Way go 299 ft total 1.3 mi Total: 1.3 mi – about 3 mins Excelsior & Grand, St. Louis Park total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

12. Head north toward Park Commons Dr go 174 ft total 174 ft 13. Exit the traffic circle onto Grand Way go 292 ft total 466 ft 14. Turn right onto Excelsior Blvd go 0.5 mi About 2 mins total 0.6 mi 15. Continue straight to stay on Excelsior Blvd go 2.5 mi About 5 mins total 3.1 mi 16. Slight left to stay on Excelsior Blvd go 0.2 mi total 3.3 mi 17. Take the ramp onto US-169 S go 1.7 mi About 2 mins total 5.0 mi 18. Take the Bren Rd exit toward Londonderry Rd go 0.3 mi total 5.2 mi 19. Turn right onto Bren Rd E go 410 ft total 5.3 mi

Total: 5.3 mi – about 10 mins Bren Road Business Park, Minnetonka total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

20. Head south on Smetana Dr toward Bren Rd E go 46 ft total 46 ft 21. Turn left onto Bren Rd E go 404 ft total 449 ft 22. Turn right to merge onto US-169 S go 0.3 mi total 0.4 mi 23. Take the exit onto MN-62 W toward US-212 W go 0.4 mi total 0.8 mi 24. Take the exit on the left onto US-212 W go 13.1 mi About 13 mins total 13.9 mi 25. Take the Engler Boulevard exit toward Minnesota 10 go 0.4 mi total 14.3 mi 26. Turn right onto Engler Blvd go 0.2 mi total 14.5 mi 27. Take the 1st right onto Clover Ridge Dr go 0.9 mi About 2 mins total 15.4 mi Total: 15.4 mi – about 18 mins Clover Ridge, Chaska total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

28. Head southeast on Clover Ridge Dr toward Molnau Ct go 1.0 mi About 3 mins total 1.0 mi 29. Turn left onto Engler Blvd go 0.3 mi total 1.3 mi 30. Turn left to merge onto US-212 E go 10.7 mi About 10 mins total 12.0 mi 31. Take the exit onto I-494 E/MN-5 E go 5.1 mi About 6 mins total 17.0 mi 32. Take exit 6B for County Rd 17/France Ave go 0.3 mi total 17.3 mi 33. Turn left onto France Ave S go 0.2 mi total 17.5 mi 34. Slight left to stay on France Ave S go 0.6 mi About 1 min total 18.1 mi 35. Turn right onto Parklawn Ave go 0.2 mi total 18.3 mi 36. Turn left onto Coventry Ln go 43 ft total 18.3 mi Total: 18.3 mi – about 21 mins Cenntenial Lakes, Edina total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

37. Head southwest on Coventry Ln toward Parklawn Ave go 43 ft total 43 ft 38. Turn left onto Parklawn Ave go 0.2 mi total 0.2 mi

39. Take the 2nd right onto York Ave S go 0.2 mi total 0.4 mi 40. Take the 1st left onto W 76th St go 0.6 mi About 2 mins total 1.0 mi 41. Turn right onto Penn Ave S go 0.2 mi total 1.2 mi 42. Turn left to merge onto I-494 E/MN-5 E go 2.9 mi About 3 mins total 4.1 mi 43. Take exit 2C to merge onto MN-77 S/Cedar Ave go 8.5 mi About 9 mins total 12.6 mi 44. Continue onto Cedar Ave go 1.0 mi About 2 mins total 13.6 mi 45. Turn left onto 150th St W go 2.0 mi About 3 mins total 15.6 mi 46. Turn right onto Pilot Knob Rd go 0.5 mi total 16.1 mi 47. Turn left onto 155th St W go 0.2 mi total 16.3 mi 48. Continue onto 155th St W go 0.2 mi total 16.5 mi 49. Turn right onto Eagle Bay Dr go 0.1 mi total 16.7 mi 50. Turn left onto Cobblestone Lake Pkwy go 0.6 mi About 2 mins total 17.3 mi Total: 17.3 mi – about 24 mins Cobblestone Lake, Apple Valley total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

51. Head south on Cobblestone Lake Pkwy toward 158th St go 482 ft total 482 ft 52. Turn left onto 158th St go 0.2 mi About 59 secs total 0.3 mi 53. Turn left onto Diamond Path go 1.7 mi About 3 mins total 1.9 mi 54. Turn right onto Diamond Path W go 1.5 mi About 3 mins total 3.5 mi 55. Turn right onto Pilot Knob Rd go 7.2 mi About 11 mins total 10.7 mi Total: 10.7 mi – about 18 mins Mendota Heights/Eagan Pilot Knob Road Business Park total 0.0 mi

56. Head west on Mendota Heights Rd toward Pilot Knob Rd go 43 ft total 43 ft 57. Turn left onto Pilot Knob Rd go 0.6 mi About 51 secs total 0.6 mi 58. Turn left onto Corporate Center Dr go 0.3 mi About 52 secs total 0.9 mi Total: 0.9 mi – about 2 mins Mendota Heights/Eagan Pilot Knob Road Business Park Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

59. Head northwest on Corporate Center Dr toward Corporate Center Curve go 0.3 mi About 46 secs total 0.3 mi 60. Turn right onto Pilot Knob Rd go 0.1 mi total 0.4 mi 61. Turn right to merge onto I-494 E go 0.6 mi About 52 secs total 1.0 mi 62. Take exit 70 for I-35E N toward St Paul go 0.6 mi total 1.6 mi 63. Follow signs for Interstate 35 E North/St Paul go 0.3 mi total 1.9 mi 64. Keep left at the fork and merge onto I-35E N go 7.2 mi About 8 mins total 9.1 mi 65. Take exit 106C to merge onto E 11th St toward State Capitol go 0.7 mi About 2 mins total 9.8 mi 66. Turn left onto Jackson St go 0.2 mi total 10.1 mi 67. Turn right toward University Ave E go 102 ft total 10.1 mi 68. Turn right onto University Ave E go 0.4 mi About 47 secs total 10.4 mi 69. Turn left onto N Mississippi St go 0.2 mi total 10.7 mi 70. Take the 1st right onto Phalen Blvd go 0.4 mi About 1 min total 11.1 mi 71. Turn left onto Cayuga St go 39 ft total 11.1 mi Total: 11.1 mi – about 16 mins Phalen Boulevard Business Park total 0.0 mi Arden Hills City Office to Arden Hills City Office - Google Maps

72. Head southwest on Phalen Blvd toward Olive St go 0.4 mi About 53 secs total 0.4 mi 73. Turn right onto N Mississippi St go 0.4 mi About 1 min total 0.8 mi 74. Turn right onto the ramp to I-35E N go 0.2 mi About 50 secs total 1.0 mi 75. Keep left at the fork and merge onto I-35E N go 4.1 mi About 5 mins total 5.1 mi 76. Take exit 113 for U.S. 10 W/Interstate 694 W go 1.2 mi About 1 min total 6.3 mi 77. Merge onto I-694 W/US-10 W go 2.6 mi About 3 mins total 8.9 mi 78. Take exit 43A for Lexington Ave go 0.2 mi total 9.1 mi 79. Turn right onto Lexington Ave N go 1.3 mi About 2 mins total 10.4 mi 80. Turn left onto County Hwy 96/Hwy 96 W go 0.3 mi Destination will be on the right total 10.8 mi Total: 10.8 mi – about 14 mins Arden Hills City Office 1245 Hwy 96 W, Arden Hills, MN 55112

These directions are for planning purposes only. You may find that construction projects, traffic, weather, or other events may cause conditions to differ from the map results, and you should plan your route accordingly. You must obey all signs or notices regarding your route. Map data ©2014 Google Directions weren't right? Please find your route on maps.google.com and click "Report a problem" at the bottom left.

https://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Arden+Hills+City+Office,+High... 4/21/2014 Mixed-Income Housing Myth and Fact

Urban Land $ Institute Mixed-Income Housing Myth and Fact About ULI–the Urban Land ULI Project Staff Institute Rachelle L. Levitt Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit edu- Publisher cation and research institute that is supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible Marta Goldsmith leadership in the use of land in order to enhance Vice President, Land Use Policy the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open Deborah L. Myerson exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initi- Senior Associate, Land Use Policy ates research that anticipates emerging land use Project Director and Principal Author trends and issues and proposes creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; Nancy H. Stewart and publishes a wide variety of materials to dissemi- Director, Book Program nate information on land use and development. Editor Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than 18,000 members and associates from more Betsy VanBuskirk than 60 countries representing the entire spectrum Art Director of the land use and development disciplines. Anne Morgan Richard M. Rosan Graphic Designer President Diann Stanley-Austin Recommended bibliographic listing: Director, Publishing Operations Myerson, Deborah L. Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2003.

ULI Catalog Number: M61 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-916-1

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the publisher.

2 midst a backdrop of growth and prosperity in America, the number Review Committee of working families struggling to afford housing has grown steadily in A recent years. Mixed-income housing, offering housing units affordable Donald K. Carter to a range of incomes, has become a popular solution to providing affordable Principal Urban Design Associates housing—using the strengths of the market to create attractive, competitive Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania residential developments. Joseph E. Corcoran ULI is a leader in examining land use policy issues through timely research Chairman and publications; workshops, forums, and symposiums. Mixed-Income Housing: Corcoran Jennison Companies Myth and Fact continues ULI’s tradition of conducting high-quality research Dorchester, Massachusetts and producing publications on housing topics. This is the fifth in a series of Roger L. Galatas publications designed to dispel myths and offer good examples on issues President and related to growth and land use. It tackles some of the more challenging and Chief Executive Officer complicated aspects of providing housing that is accessible to households Roger Galatas Interests LLC The Woodlands, Texas with a variety of income levels.

ULI will continue to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore Patricia G. Garrett and debate affordable housing issues. Through research and documentation President Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing of best practices, ULI and its partners will seek to find solutions that accom- Partnership modate growth and also meet essential housing needs. Charlotte, North Carolina

John K. McIlwain Harry H. Frampton III Senior Resident Fellow, Housing ULI–the Urban Land Institute Chairman Washington, D.C.

Diane R. Suchman Real Estate Consultant/Writer Diane R. Suchman, LLC Springfield, Virginia

Charles S. Wilkins, Jr. Principal The Compass Group, LLC Washington, D.C.

3 Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact

or many communities, the development of mixed-income housing has successfully addressed the scarcity of affordably priced housing. Long thought to be an F issue only for the unemployed, the need for affordable housing is affecting more and more of the workforce. The sustained strong housing market in the United States in recent years has had its downside for many moderate- and low-income workers who, as a result, have faced escalating rents and home prices coupled with little to no income growth. In many metropolitan areas, working families are coping with a dwindling number of choices for affordably priced housing—housing costing no more than 30 percent of a family’s gross income—that is within a manageable commuting distance to work.1 Recent figures illustrate this problem further, with 8.6 million renters and 6.4 million homeowners in the United States paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing, and/or living in structurally inadequate or overcrowded homes.2 In the last decade, much of the most successful affordable housing has been built as part of mixed-income housing developments or neighborhoods, providing stable, attractive communities with prices to accommodate the needs of a variety of households. This publication profiles mixed-income housing that combines market-rate and publicly assisted units, as well as all market-rate housing offering a range of price points. While there is no single accepted definition of “mixed-income housing,” this publication considers developments (achieved through a variety of policies and practices) that contain units that are affordable to households with different income levels, whether the households earn an above-moderate income, a moderate income (80 to 120 percent of the area median income (AMI)), a low income (50 to 80 percent of the AMI), or in some cases, a very low income (below 50 percent of the AMI).3 The idea of mixing incomes in residential settings is not new: urban neighborhoods traditionally have contained a mix of housing products suitable for an array of incomes. More recently, however, mixed-income housing has been recognized as a means to leverage market forces to provide a secure, high-quality, well-maintained living environment while increasing affordable housing options for lower- and moderate-income households.4 As a result, mixing incomes has become a popular way to supply affordable housing options, increase absorption in large planned developments, revitalize urban neighborhoods, and decrease the concentration of poverty in publicly assisted housing. When located close to job centers and services, mixed-income housing provides more than just another housing product—it also activates smart growth principles by reducing travel times and congestion. Some examples of mixed-income housing illustrated in the profiles in this publication include: Master-Planned Communities: A larger-scale development (from several hundred to as many as 50,000 or more units) that often offers all market-rate prices but includes a mix of housing types at different price points and tenures, such as rental apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and single-family homes. Some master-planned communities also successfully incorporate assisted housing.

4 Neighborhood-Based Communities: An effort, often generated by a community development corporation, to revitalize a declining neighborhood by rehabilitating existing housing stock, building new units, and attracting affluent residents. The revitalization provides a retention program to prevent the displacement of longtime, lower-income inhabitants. Project-Based Communities: A development with a mix of market-rate and publicly assisted residents (such as one-third market-rate, one-third moderate-income, and one-third low- income). It is achieved through a variety of state, local, and federal policies and developer incentives, such as low-income housing tax credits, inclusionary zoning, fee waivers, or expedited review. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HOPE VI also has transformed public housing projects into new mixed-income communities, funded with a mix of public dollars and private investment. Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact is the fifth in the Urban Land Institute’s Myth and Fact Series. Earlier editions have addressed transportation and growth, smart growth, urban infill housing, and the environment and development. This most recent publication in the series offers facts to address eight of the most common myths associated with mixed-income housing, especially misconceptions related to affordability. In support of these facts, it highlights profiles of a variety of mixed-income housing projects and profiles developers with significant experience in this area. For-profit developers, public agencies, community development corporations, and others can work collaboratively or independently to provide high-quality, attractive living environments that include affordably priced housing. Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact is aimed at dispelling common misconceptions related to these housing developments by providing relevant facts and information about a variety of settings in which such developments succeed.

5 Myth #1 Mixed-income housing cannot Profile work—high-income residents will not live near low-income residents. Wellington Fact #1 As is the case in many popular resort towns, high housing prices in Breckenridge, Colorado, pose a serious problem for the local workforce. In 2000, the median cost of a single- Healthy neighborhoods have long family home rose to more than $800,000—sending workers 50 miles away to buy or to rent housing. To address this included a blend of incomes—and need, Boulder housing developers David O’Neil, John Wolff, and Tom Lyon formed Poplarhouse, LLC, to build Wellington, a new urbanist community of 122 homes, of which 98 are new developments can achieve the being offered to local workers at moderate, deed-restricted prices. As a neighborhood populated mostly by year-round same compatibility. residents, Wellington provides a welcome sense of community––a rarity in a resort town where most residences are second homes with seasonal occupants. To help preserve the sense of community, market-rate homes cannot be rent- ixed-income housing is not a new invention. Through- ed for less than six months. out the United States and elsewhere, many neighbor- At Wellington, eligibility for below-market-rate housing is Mhoods, especially in urban areas, historically have in- not based on income, but on employment: homeowners cluded a variety of housing types and residents with a mix of must work 30 hours per week at jobs in Summit County and reside in the houses they buy. In addition, appreciation incomes. Such communities often contain larger homes as well as smaller, more affordable units on a variety of lot sizes. Both a large home and a small unit may even be part of the same property—as in the case of a smaller accessory unit over the garage of or adjacent to a larger home. Today, newer developments that include a mix of households with different income levels can take on a variety of forms, from all market-rate housing to a combination of market-rate and assisted affordable rental and/or for-sale housing. Though the strategies to achieve a compatible living environment can vary, mixed-income

POPLARHOUSE, LLC households can live comfortably in any of these settings. For many Like many popular resort towns, high housing prices in communities, offering housing that is affordable to local workers Breckenridge, Colorado, pose a serious problem of is crucial, as a mix of housing that meets a diversity of needs and affordability for the local workforce. incomes allows teachers, police officers, and retail clerks to live is limited to 3 percent annually or the percentage increase in the community in which they work. In all varieties of mixed- in the area median Income (AMI), whichever is greater. The income housing, a high-quality development that is well located homes in Wellington, priced at $220,000 for a two-bedroom and well managed and that offers amenities will appeal to higher- duplex and $281,000 for a single-family house with four income residents with a choice of housing options. bedrooms, sell to people making 90 to 120 percent of the AMI. The remaining 24 of the planned 122 homes are A range of housing types and price points also accommodates the priced at market value—close to $375,000 each. The rapid absorption of the units in Wellington suggests that there is needs of different generations, so that a retired couple on a fixed strong demand for affordable, permanent resort housing in income who have downsized to a two-bedroom apartment can live a traditional neighborhood. Inexpensive land was crucial to down the street from their grandchildren who live in a single-family building the development—the development team kept costs down by acquiring property in unincorporated Summit detached home. Harbor Town, a new urbanist, 136-acre, master- County, 1.3 miles away from downtown Breckenridge. The planned community adjacent to downtown Memphis, includes a town recently instituted a circulator bus route that links mix of housing types, with apartments that rent for $800 a month 10 Wellington to downtown Breckenridge. near riverfront houses that sell for $800,000. The development’s visual guidelines have resulted in an appealing, shared aesthetic for the community in which lower-priced homes are seamlessly compatible with more expensive homes. The variety of housing options

6 has drawn a wide range of buyers, including empty nesters, singles, families with children, and professional couples.5 Profile Developers of master-planned communities seeking a broad market with a range of price points often include a variety of Belle Creek housing products that may be rental as well as for-sale. In particular, many new urbanist communities have sought to build bal- Belle Creek is a 171-acre, mixed-income, master- anced neighborhoods while also meeting market demand.6 planned, new urbanist community located in Com- merce City, Colorado—a suburban area approxi- To revitalize urban neighborhoods, community development cor- mately eight miles northeast of downtown Denver porations may oversee the rehabilitation of existing homes and and west of Denver International Airport. The goal new construction, with the aim of attracting higher-income resi- of the developers of Belle Creek was to create a mixed-income community offering a walkable life- dents—while ensuring that current residents are not displaced style. Fifty-one percent of the rental and for-sale in the process. In Atlanta, the Historic District Development Cor- units are designed to be affordable to households poration (HDDC) has sought to renew the residential neighbor- earning 80 percent of the local median income. Housing types and price points span a wide range, hood in the Sweet Auburn National Historic from apartment rents that District—birthplace of Martin Luther King, begin at $346 per month Jr., and home to the national historic site to single-family homes that sell for more than $300,000. dedicated in his honor—without pricing In addition to affordable lower-income residents out of the communi- rentals, 166 of the for-sale ty. Since 1994, HDDC has worked block by units are priced for house- block to re-create a vital, mixed-income holds with incomes at or below 80 percent of the neighborhood. Producing more than 50 area median income, which MICHAEL PECK was $69,900 in the Denver units of affordable rental housing and more The goal of the developers of Belle Creek was to create a than 110 single-family homes, HDDC has PMSA in 2002, with an mixed-income community offering a walkable lifestyle. The option for developer-assisted renovated existing houses to highlight their development plan disperses buyers and renters of various downpayments for home- historic architectural features and built new income levels throughout the community. buyers if needed. Homes houses that blend architecturally with the at Belle Creek are a mix 7 of single-family units, townhouses, and multilevel existing streetscape. apartments. Mixed-income developments that contain assisted units—often built Belle Creek was conceived by a partnership consist- with developer incentives, or under a partnership between a private, ing of Sam Gary, Gene Myers, and Rocky Mountain for-profit developer and a public and/or nonprofit entity—can vary Mutual Housing. Sam Gary, of Gary-Williams Energy and the Piton Foundation, is a longtime advocate of in the exact proportion of the income mix, but often include a communities that enable families to move from pover- broad mix of incomes. Generally, the most successful mix (as noted ty and dependence to self-reliance. Gene Myers, of in rental communities) includes moderate-income residents that Greentree Homes and New Town Builders—a production, custom, and niche-market home developer—is 8 can bridge the gap between low-income and market-rate tenants. well versed in the homebuilding and land development In Tent City, a 269-apartment rental building in Boston, half of the process and shares Gary’s community vision; Myers units are targeted for low- to moderate-income households (50 to also has a particular interest in the aesthetics of community planning. Rocky Mountain Mutual Housing—a 120 percent of the median income), while 25 percent are designat- nonprofit organization with a solid track record in low- ed for very-low-income households (less than 50 percent of the and moderate-income housing—joined the team. median income), and 25 percent are market-rate units, creating a In addition to paying a fair-market price for the land, successful graduated balance among residents’ incomes that down- the master developer consented to several covenants plays differences between the opposite ends of the spectrum.9 as part of the land purchase agreement, including a plan that would disperse throughout the community buyers and renters with a mix of income levels. Home sales have been very successful. In the beginning, press coverage and word of mouth made adver- tising virtually unnecessary. A later marketing effort has focused on selling community over selling houses, and the owners of higher-priced homes have shown little resistance to living close to lower-priced housing.11

7 Myth #2 Local regulations make it too Profile difficult to develop mixed-income housing. Montgomery # County Fact 2 Inclusionary Local and state regulations, incen- Zoning tives, and technical assistance can help the private sector to produce Perhaps one of the earliest and best-known examples of inclusionary zoning is in Montgomery County, mixed-income housing. Maryland’s Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) ordinance, under which private, for-profit homebuilders have built nearly 11,000 MPDUs in mixed-income 15 communities since 1974. The MPDU law requires any local leaders realize that an inadequate supply of that at least 12.5 to 15 percent of the units in residential developments of more than 50 units are affordable housing effectively limits economic growth: affordable to households in the lowest third of the Mwhen people pay too much for housing, they spend county’s income range. To offset the lost rent, devel- less on other goods and services, while businesses cannot ex- opers receive a density bonus of up to 22 percent. To ensure continued affordability, the Housing Oppor- pand without enough housing available for their workforce. tunities Commission of Montgomery County (the local public housing authority) has the right of first purchase Public policy at the state or local level––whether in the form of of one-third of the affordable units in every new devel- regulations, incentives, or technical assistance—is key to sup- opment. The public housing authority has purchased port the development of mixed-income housing. Inclusionary 1,600 townhouses outright and rents another 1,200 zoning, density bonuses, and land assembly assistance are just apartments in the midst of middle-class neighborhoods. In all, through its MPDU some of the ways that public policy can facili- policy and other housing initia- tate the production of mixed-income housing. tives, the Housing Opportunities Commission has leveraged Inclusionary zoning is an increasingly popular about 35,000 homes in tool used to stimulate more affordable hous- mixed-income settings.16 ing units in a mixed-income setting. With in- Beyond Montgomery County, clusionary zoning, localities can require that many municipalities around the country have adopted in- some percentage of every new residential clusionary zoning ordinances, development beyond a given minimum size such as Burlington, Vermont; (e.g., 50 units) is offered at a price below the Boston; Denver; Santa Fe, market rate and thus is affordable to lower- New Mexico; and San Diego, and many others are consider- income residents. The technique makes the ing passing similar measures. provision of affordable housing predictable In fact, most jurisdictions can and even-handed, and removes it from the trace some aspect of their inclusionary zoning ordinances political process. Though the details of inclu- to the Montgomery County sionary zoning programs vary, typically they 17 program. provide incentives such as development rights or zoning variances to developers for includ-

TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS ing affordable housing units in their projects. King Farm, a 430-acre, planned community in Rockville, In urban areas, municipalities can help develop- Maryland, will include 3,200 units at buildout. As part of the MPDU program, 12 percent of the units will meet the ers overcome the problems of land assembly affordable housing requirements. and acquisition that can stand in the way of development. To encourage the construction of mixed-income housing on vacant land, thereby fostering new affordable housing, cities can compile an inventory of vacant

8 lots, plan for land assembly and redevelopment, and streamline the legal and administrative requirements for land acquisition. Profile A strategic combination of public policy measures can help to stimulate the production of mixed-income housing. Localities Austin can modify area plans, local zoning, subdivision regulations, and building codes to more readily accommodate a mix of unit S.M.A.R.T. types or housing products. For instance, by allowing residential development anywhere in the downtown area, reducing parking Housing requirements, and mandating affordable housing, the city of San Rafael, California, has sparked new vitality in its central business Initiative district and stimulated mixed-income housing. As a result, 314 units—148 of which are affordable —have been added or In an effort to provide more affordable housing approved for the downtown since 1990.12 within the city limits, the city of Austin enacted in May 2000 its S.M.A.R.T. (Safe, Mixed-Income, State initiatives also can help stimulate the production of afford- Accessible, Reasonably Priced, Transit-Oriented) Housing Initiative. “Reasonably priced” housing able housing in a mixed-income setting at the local level. The was defined as affordable for households that Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) is a self-supporting make 80 percent of Austin’s median income, state agency that promotes the development and preservation which then was $44,300 for a family of four. of affordable rental and for-sale housing in cities and towns To qualify for S.M.A.R.T. incentives, units must remain affordable for at least five years. Devel- across the state through a variety of finance and technical assis- opers who agree to meet S.M.A.R.T. housing tance programs.13 In addition, Massachusetts’s Comprehensive standards—incorporating a portion of afford- Permit Law, also known as Chapter 40B, allows local zoning able units, building near mass transit, and developing compatibly with green building standards— boards of appeals to approve affordable housing developments qualify for incentives offered by the city. under flexible rules if at least 25 percent of the units have long- The incentives include: term affordability restrictions. Since 1970, projects have been approved in 170 communities representing approximately • Waived development fees, with the amount waived increasing as the percentage of affordable housing 14 25,000 units of housing. units increases; • Expedited permitting and zoning reviews; • Reduced parking requirements; and • Support from the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department in the city’s development process. S.M.A.R.T. housing is funded by the city’s Housing Trust Fund commissioned in 2000 at $1 million. Of that total, 75 percent is designated to subsidize the construction of multifamily affordable housing units, with the remainder serving to guarantee home im- provement loans for low-income city residents. The program’s stated goal is the development of 5,000 new affordable housing units in the city by 2005. The program has met with a greater success rate than anticipated: in the first two years of the program, 1,400 units of S.M.A.R.T. housing were built, 87 percent of which were affordable. Another 2,100 units are expected to be built during the program’s third year.18

9 Myth #3 Only nonprofit developers and Profile public housing authorities build mixed-income housing. Summerfield # Homes and Fact 3 Montevista For-profit developers produce Apartments mixed-income housing in many forms. Using a combination of financial tools, several public, nonprofit, and private partners collaborated to produce 184 units of mixed-income rental and for-sale housing in the city of Milpitas, California, outside of San Jose in the competitive Silicon Valley housing market. The city of Milpitas chose the or-profit developers can bring market savvy to the devel- BRIDGE Housing Corporation, a Bay Area nonprofit housing developer, to acquire the land, arrange for financing, and opment of high-quality, mixed-income housing. Working build and manage the project. As a nonprofit developer, F independently or in partnership with a nonprofit or pub- BRIDGE was able to negotiate a lower price for the county- lic agency, for-profit developers can produce mixed-income owned land––which was particularly crucial, as the high cost of land is one of the biggest hurdles to overcome in housing in a variety of forms and types. producing affordable housing in Silicon Valley. To develop the Summerfield subdivision of 114 single-family homes— Master-planned communities that include a mix of housing types 20 percent of which were below the market rate—BRIDGE and price points provide greater affordability simply by offering partnered with the for-profit developer DKB Homes, LLC, in a a product at the lower end of the price scale. Knowledgeable developers realize that offering an assortment of housing types at a range of price points reduces the overall risk of the project and can help increase absorption rates. The mix of housing products widens the scope of the target market and allows developments to respond more flexibly to changing market conditions. For-profit developers also develop mixed-income housing with the help of a variety of federal, state, and local housing finance programs, incentives, or regulatory initiatives that support the development of affordably priced units. For example, the federal low-income housing tax credit encourages the development PHOTO COURTESY OF DKB HOMES, LLC To build the 114 for-sale Summerfield homes, for-profit of affordable rental housing, while localities often offer develop- developer DKB Homes purchased the site from the nonprofit ers density bonuses as part of an inclusionary zoning program. BRIDGE Housing Corporation, managed public outreach An increasing number of for-profit developers are partnering efforts, and led the selection process for the buyers of the assisted homes. with public agencies and/or nonprofit development organizations to build mixed-income communities that combine market- profit-sharing agreement. DKB purchased the Summerfield rate and publicly assisted units. Many public/private partner- site from BRIDGE, managed Summerfield’s public outreach ships were established under the federal HOPE VI program efforts, and led the process to select the buyers of the assisted homes. To develop the adjacent Montevista Apartments, (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) administered BRIDGE received a $3 million redevelopment loan as well as by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development federal community development block grant (CDBG) and (HUD). Established by Congress in 1992 to improve the nation’s HOME funds from the city and county. Permanent project financing used tax-exempt bonds from the California Hous- most severely distressed public housing, HOPE VI encouraged ing Finance Agency and the sale of 4 percent tax credits to public housing authorities to collaborate with private developers John Hancock. The completed apartment complex includes to build new, mixed-income neighborhoods. Approximately 49 a pool, a cabana, play areas, a community building, and fitness facilities.21 different private development firms varying in size, specialization, and experience—including some of the nation’s foremost devel-

10 opers—have been involved in more than 80 HOPE VI revitalization projects in 48 different cities. Profile The redevelopment of First Ward Place offers valuable insight into the mixed-finance process. One of the first housing proj- The Woodlands ects built with HOPE VI funding, First Ward Place is a 406-unit, mixed-income community located on 27 acres adjacent to down- The Woodlands, 30 miles north of Houston and one town Charlotte, North Carolina. The development includes 283 of the country’s more successful master-planned units of low- to moderate-income rental housing; 68 housing communities, today has more than 25,000 residential units, including single-family homes in a wide units for seniors; and 55 for-sale homes available to market-rate range of prices and architectural styles (78 percent); and low-income households. NationsBank (now Bank of Amer- townhomes and condominiums (almost 6 percent); ica) served as a development partner with the Charlotte Housing and rental apartments (16 percent). A variety of programs have been employed at the Woodlands to Authority (CHA). To subsidize the low-income units, NationsBank provide affordable housing choices for families and acquired approximately $10 million in low-income housing tax seniors, including HUD Section 8, FHA 235 for-sale credits. Rather than collect a devel- housing and tax credit programs for opment fee, NationsBank agreed to rental apartments. To date, more than 1,000 assisted housing units receive half of the net operating income. have been developed. Affordable The $41.7 million HOPE VI grant housing choices for employees and helped to finance part of the devel- customers have supported extensive office and commercial development opment costs of the project and the in the Woodlands, where more than program and administrative costs of 34,000 permanent jobs have been

CHA. CHA has remained the landowner . created since 1974. Companies seeking new corporate locations and the improvements are owned by show a preference for communities First Ward Place LLC (of which Nations- in which employees at all levels in Bank and CHA are members).19 their organizations can benefit from a good living environment near their Public/private collaborations in the work locations. Affordable housing development of large-scale, mixed- for seniors has encouraged extended families to reunite in the income housing projects allow part- COMPANY, L.P OPERATING THE WOODLANDS community, thus strengthening the A variety of programs have been employed at the Woodlands ners to share and cultivate their areas community through the grandparent- to provide an assortment of housing choices for families and of expertise. Such partnerships pro- child relationship. The remaining ten seniors, and to produce more than 1,000 affordable housing to 15 years of development in the vide access to conventional financing units. The Lennar townhomes are affordably priced, starting Woodlands will benefit from the as well as to municipal, state, or feder- from the low $100,000s, making them a popular choice for early commitment to mixed-income al funds in the form of grants, tax first-time buyers or retirees. housing opportunities.22 credits, or other incentives. Nonprofit organizations and public agencies may also be eligible for support from mission-driven foundations committed to affordable housing and community development.20

11 Myth #4 Affordable housing is unattractive Profile and a blight to the neighborhood. Park DuValle Fact #4

Park DuValle, located on approximately 125 acres on Mixed-income housing developments the west side of Louisville, Kentucky, is a HOPE VI mixed-income community developed by the Community help raise the standards for good Builders that, at completion, will have 1,008 rental and homeownership units. The goal of the income mix at design in affordable housing, provid- Park DuValle is to include lower-, middle-, and upper- income residents, with 40 percent of the units occupied ing appealing residences that blend by households making 30 to 50 percent of the area median income, 30 percent of the units occupied by households making 50 to 60 percent of the median in with surrounding communities. income, and 30 percent of the units occupied by households at or above 60 percent of the median income. hen people think of affordable housing, they may Organized according to a new urbanist master plan by Urban Design Associates (UDA)––and with the strong imagine the drab, monolithic, concrete high rises that support of then-Mayor Jerry Abramson and the city of W characterized some of the most visible public housing Louisville––Park DuValle consists of compact residential projects of the mid-20th century. Yet the reality is that the design blocks in small-scale neighborhoods with houses attrac- of today’s affordable housing—housing that meets the users’ tively sited on a boulevard or on narrower residential streets and garages with rear alleys for services. UDA needs, is responsive to its context, enhances its neighborhood, devoted substantial time and is built to last—has made great and attention to the devel- strides in the last two decades as its ben- opment of a pattern book (a reference for the shapes efits to the community have become and forms of buildings in more widely recognized.23 For mixed- the neighborhood) for Park income developments, good residential DuValle, based on traditional architectural styles found in design is often a competitive selling Louisville neighborhoods. point to attract market-rate residents. The pattern book represents a strategy the firm has Mixed-income housing and good employed with great suc- design are a winning combination cess in community revital- that has demonstrated the capacity ization plans as well as new, market-rate develop- THE COMMUNITY BUILDERS to encourage faster project approvals, ments. Designed to blend Organized according to a new urbanist master plan, Park DuValle attract the support of future residents, seamlessly with the sur- consists of compact residential blocks in small-scale neighborhoods and overcome the fears of neighbors rounding neighborhoods, with attractively sited houses. the residences, streets, who are uncertain about the prospect and public spaces in the Park DuValle master plan seek of affordable housing next door. As a result, design principles to build on Louisville’s traditions of community design.25 for mixed-income housing typically incorporate human-scale buildings, architectural features that blend in with the surrounding community, walkable neighborhoods, and appealing landscaping. Over the long term, attractive mixed-income housing is becoming a neighborhood asset. Well-designed units also make the property more resilient and likely to succeed over the long term. The growing popularity of the new urbanism since the early 1990s also has influenced the design of affordable and mixed- income housing. Many new urbanist design features—such as a grid street pattern, on-street parking, sidewalks, and pedestrian- friendly streets— have become common features in affordable and mixed-income housing in the last decade. HUD has collaborated with the Congress for the New Urbanism to urge public

12 agencies and their allies to consider design, along with social and economic factors, in building a community.24 Profile To further highlight the advantages of well-designed affordable housing, HUD, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Nava Adé American Institute of Architects cosponsored a publication focusing on design quality—Good Neighbors: Affordable Family Nava Adé is a privately developed master-planned com- Housing—and the Web site Affordable Housing Design Advisor. munity in Santa Fe, New Mexico, built to address the The Web site (www.designadvisor.org) provides developers shortage of affordable housing there. The developer of Nava Adé designated 35 percent of the planned 513 with information and resources to improve the design quality units for moderate-income households; the rest are of affordable housing projects. market-rate units. The affordable units are reserved for households earning no more than 120 percent of the Mixed-income housing is sometimes achieved by providing a vari- county AMI ($59,300 in 1995, the year the land was ety of market-rate single- and multifamily product types that are purchased for development). The developer, Auerbach affordable to a range of income levels in a single development Southwest, is a diversified private real estate development company offering full services in brokerage, land or neighborhood (such as a master-planned community). Good and property development, and management. design also contributes to an attractive, architecturally compatible The look and feel of Old Santa Fe—more typical community in this type of environment. Rather than segregate in the area’s upscale neighborhoods—is present multifamily buildings and single-family homes, developers use throughout Nava Adé, along with affordable housing architectural design to integrate visually designs and amenities usually associated with a variety of housing products. higher-end homes. The residential architecture represents Santa Fe’s traditional styles, especially the native adobe houses. The entire project was privately financed, without the use of federal or state tax credits or subsidies. The developer was able to make the project financially feasible with the help of the city of Santa Fe. Although Santa Fe traditionally has main-

AUERBACH SOUTHWEST AUERBACH tained a no-growth policy, Nava Adé’s residential architecture represents Santa Fe’s traditional Auerbach Southwest residential design, especially native adobe house styles. petitioned the city to annex the subdivision (which bordered the existing city limits) in order to obtain water and sewer service and make the development possible. The planning commission approved the petition based on the developer’s promise to allocate 35 percent of the units to affordable housing. Little marketing has been necessary. The market-rate homes sell for $170,000 to $250,000, while the affordable units are priced from $70,000 to $110,000. All units have three or four bedrooms. During the first year, all 143 homes built were sold, and in 2001, the following year, 78 more houses were constructed and sold. With the success of Nava Adé, Auerbach South- west has been exploring additional opportunities to build communities with affordable housing.26

13 Myth #5 The marketplace can meet the Profile demand for moderate-income housing. Stapleton # Airport Fact 5 Redevelopment The marketplace needs help to supply enough housing, especially The city of Denver, under the leadership of Mayor Wellington Webb, has taken an aggressive stance in for working families; mixed-income promoting the development of more affordable housing. Denver’s former Stapleton Airport—currently the nation’s largest urban infill development—includes developments can alleviate that need, a mixed-income residential component. In 1999, the city of Denver and the Stapleton Development Corpo- providing housing that is safe, livable, ration selected Forest City as their private partner in the development of Stapleton. The 15-year plan for and close to employment centers. total buildout envisions more than 12,000 homes, 3 million square feet of retail space, 10 million square feet of office/industrial space, and over 1,100 acres of regional parks and open space.28 The Stapleton Workforce Housing Program designates 10 percent ore than any government program, the marketplace of the owner-occupied homes (800 units) and 20 typically can provide more housing that is affordable percent of the apartments (800 units) for households Mthrough the process of filtering: older housing stock at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). To maintain long-term affordability of the becomes affordable to low- and moderate-income households as owner-occupied homes, the older housing units decrease in value each of the units will and higher-income households move on have a deed with a 30- to new, high-quality housing. However, year price restriction that allows the owner the marketplace has not provided an ade- to realize some of the quate supply of decent affordable hous- home’s appreciation ing, especially in locations that are low in in the value but keeps the price below market crime, have good schools, and are close value. At the end of the to employment centers. And increasingly, 30 years, a nonprofit workforce families—families earning too entity—created to control and monitor much to be eligible for housing assistance the for-sale units— but often not enough to afford market- has the option of buy- COURTESY OF FOREST CITY-STAPLETON DRAWING rate housing—are finding that having a ing back the homes The Stapleton Workforce Housing Program designates 1,600 rental and job does not guarantee a place to live at at the restricted price for-sale units for households that have incomes at or below 80 percent of and re-restricting the an affordable cost. Recognizing that gain- the area median income (AMI). Roslyn Court offers the first homes for units, or letting them sale at Stapleton that will be restricted for purchase by police officers, ing public support for new affordable be sold on the open housing can be difficult, many commun- market and collecting firefighters, teachers, nurses, and others with “workforce” incomes. the difference in price. ities are exploring mixed-income housing Forest City also has donated acreage for 200 units of as a way to provide workforce housing. affordable housing that will be reserved for people with incomes of 30 to 50 percent of the AMI.29 The last decade’s rapid appreciation in home prices in many housing markets has outstripped the means of many moderate- and low-income working households, including teachers, police officers, sales clerks, and clerical workers, forcing many to spend more than 30 percent of their incomes––in some cases, as much as 50 percent—on housing. The dire shortage of workforce housing, especially near job centers, means that workers must endure long commutes from far-flung residential develop-

14 ments—worsening highway congestion, accelerating urban sprawl, consuming open space, and threatening a region’s Profile economic competitiveness. According to a study by the National Housing Conference Corcoran examining the availability of decent, affordable housing for workers in five “vital occupations” in 60 of the nation’s largest Jennison housing markets, janitors could afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment in only six of the 60 metropolitan areas, while sales- Companies persons could rent a one-bedroom apartment for no more than 30 percent of their income in only three of the areas. Neither Established in 1971, the Corcoran Jennison Com- janitors nor salespersons could afford to rent a two-bedroom panies is a private, for-profit developer of a range of projects from luxury resorts to affordable housing, apartment in any of the 60 areas studied. As for homeowner- as well as other properties. Headquartered in Boston, ship, the report found that households dependent on the salary Corcoran Jennison has developed more than $1.8 of one elementary school teacher or one police officer alone billion worth of real estate. It has built, developed, could not afford to buy a median-priced home in two-thirds of and currently manages more than 26,000 units in its multifamily division, many of which are in mixed- the metropolitan areas. Retail salespersons and janitors could income communities. The company is a pioneer in not afford to purchase a home in any of the markets studied.27 the use of the mixed-income-housing concept, particularly in conversions of distressed urban multifamily Mixed-income housing allows working families to live in the housing into successful mixed-income neighborhoods. communities in which they are employed while augmenting Recognizing that the market alone cannot serve the the marketplace’s insufficient supply of affordable housing. economics of producing affordable housing, Corcoran Government policies and developer incentives such as inclu- Jennison is developing mixed-income housing, using its expertise with governmental assistance programs. sionary zoning, density bonuses, expedited reviews, parking One of the company’s best known mixed-income requirement mitigation, rebates, and developments, the Harbor Point fee waivers can all support the construc- Apartments in Boston, was a tion of mixed-income housing in the $250 million project financed through a consortium of private marketplace. and public sources, including an urban development action grant (UDAG), a Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) insured loan, the State Housing Assistance Rental Program (SHARP), syndi- cated tax credits, and mortgage- backed securities. Of Harbor Point’s 1,283 apartments, two- thirds are market-rate units and one-third are for low-income CORCORAN JENNISON COMPANIES households.30 Harbor Point, in Boston, an award-winning national model for transforming public housing into private, mixed-income housing, is one of Corcoran Jennison’s best-known developments. The $250 million project was financed through a complex package of private and public sources.

15 Myth #6 Financing for mixed-income Profile housing developments is unavail- able or hard to come by. MassHousing Fact #6 MassHousing (formerly the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency) is the state’s affordable housing bank, created by an act of the legislature in 1966 There are many sources of as a self-supporting, independent public authority charged with increasing affordable rental and home- financing to support the devel- ownership housing in Massachusetts. The agency lends money at rates below the conventional market opment of mixed-income housing. rate to support rental and homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents of Massachusetts, relying on private nonprofit and for- profit developers to construct and operate the rental housing that it finances. MassHousing sells federally authorized, tax-exempt, and taxable bonds to individ- ixed-income developments with all market-rate units ual and corporate investors, raising private capital for (such as a master-planned community with a range mortgages that it loans to eligible borrowers. of price points) usually rely on conventional financing. This money is loaned at rates that are well below M those offered by conventional lenders, thus making However, mixed-income housing developments containing the housing financed more affordable to low- and assisted units can draw on many sources of financing––and moderate-income households. may in fact have more options than market-rate housing. MassHousing makes financing available to develop- Because additional funding comes from government sources ers proposing to construct new, mixed-income rental layered with conventional sources, financing generally is more housing developments in which a minimum of 20 percent of the units are affordable to low-income house- complex in a development with assisted units. Financing tools holds, or to refinance and extend affordability require- for mixed-income housing may include tax-exempt bonds, low- ments at existing developments through innovative income housing tax credits, housing trust funds, tax and award-winning programs. MassHousing increment financing, and revolving loan funds. These offers “one-stop shop- supplemental funding sources typically have regulatory ping” for developers of and reporting requirements and often operate on mixed-income rental hous- annual cycles that govern when money is paid out. ing by providing construction, bridge, and perma- The federal government sponsors the following pro- nent financing at rates below conventional inter- grams that can help support the development of est rates. Since making mixed-income housing:31 its first loan in 1970, MassHousing has pro- • HOME Investment Partnerships Program—a block grant vided more than $6 bil- program that provides funds to states and localities lion to finance more than on an annual basis. Funds may be used for a variety 60,000 apartments and 40,000 home mortgages of affordable housing activities. throughout the state. GREIG CRANNA Avalon Oaks, in Wilmington, Massachusetts, is a 204- • Community Development Block Grant Program—provides unit mixed-income development with 41 units set aside funds to eligible metropolitan cities and urban coun- for low-income families. MassHousing financed Avalon ties on an annual basis. Emphasis is on use of funds Oaks in 1998 with a $17.8 million permanent loan. The to benefit low- and moderate-income families. project’s developer was AvalonBay Communities, Inc. • Community Development Block Grant Program/Section 108 Loan Guarantees—enables state and local governments to obtain federally guaranteed loans that can be used for a variety of housing and community development activities.

16 • Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC)—provides investor equity capital to reduce debt service on multifamily Profile rental housing. Established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, this program authorizes a federal tax incentive for the construction The Hollywood or rehabilitation of rental housing units occupied by low-income households. The LIHTC provides the owner with a tax credit to Library/The offset federal income taxes for a period of ten years. The size of the tax credit is based on the construction or rehabilitation costs Bookmark for the low-income units. As state-chartered authorities established to help meet the Apartments affordable housing needs of the residents of their states, state and local housing finance agencies also provide a source of A joint public and private venture, the Hollywood funding for mixed-income housing. These agencies administer Library/the Bookmark Apartments is an innovative, transit-oriented, mixed-use project in the Hollywood a wide range of affordable housing and community develop- District of Portland, Oregon. The project combines ment programs, including federally authorized housing pro- a 13,000-square-foot branch library, owned by grams such as the Mortgage Revenue Bond program, the Multnomah County, with a 47-unit, mixed-income rental complex called “the Bookmark” and 815 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, and the HOME square feet of ground-floor retail space, owned Investment Partnerships program. by Sockeye Development, LLC. Housing trust funds, administered at the state and local levels, The construction of the library cost $3.5 million, offer another means of providing a dedicated revenue stream to and was funded from a $29 million county bond. The Bookmark Apartments and adjacent retail support the development and retention of affordable housing. space, which cost $6.5 million, was financed About 150 states and localities have established housing trust with 4 percent in low-income housing tax credits funds.32 These public funds can be established by law at the administered by Oregon Housing and Community Services, tax-exempt bonds, a Portland Develop- national, state, or local level and perpetuated by ongoing rev- ment Commission loan, and developer equity. enues from dedicated sources of funding Nineteen apartments are such as taxes, fees, or loan repayments. reserved for households at Typically, a housing trust fund is estab- or below 60 percent of the lished through legislation that increases area median income, while the remaining 28 units are an existing revenue source, such as a real available at market rate. estate transfer tax, with the increase com- The library occupies most of mitted to the housing trust fund.33 In the ground floor of the four- 1992, the state of Florida passed the story building. Residents have access to a generous Sadowski Act, creating the largest dedicat- landscaped courtyard on the ed revenue source for affordable housing south side of the building.36, 37 in the nation. Under the act, funds are shared between state (30 percent) and local (70 percent) housing trust funds. LARA SWIMMER Now generating more than $185 million a A joint public and private venture—the Hollywood Library/the year, the Sadowski Act has assisted more Bookmark Apartments—combines a branch public library with than 87,000 households with affordable a 47-unit, mixed-income rental complex called “the Bookmark” homeownership or rental housing and and ground-floor retail space. leveraged an estimated $2.4 billion in private and public sector investments since its inception.34 In its postdevelopment phases, mixed-income housing has much in common with other residential developments—requiring funds to market units, exercise high-quality maintenance and management, and endure cyclical downturns in the housing market— while it maintains resources to subsidize the housing costs for lower-income residents.35

17 Myth #7 Mixed-income housing brings Profile down the property values of neighboring residences. The Reservoir Fact #7 Located six blocks from the state capitol and the downtown business district in Madison, Wisconsin, the Reservoir development is a resident-managed, Mixed-income housing has been limited-equity cooperative that helped to launch revitalization and new market-rate housing in the found to make no difference in surrounding neighborhood. Of the 28 units, seven units are designated for low-income residents, 14 the values of adjacent properties. for moderate-income households, and seven for market-rate units. The city of Madison owned the site and offered it to developers who would meet the city’s development and design criteria, competitively selecting a nonprofit eighbors of mixed-income housing developments may owner-architect team—Madison Mutual Housing Association (MMHA) and Design Coalition, Inc.—for express concern about the impact of low- to moderate- the project. The units are designed as two-story flats Nincome housing units on their property values. Yet, and attached townhouses, with architectural details numerous studies around the country consistently have indi- and a density of 18 units per acre that blend in with cated that affordable housing has a positive or neutral effect the surrounding neighborhood. Through a series of public meetings and negotiations over density and on neighboring property values. In San Francisco, a study of design issues, developers were able to overcome the 3,000 sales of low-cost, for-sale homes built by the BRIDGE initial opposition of neighbors to the project. In the Housing Corporation, an affordable housing development end, the new housing not only made constructive use of long-vacant land—but also generated subsequent company in the Bay Area, showed no decline in the values of rehabilitation efforts on adjacent blocks where for- properties nearby over a four-year period.38 In the Twin Cities, profit developers have added about 150 units both in affordable rental housing developments built in the 1990s rehabilitated warehouses and in new construction.44 made no difference in the property values of neighboring homes.39 And in Montgomery County, Maryland, a comparison by zip code as well as countywide showed no significant difference in price trends between nonassist- ed homes located near assisted units and the market as a whole.40 New affordable housing can improve neighborhood stability and appeal, and in doing do, actually can boost nearby property values. A study in Minneapolis found that housing developed by nonprofit organizations and then renovated into affordable rental units helped to improve safety in

THE DESIGN COALITION the buildings—and to increase Located six blocks from the state capitol and the downtown business district adjacent property values.41 A study in Madison, Wisconsin, the Reservoir is a resident-managed, limited-equity of more than 6,000 homes in cooperative that helped to launch revitalization and new market-rate housing Wisconsin found that nearby in the surrounding neighborhood.

18 housing constructed with low-income housing tax credits had no impact on property values in the Milwaukee metropolitan Profile area, and led to an appreciation of property values in Madison.42 Mixing more affordable housing types with higher-end residen- The Impact of tial development also can generate concerns about property values—such as the perception that multifamily housing will Affordable have negative effects on the property values of neighboring single-family homes. However, there is no evidence that multi- Family Rental family communities have led to a devaluation of single-family homes nearby. In fact, according to the American Housing Housing on Survey, there is no evident difference in the appreciation of value of single-family homes located near apartments or condo- Home Values in miniums and those that are not. For example, between 1997 and 1999, the average annual appreciation rate for single-family the Twin Cities homes located within 300 feet of multifamily buildings was 2.9 percent compared with 2.7 percent for single-family homes hav- A study conducted in the Twin Cities by Maxfield 43 Research examined how affordable rental tax-credit ing no apartments or condominiums within 300 feet. developments affected adjacent property values. The Family Housing Fund, a Minneapolis-based nonprofit organization that supports the creation of affordable housing in the Twin Cities, sponsored the study. The research concluded: “There is little or no evidence to support the claim that the tax-credit family rental developments in [the] study eroded surrounding home values.” More specifically, the study included the following findings: • In general, homes in the subject areas around the 12 affordable tax-credit developments studied exhibited similar or stronger market performance after the affordable properties were built than before, as well as stronger or comparable home sales from a control group. • The markets surrounding the tax-credit developments became stronger as a group compared with the Twin Cities overall. • The selling time on the market for nearby properties varied comparably before and after development of the affordable rental housing. • As a group, the subject areas—with both townhouses and single-family homes—had a significantly higher average annual per-square-foot appreciation after the affordable rental developments were built than before.45

19 Myth #8 Community opposition to new Profile mixed-income housing is an insurmountable obstacle. Timberlawn # Crescent Fact 8

Timberlawn Crescent, a mixed-income rental commu- Mixed-income housing can be an nity, integrates affordable housing with market-rate units owing in part to requirements imposed by appealing option that lends itself Montgomery County’s inclusionary zoning policy. to community acceptance. Initially, residents of the surrounding community strongly opposed the Timberlawn Crescent development, despite numerous meetings to solicit neighborhood input during the planning process. Upon seeing the actual design of the buildings, however—with assisted units that are indistinguishable from those that are roposed mixed-income housing developments can face market rate—neighbors were reassured and their con- significant challenges from NIMBY neighbors protesting cerns put to rest. The development’s moderate density, P“Not In My Back Yard!” because of concerns about the with buildings designed as two-story townhouses over flats, is comparable to that of surrounding commu- perceived fiscal, social, and environmental impacts of affordable nities. The architect sought to site the buildings to pre- housing units. The objections—which can come from low- serve as many of the existing tulip trees as possible, income as well as affluent neighbors—include fears of poorly creating a buffer between buildings.54 designed units, higher densities, increased crime, and lowered property values (in higher-income areas) or a disproportionately high share of affordable housing (among lower- income residents). Sometimes, negative stereotypes about low- and moderate-income families, people of color, and new immigrants can arouse community opposition.46 While the neighborhood concerns vary, a savvy developer with a good repu- tation and a history of producing high-quality products can win community support. Attractive design, attention to details, and good community relations are important assets with which to leverage community support for a project. In many cases, mixed-income developments that include market-rate housing are a politically palatable solution to providing affordable housing. For example, in more affluent areas that HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION OF MONTGOMERY MARYLAND Residents of the community surrounding Timberlawn Crescent initially offer better schools and job opportunities, a opposed the development. Upon seeing the actual scheme of the buildings— mixed-income approach with high-quality designed comparably to surrounding developments, as two-story townhouses design and management may be particularly over flats—they were reassured, and accepted the development. important in order to build affordable housing successfully.47 At the mixed-income Oak Park Village housing development in Boise, Idaho, some neighbors initially resisted the affordable housing component of the project. The mayor of Boise strongly supported the project, encouraging excellent architectural design. Negotiated amenities, such as the addition of more green space and extended streets and sidewalks in the

20 new community, proved to be the persuasive elements that convinced the opposition.48 Profile Evidence of good management practices can also ease community concerns. As part of the development of the Ashwood Court McCormack apartments in Northridge, California, developer McCormack Baron & Associates provided uneasy neighbors with background Baron and on its property management experience, which included direct hands-on operation of its properties, as well as criminal back- Associates ground checks and credit reports on prospective residents.49 St. Louis–based McCormack Baron & Associates (MBA) Attracting higher-income residents can also create a challenge: is a national real estate developer with special expert- overgentrification. CDCs often buy and rehabilitate vacant units ise in the creation of new, mixed-income communities in a neighborhood and market the neighborhood, its low housing and an emphasis on historic properties and declining costs, and urban and cultural amenities to attract higher-income urban neighborhoods. MBA is noted for its “community- building” approach to neighborhood development. The residents. As a result, CDCs must ensure that an influx of higher- firm has developed 83 projects in 22 cities at a total income households does not displace lower-income neighborhood cost of more than $1 billion. residents as the area becomes gentrified. To preserve the afford- A key underpinning of MBA’s development approach is ability of the neighborhood for lower-income residents, CDCs to establish a strong relationship with all components may work to protect and expand the supply of affordable housing; of the local community, including community development corporations, future residents, neighborhood control land for community development; establish community members, government officials, businesses, founda- land trusts and limited-equity housing cooperatives; support the tions, and church leaders. These relationships earn creation of housing trust funds and inclusionary zoning policies; support for the development within the community and can help to attract local, state, and federal funding.55 and apply creative financing strategies to fund these efforts.50 In all cases, the developer’s careful planning and good communication with neighbors are essential to winning community acceptance of a proposed mixed-income housing development. Techniques to minimize opposition to and mobilize support for affordable housing projects include developing strong community relationships, educating the public about the project, offering examples of successful projects, and negotiating in a way that includes a savvy concession strategy.51 In concert with the developer’s efforts, strong support from local government is key to defusing or overcoming community opposi-

tion to affordable housing. Local planning and zoning regula- & ASSOCIATES BARON MCCORMACK tions aimed at fostering the construction of affordable housing— McCormack Baron & Associates is noted for its such as inclusionary zoning—can help make affordable units a “community-building” approach to neighborhood natural and accepted part of residential development over the development. Westminster Place—a large-scale, long term. The city of San Diego conducted intensive outreach mixed-income residential community in a distressed efforts to earn community acceptance of its “City of Villages” St. Louis inner-city neighborhood formerly called plan—designed to address growth and improve existing commu- Gaslight Square—features a variety of residential rental products, as well as for-sale duplexes and nities by clustering together diverse, mixed-income housing; single-family homes. commercial uses; employment centers; schools; and civic uses in areas where a high level of activity already exists.52 To gain public approval of the plan, city officials held numerous public meetings and published reports emphasizing the positive aspects of well-planned, dense development—including increased tax revenue, expanded job opportunities, new housing opportunities, additional public amenities, and revitalization of blighted areas.53

21 Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact Source Guide 2003

Organization/Agency/Community World Wide Web Address

Affordable Housing Design Advisor www.designadvisor.org

Association of Bay Area Governments www.abag.ca.gov

Austin Housing Finance Corporation S.M.A.R.T. Housing Initiative www.ci.austin.tx.us/ahfc/smart.htm

The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy www.brookings.edu

The Family Housing Fund www.fhfund.org

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University www.jchs.harvard.edu

Massachusetts Housing Partnership www.mhp.net

National Housing Conference www.nhc.org

National Housing Institute www.nhi.org

National Trust for Historic Preservation www.nationaltrust.org

Policy Link Equitable Development Tool Kit www.policylink.org

ULI Development Case Studies developmentcasestudies.uli.org

ULI Land Use Policy Papers policypapers.uli.org

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Policy, Development and Research Information Service www.huduser.org

22 Notes

1. Barbara J. Lipman et al., Paycheck to Paycheck: Working Families and the Cost of 24. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Congress for the Housing in America (Washington, D.C.: Center for Housing Policy/National New Urbanism, Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design: HOPE VI and the Housing Conference, 2001). New Urbanism (San Francisco: Author, 2000). p. 34.

2. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the 25. ULI–Urban Land Institute, Engaging the Private Sector in HOPE VI. Nation’s Housing: 2002 (Cambridge: Joint Center for Housing Studies of 26. Nava Adé, Santa Fe, New Mexico: ULI Development Case Study #C032014. Harvard University, 2002). 27. Lipman et al., Paycheck to Paycheck. 3. Income groups are according to U.S. Census Bureau definitions. 28. Colorado Sprawl Action Center, www.sprawlaction.org/halloffame/ 4. Alastair Smith, Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality. EStapleton.html. (Cambridge: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University/Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, 2002). 29. Richard M. Haughey, ULI Land Use Policy Forum Report: Challenges to Developing Workforce Housing (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land 5. Jo Allen Gause et al., Great Planned Communities (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Institute, 2002). Urban Land Institute, 2002). 30. Joseph E. Corcoran, “Making Mixed-Income Housing Work,” Multifamily 6. “Mixing Housing Types in TNDS,” New Urban News, May/June 2000, p.10. Trends, Summer 2002. 7. Community Partners, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sweet 31. For a more comprehensive discussion of federal, state, and local programs Auburn Case Study at www.nationaltrust.org/community_partners/ to support the production of affordable and mixed-income housing, see sweet_auburn. html. National Association of Home Builders–Economics, Mortgage Finance, and 8. Paul C. Brophy and Rhonda N. Smith, “Mixed-Income Housing: Factors Housing Policy Division, Producing Affordable Housing: Partnerships for Profit for Success,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research (3) 2, (Washington, D.C.: Home Builder Press, 1999); or the Policy Link Equitable 1997, p. 27. Development Tool Kit, www.policylink.org.

9. Diane Suchman, Mixed-Income Housing,ULI Research Working Paper 32. Michael Bodaken and Anne Heitlinger, “Providing Affordable Housing.” Series #643, 1995, p. 3. Planning Commissioners Journal, No. 45, Winter 2002, p. 2.

10. William P. Macht, “Mountain Urbanism: Resort Neighborhood 33. Edmonton Housing Trust Fund, www.ehtf.ca. Creates Affordability Without Income Limits,” Urban Land, 34. Jamie Ross and Mark Hendrickson, “2001 Housing Legislative Wrap Up,” November/December 2001. Housing News Network: The Journal of the Florida Housing Coalition, Inc., 11. Belle Creek, Commerce City, Colorado: ULI Development Case Study C032016. Summer 2001.

12. Association of Bay Area Governments, Theory in Action: S.M.A.R.T. Growth 35. Brophy and Smith, “Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success,” p. 24. Case Studies in the San Francisco Bay Area and Around the Nation, 2001, 36. Multnomah County Library, www.multcolib.org/news/2002/hwdreopen.html. www.abag.ca.gov/planning/theoryia/houssanrafael.htm. 37. Shiels Obletz Johnsen, www.sojpdx.com/hollywood.html. 13. Massachusetts Housing Partnership, www.mhp.net. 38. Paul Cummings and John Landis, Relationships between Affordable Housing 14. Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, Massachusetts and Chapter 40B, Developments and Neighboring Property Values (Berkeley: University of February 2001, www.mhp.net/termsheets/40BQA.pdf. California Institute of Urban & Regional Development, 1993). 15. David Rusk, “Inclusionary Zoning: Living—And Learning—Together; 39. Maxfield Research, Inc., A Study of the Relationship Between Affordable Family Appendix B.” Remarks to Florida Housing Coalition, October 23,2001; Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Family www.gamliel.org. Housing Fund, 2000). 16. Ibid. 40. Joyce Siegel, The House Next Door (Baltimore: Innovative Housing Institute, 17. Karen Destorel Brown, Expanding Affordable Housing Through Inclusionary 1998). Zoning: Lessons From the Washington Metropolitan Area (Washington, D.C.: 41. Edward Goetz et al., There Goes the Neighborhood? (Minneapolis: Center for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, 1996). 2001), p. 2. 42. Richard K. Green, Stephen Malpezzi, and Kiat-Ying Seah, Low-Income Housing 18. Kim Ilana Marschner, Building Workforce Housing: Meeting San Francisco’s Tax Credits: Housing Development and Property Values (Madison: Center for Housing Challenge (San Francisco: San Francisco Chamber of Urban Land Economics Research, University of Wisconsin, 2002), p. 4. Commerce, 2003). 43. National Association of Home Builders, Market Outlook: Confronting the Myths 19. ULI–Urban Land Institute, Engaging the Private Sector in HOPE VI about Apartments with Facts (Washington D.C.: NAHB, November 2001), p. 4. (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2002). 44. Affordable Housing Design Advisor, available at www.designadvisor.org/ 20. Deborah L. Myerson, “The Income Mix.” Urban Land, May 2002. gallery/reservoir.html. 21. Patrick O’Toole, “The Public Land Connection,” Professional Builder, 45. Maxfield Research, A Study of the Relationship Between Affordable Family Rental August 2000. Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities [Summary of Findings]. Prepared 22. Roger Galatas (president and CEO, Roger Galatas Interests, LLC), personal for the Family Housing Fund (Minneapolis: Maxfield Research, 2000). communication; March 2003. 46. Planning and Conservation League/PCL Foundation, Why Should 23. Affordable Housing Design Advisor, www.designadvisor.org. Environmentalists Support Quality Affordable Housing?, 2000, www.pcl.org/Land%20Use/housing.html.

23 Notes (continued)

47. Smith, Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality, p. 14.

48. “Boise and Partners Build Affordable Housing,” Planning, August 1996.

49. Jeff Chelwick, “Great Designs Win Over Not in My Back Yard Neighbors,” Units, October 1997, p. 53.

50. Kalima Rose, “Beyond Gentrification: Tools for Equitable Development,” Shelterforce, May/June 2001.

51. Debra Stein, “Getting from NIMBY to Yes: How Developers Can Overcome Opposition and Mobilize Support for Multifamily Housing,” Multifamily Trends, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2001.

52. General Plan: City of Villages at www.sannet.gov/cityofvillages/index.shtml.

53. “Turning the Tide: ULI’s Intown Housing Conference Looks at Overcoming Community Opposition to Development,” Press release/ULI–the Urban Land Institute, October 2001.

54. See the Affordable Housing Design Advisor at www.designadvisor.org/ gallery/timberlawn.html.

55. Matthew Ashby, “No More Business-As-Usual: Leveraging Private Investment to Re-create Neighborhoods,” Bridges, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Summer 1998.

24 Higher-Density Development MYTH AND FACT

UrbanUrban LandLand $ InstituteInstitute Higher-Density Development MYTH AND FACT

UrbanUrban LandLand $ InstituteInstitute

Myth and Fact 3 About NMHC–the National Multi Housing Council NMHC is a national association representing the interests of the nation’s larger and most prominent apartment firms. NMHC advocates on behalf of rental housing, conducts apartment-related research, encourages the exchange of strategic business information, and promotes the desirability of apartment living. One-third of Americans rent their housing, and 15 percent of all U.S. households live in an apartment home.

Doug Bibby, President

About Sierra Club The Sierra Club’s members are 700,000 of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Club is America’s oldest, largest, and most influential grass-roots environmental organization.

Larry Fahn, President

About AIA–the American Institute of Architects Since 1857, the AIA has represented the professional interests of America’s architects. As AIA members, more than 75,000 licensed architects, emerging professionals, and allied partners express their commitment to excellence in design and livabil- ity in our nation’s buildings and communities. Members adhere to a code of ethics and professional conduct that assures the client, the public, and colleagues of an AIA-member architect’s dedication to the highest standards in professional practice.

Douglas L. Steidl, President

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit educational and research institute supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and proposes creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and publishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land use and development. Established in 1936, the Institute has more than 24,000 members and associates from more than 80 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines.

Richard M. Rosan, President

2 Higher-Density Development ULI Project Staff

ULI Project Staff Nancy H. Stewart Rachelle L. Levitt Director, Book Program Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice Managing Editor Publisher Barbara M. Fishel/Editech Gayle Berens Manuscript Editor Vice President, Real Estate Development and Practice Betsy Van Buskirk Art Director Richard M. Haughey Director, Multifamily Development Anne Morgan Project Director Graphic Design Principal Author Diann Stanley-Austin Elam Thomas Sprenkle Director, Publishing Operations Alexa Bach Contributing Authors

Recommended bibliographic listing: Haughey, Richard M. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2005.

ULI Catalog Number: N27 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-941-2

Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or in any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the publisher.

Myth and Fact 3 ULI Review Committee

Elinor R. Bacon Edward T. McMahon President Senior Resident Fellow, ER Bacon Development, LLC Sustainable Development Washington, D.C. ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Maureen McAvey Senior Resident Fellow, Debra Stein Urban Development President ULI–the Urban Land Institute GCA Strategies Washington, D.C. San Francisco, California

Representatives of the partners who directed this work: NMHC Doug Bibby, President Kimberly D. Duty, Vice President of Communications Michael H. Tucker, Director of Communications

Sierra Club Neha Bhatt, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign

Eric Olson, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign

AIA David T. Downey, Managing Director AIA Center for Communities by Design

ULI Richard M. Haughey, Director, Multifamily Development

4 Higher-Density Development s this country continues to grow and change, communities are left to figure out where all these new people will live, work, and shop. New markets are emerging for real estate that offers a more convenient lifestyle than is offered by many low-density sprawling communities. New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl. At the core of the success of these developments is density, which is the key to making these communities walkable and vibrant.

Unfortunately, in too many communities higher-density mixed-use development is difficult to construct because of zoning and building codes that favor low-density development with segregated uses and because of opposition from the community. This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher-density development and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face.

ULI is proud to have partnered with NMHC–the National Multi Housing Council, Sierra Club, and AIA–the American Institute of Architects on this publication. This convergence of interests highlights the importance each organization has placed on finding a new development pattern that better fits the needs of a growing and changing country.

ULI will continue to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore and debate issues about growth and development patterns and how properly designed and incorporated density can be used to accommodate new growth. ULI will conduct research, produce well-balanced information, and identify best practices on issues relevant to growth and density. Through these efforts, ULI and its partners hope to play a role in planning a better development pattern for the future.

Harry H. Frampton III Chair

Myth and Fact 5 Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact

merica’s changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices, and retail outlets. Better solutions are needed to the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. Commu- nities that answer these challenges will develop into great places to live.

America will add roughly 43 million new residents—that’s 2.7 million new residents per year—between now and 2020.1 America is not only growing but also under- going dramatic demographic changes. The traditional two-parent household with children is now less than a quarter of the population and getting proportionally smaller. Single-parent households, single-person households, empty nesters, and couples without children make up the new majority of American households, and they have quite different real estate needs.2 These groups are more likely to choose higher-density housing in mixed-density communities that offer vibrant neighborhoods over single-family houses far from the community core.

The fact is that continuing the sprawling, low-density haphazard development pattern of the past 40 years is unsustainable, financially and otherwise. It will exacer- bate many of the problems sprawl has already created—dwindling natural areas and working farms, increasingly longer commutes, debilitating traffic congestion, and harmful smog and water pollution. Local officials now realize that paying for basic infrastructure—roadways and schools, libraries, fire, police, and sewer services —spread over large and sprawling distances is inefficient and expensive.

Most public leaders want to create vibrant, economically strong communities where citizens can enjoy a high quality of life in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, but many are not sure how to achieve it. Planning for growth is a comprehensive and complicated process that requires leaders to employ a variety of tools to balance diverse community interests. Arguably, no tool is more important than increasing the density of existing and new communities, which includes support for infill development, the rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures, and denser new development. Indeed, well-designed and well-integrated higher-density development makes successful planning for growth possible.

Density refers not only to high-rise buildings. The definition of density depends on the context in which it is used. In this publication, higher density simply means new residential and commercial development at a density that is higher than what is typically found in the existing community. Thus, in a sprawling area with single-family detached houses on one-acre lots, single-family houses on one-fourth or one-eighth acre are considered higher density. In more densely populated areas with single-family houses on small lots, townhouses and apartments are considered higher-density development. For many suburban communities, the popular mixed-use town centers being developed around the country are considered higher-density development.

6 Higher-Density Development Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the “place-making” benefits of density and the relationship between higher-density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher-density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl.

Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing support for higher-density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have questions and fears related to higher-density development. How will it change the neighborhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence—documented throughout this publication—suggests that well-designed higher-density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population.

Many people’s perception of higher-density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher-density development, those interviewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher-density versus lower-density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer 3 higher density. In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors® and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective homebuyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter commute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and public transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking.4 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.5 Such contra- dictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher-density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths.

To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the very- high-density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality

Myth and Fact 7 is that complex interrelated factors such as the high concentration of poverty and poor educational and employment opportunities combined to doom the public housing projects. Even very-high-density housing can be practical, safe, and desirable. For example, the mixed-income apartments and condominiums or luxury high rises in New York and Chicago—some of the safest and most expensive housing in the country—prove that density does not equal an unsafe environment.

The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher- density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and underestimate its value. Elected officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders can use this publication to support well-designed and well-planned density that creates great places and great communities that people love. With the anticipated population growth and continuing demographic and lifestyle changes, consensus is building that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses will be both necessary and desirable.

Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact is the sixth in a series of Urban Land Institute myth and fact booklets. The series is intended to clarify misconceptions surrounding growth and development. Other topics covered have included transportation, smart growth, urban infill housing, environment and development, and mixed-income housing.

Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact examines widespread misconceptions related to higher-density development and seeks to dispel them with relevant facts and information. Although the benefits of higher-density development are often understated, so are the detrimental effects of low-density development. The advantages and drawbacks of higher-density development are compared throughout this publication with the alternative of low-density development. In the process, misconceptions regarding low-density development are also addressed.

8 Higher-Density Development MYTH Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems.

FACTThe nature of who lives in higher-density housing—fewer families with children—puts less demand on schools and other public services than low-density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it.

ublic officials across the country struggle to afford1 the infrastructure needed to support sprawling development. A recent study analyzing the costs of sprawl estimated that more than $100 billion in infrastructure costs P could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better planned and more compact forms of development.6 The issue has transcended political parties and ideolo- gies and has become an issue of basic fiscal responsibility. California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has criticized “fiscally unsustainable sprawl,” 7 while Michigan’s Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm has noted that sprawl “is hampering the ability of this state and its local governments to finance public facilities and service improvements.”8

NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN PER 100 UNITS OF NEW HOUSING

N 60 E R D L

I 50 H C

F Mid- to Garden Owner-

O 40

R High-Rise Apartments Occupied E

B 30 Apartments Single-Family M

U Homes N 20

10 19 21 64

0 TYPE OF HOUSING

Source: 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999).

Myth and Fact 9 MYTH ONE FACT ONE

Progressive and conservative groups have identified sprawl as a real problem. Charter of the New Urbanism states that “placeless sprawl” is an “interrelated community building challenge.”9 Conservative groups have concluded that “sprawl is in fact a conservative issue” with “conservative solutions” and that “sprawl was in large part created through government intervention in the economy.”10

Indeed, numerous government policies over the last half century have led to and supported sprawl. Historically, federal spending for transportation has subsidized large-scale highway construction over other modes of transportation. Financing policies from the Federal Housing Administration have promoted suburban subdivisions across the nation. Large lot exclusionary zoning has forced the artificial separation of land uses, leading to large distances between employment centers, housing, and retail. But many government agencies now realize they cannot afford to continue providing the infrastructure and public services that sprawl demands.

Not only do local governments absorb much of the cost of more and more roadways, profoundly longer water and electrical lines, and much larger sewer systems to support sprawling development, they must also fund public services to the new residents who live farther and farther from the core community. These new residents need police and fire protection, schools, libraries, trash removal, and other services. Stretching all these basic services over ever-growing geographic areas places a great burden on local governments. For example, the Minneapolis/St. Paul region built 78 new schools in the suburbs between 1970 and 1990 while simultaneously closing 162 schools in good condition located within city limits.11 Albuquerque, New Mexico, faces a school budget crisis as a result of the need to build expensive new schools in outlying areas while enrollment in existing close-in schools declines.

PROFILE The Market Common Clarendon Located on the site of a former parking lot and occupying roughly ten acres of land, the Market Common in Clarendon, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., provides 300 Class A apartments, 87 townhouses, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 240,000 square feet of prime retail space. Located within walking distance of the Orange Line of Washington’s extensive subway system, residents can leave their cars parked while they take public transit to work. They can also walk to a Whole Foods grocery store adjacent to the highly successful develop-

S ment. Prominent national retailers occupy the ground level of the T S E R

E building, and structured parking is provided. The compact develop- T N I Y

R ment form of the Market Common promotes walking, biking, and using E F F A

C public transit over autos. The apartments are attractive to young pro- C M fessionals without children, lessening the impact on the county’s Located within walking distance of a Washington, school system. The project is the result of a successful collaboration of McCaffery D.C., Metro stop, the Market Common provides Interests, Arlington County officials, and citizens of the Clarendon neighborhood; it has housing, offices, retail, and restaurants on a ten- spurred new retail, office, and residential construction on neighboring sites. acre site that was formerly a parking lot.

10 Higher-Density Development MYTH ONE FACT ONE

Unfortunately for local governments, a growing body of evidence shows that sprawling development often does not pay enough property tax to cover the services it requires. A study conducted for a suburban community outside Milwaukee found that public services for an average-price single-family house in that community cost more than twice as much as the property taxes paid by the homeowner.12

One reason for the disparity between property tax revenue and the cost of public services is expenditures for public schools. Low-density suburbs and exurban areas generally attract families with more school-age children. In fact, single-family developments average 64 children for every 100 units, compared with only 21 children for every 100 units of garden apartments and 19 children for every 100 units of mid- to high-rise apartments.13 The reason is that multifamily housing attracts predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters.

And although apartment renters do not pay property tax directly, apartment owners do. Apartments are also usually taxed at a higher commercial real estate tax rate,14 so a typical mixed-use development with retail, office, and apartments may subsidize the schools and other public services required by residents of low-density housing in the same community. This phenomenon is further exacerbated because many multifamily developments and retail and office establishments pay for their own trash dis- posal, shuttle buses, and security.

Reducing the distance between homes, shops, and offices also reduces the cost of public infrastructure. According to one of many studies, “The public capital and operating costs for close-in, compact development [are] much lower than they [are] for fringe, scattered, linear, and satellite development.”15 And many of these studies do not take into account the advantages created by making public transit

PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: 2000–2010

15 Families E

T with Nonfamily Families A R No Children Households with Children H T 10 Under 18 W O R G

E 5 G A T

N 16.0% 14.0% E C

R 0 E

P – 3.0% –5 TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD

Source: Projections of Number of Households and Families in the United States: 1995–2010 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).

Myth and Fact 11 MYTH ONE FACT ONE

more feasible as well as making delivery of basic services like mail delivery, trash collection, and police and fire protec- PROFILE tion more efficient.

Another emerging body of research suggests that higher- Highlands’ Garden Village density development is an important component of eco- Built on the site of the Elitch Gardens amusement nomic development initiatives and helps attract new park in Denver, Highlands’ Garden Village is a walk- employers. “Information economy” is a term used to able, transit-linked community and a financially define the growing industries based on the economics of viable model for environmentally responsible infill the Internet, information goods, and intellectual property. development. New York–based developer Jonathan Workers in this field are known as “knowledge workers,” Rose & Companies developed single-family homes, and many believe they are the future of the American econ- townhouses, seniors’ and multifamily apartments, omy. These workers are comfortable with the latest technol- cohousing, offices, and retail space on the site. ogy and, because their skills are transferable, choose their At the center, a historic theater and carousel from jobs based on the attributes of the town the original amusement park are being transformed or city where they are located. They seek out vibrant, diverse urban centers that offer access to technology, other knowledge workers, and lifestyle.16

The economic development game has changed. Employers now follow the workers rather than the other way S

around. Therefore, communities that E I N A P

focus on providing a high quality of life M O C &

with the energy and vitality created by E S O R

urban centers will be much more likely N A H T A

to attract these highly prized, talented, N O and productive workers than communi- J ties of faceless sprawl. Companies that understand the Highlands’ Garden Village reuses some structures from the amusement park previously located on appeal of these communities are making relocation deci- the site. The compact development, combined sions with these workers in mind. Studies have shown that with a variety of uses and housing types, uses increasing employment density increases labor productivity, public infrastructure more efficiently than low- generally by reducing commuting times.17 density sprawling development.

Thus, introducing higher-density projects into a community will actually increase that community’s revenue without into a community performing arts center and a significantly increasing the infrastructure and public service walking labyrinth. Berkeley, California–based burdens. Blending apartments into low-density communities Calthorpe Associates designed a plan that put new homes on three sides of a square-shaped can help pay for schools without drastic increases in the num- village and a commercial “main street” on the ber of students. Diversifying housing options and adding fourth. Restaurants, studios, and shops line the amenities like shops and offices close by will improve the street with live/work townhouses and offices quality of life and attract businesses and people that will above, giving residents the opportunity to live, strengthen the community’s economic stability. Increasing work, and shop in the same community. The density provides a real economic boost to the community proximity of amenities, location near downtown, and helps pay for the infrastructure and public services and convenience of public bus lines encourage that everybody needs. people to walk and reduce travel costs.

12 Higher-Density Development MYTH Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas. FACT No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher-density development can increase property values. 2 he precise value of real estate is determined by many factors, and isolating the impact of one factor can be difficult. Although location and school district are the two most obvious determining factors of value, location T within a community and size and condition of the house also affect value. Several studies have examined whether multifamily housing has any impact on the value of nearby single-family detached houses. These studies have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on appreciation rates.

PROFILE

Haile Plantation Haile Plantation is a Gainesville, Florida, icon. Although it is denser than surrounding communities, the values of homes in Haile Plantation are often higher than the values of houses in neighboring lower-density communities, because the traditional neighborhood design employed there makes Haile Plantation more desirable and valuable. Beginning with the master plan in 1979, Haile Plantation has been called one of the first new urbanist communities in the country. Developers Bob Rowe and Bob Kramer in conjunction with the Haile Plantation Corporation developed the 1,700-acre site to include more than 2,700 units, ranging from single-family homes to townhouses and garden apartments. The sense of community has only grown with the expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices. Indeed, it is density and diversity that together add value to this popular Florida community. N O I T A R O

P Homes in Haile Plantation sell for more than neighboring R O C homes because prospective buyers view the traditional N O I T

A neighborhood design as a valuable and desirable amenity. T N A L P E L I A H

Myth and Fact 13 MYTH TWO FFACT TWO

For instance, one study by the National Association of Home Builders looked at data from the American Housing Survey, which is conducted every two years PROFILE by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It found that between 1997 and 1999, the value of single-family houses within 300 feet of an apartment or condo- Echelon at Lakeside minium building went up 2.9 percent a year, slightly Echelon at Lakeside is the only multifamily development higher than the 2.7 percent rate for single-family in an upscale, master-planned single-family suburban homes without multifamily properties nearby.18 neighborhood of Lakeside on Preston in Plano, Texas a suburb of Dallas. Florida-based developers Echelon Another study, commissioned by the Family Housing Communities, LLC, overcame initial community opposi- Fund in Minnesota, studied affordable apartments tion from area residents through high-quality innovative in 12 Twin Cities neighborhoods and found “little design. The award-winning architecture blends seam- or no evidence to support the claim that tax-credit lessly with the surrounding neighborhood’s traditional family rental developments in [the] study eroded style. Larger-than-normal floor plans, individual entries, surrounding home values.”19 And a long-term study and attached garages combine to mirror the grand by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies published in 2003 also confirms that apartments pose no threat to nearby single-family house values, based on U.S. Census 20

data from 1970 to 2000. S D N I H E V E

Not only is there compelling T S © H evidence that increased density P A R G O does not hurt property values T O H P , C

of nearby neighbors: researchers L L , S E I

at Virginia Tech University have T I N U

concluded that over the long M M O C N

run, well-placed market-rate O L E H C

apartments with attractive E F O Y

design and landscaping actually S E T R U

increases the overall value of O C detached houses nearby.21 They cite three possible reasons. First, the new apartments The award-winning apartments at Echelon at Lakeside could themselves be an indicator that an area’s econ- were designed to blend with the neighboring luxury homes. omy is vibrant and growing. Second, multifamily housing may increase the pool of potential future estates in the surrounding communities. Although street homebuyers, creating more possible buyers for exist- elevations make the buildings appear to be one single- ing owners when they decide to sell their houses. family home, they actually house several multifamily units. Third, new multifamily housing, particularly as part Memphis-based architects Looney Ricks Kiss used five of mixed-use development, often makes an area building types and three building styles. All units include more attractive than nearby communities that have high-quality interior finishes; community amenities include fewer housing and retail choices.22 a resort-style pool, fitness facility, clubroom, business and conference center, and full-time concierge.

14 Higher-Density Development MYTH TWO FFACT TWO

AVERAGE ANNUAL APPRECIATION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES BY NEARNESS TO MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS

3.0%

E 2.5% T A R

N O I T

A 2.0% I C E R P P A

L 1.5% A U N

N Not Near Near Near Mid-

A Near

E 1.0% Multifamily Multifamily Low-Rise or High-Rise G

A Multifamily Multifamily R E V A 0.5% 2.66% 2.90% 2.91% 2.79%

0% PROXIMITY TO MULTIFAMILY

Source: NAHB computations based on data in the American Housing Survey: 1997 and 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1997 and 1999).

Concerned citizens should use the entitlement process to demand high-quality development in their communities while understanding that density and adjacent property values are not inversely related. Higher-density real estate developers and investors in higher-density real estate need to appreciate the fact that most Americans’ wealth is held in their home equity. Therefore, changes in property values can have very real consequences to existing property owners. Likewise, homeowners would benefit from knowing that developers make a substantial financial commitment when investing in new higher-density projects. This investment is an incentive to make the project successful, which can give the community leverage in working with the developer. Such interrelated and overlapping economic interests among these stakeholders make it all the more likely that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. Such an agreement can result in a project that enhances the existing community, ensures the appreciation of residents’, developers’, and the local government’s financial interests, and addresses the needs of current and future residents of the community and region.

Myth and Fact 15 MYTH Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development.

Higher-densityFACT development generates less traffic than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking.

3ost people assume that higher-density development generates more traffic than low- density development and that regional traffic will get worse with more compact development. In fact, the opposite is true. Although residents of low-density single-family Mcommunities tend to have two or more cars per household, residents of high-density apartments and condominiums tend to have only one car per household.23 And according to one study using data from the National Personal Transportation Survey, doubling density decreases the vehicle miles traveled by 38 percent.24

PROFILE

Mockingbird Station The residents of Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas, are far less dependent on their cars, because they have a whole host of amenities at their doorstep. Dallas developer Ken Hughes partnered with Denver-based Simpson Housing Group to create the ten-acre pedestrian-oriented urban village, which includes 216 loft apartments, an eight-screen film center and café, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking, all directly linked to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light-rail system. Mockingbird Station provides direct platform access to DART trains, which offer N A B

residents an eight-minute commute to Dallas’s central R U C business district and a single train connection to the Dallas U Convention Center, Reunion Arena, and other downtown entertainment. The new village is also immediately adjacent Residents of Mockingbird to the campus of Southern Methodist University and within walking distance of the university’s new stadium and Station can leave their cars sports center. RTKL created architecture reminiscent of historic train stations but with a modern twist to the materials in the garage and take an eight-minute train ride to and detailing. Although only limited driving is necessary, a parking garage is provided but placed out of sight and downtown Dallas; they can underground. The myriad materials, architectural styles, and amenities create a vibrant transit-oriented community. also walk to shops, offices, and a movie theater.

16 Higher-Density Development MYTH THREEEFACT THREE

The reason is that higher-density developments make for more walkable neighborhoods and bring together the concentration of population required to support public transportation. The result is that residents in higher-density housing make fewer and shorter auto trips than those living in low-density housing.25 Condominium and townhouse residents average 5.6 trips per day and apartment dwellers 6.3 car trips per day, compared with the ten trips a day averaged by residents of low-density communities. (A trip is defined as any time a car leaves or returns to a home.)

Increasing density can significantly reduce dependency on cars, but those benefits are even greater when jobs and retail are incorporated with the housing. Such mixed-use neighborhoods make it easier for people to park their car in one place and accomplish several tasks, which not only reduces the number of car trips required but also reduces overall parking needs for the community. But if retail uses are to survive, they must be near households with disposable income. Having those households within walking distance of the shops builds in a market for the stores. One study indicates that in some markets, 25 to 35 percent of retail sales must come from housing close to shops for the shops to be successful.26

PROFILE

Southwest Station The Southwest Metro Transit Commission is a small suburban bus system near Minneapolis that serves downtown Minneapolis and numerous other employment and recreation centers, including Minnesota Twins baseball games. The American N

Public Transportation Association calls it the “best O I S S I

small system in the country.” In an effort to capital- M M O C

ize and expand on the success of the system, the T I S N A

commission has encouraged transit-oriented devel- R T O R

opment at its bus stops. In Eden Prairie, Minnesota, T E M T

the commission completed a bus depot and five- S E W H

story parking garage on 22 acres of excess right-of- T U O way. In 2001, it started selling land around the tran- S sit complex for retail and residential development. The Southwest Metro Transit Commission in suburban Restaurants, shops, and more than 250 apartments, Minneapolis runs an award-winning bus system and condominiums, and townhouses soon followed. The has encouraged higher-density development around transit stops, like this one at Southwest Station in new development generated revenue for the com- Eden Prairie, Minnesota. mission, new public transit riders, affordable convenient housing, and a suburban lifestyle with the amenities usually afforded only to city dwellers.

Myth and Fact 17 MYTH THREE FACT THREE

With a typical family now making more car trips for family, personal, social, and recreational reasons than for commuting to work,27 reducing the number of noncommuting trips takes on greater importance in the battle to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems. A case study in Washington, D.C., found that workers in dense downtown Washington made 80 percent of their mid-day trips by foot while suburban workers made 67 percent of their mid-day trips by car.28 Although a suburban office park would never reach the density levels of a downtown area, planners can still reduce the auto dependency of suburban office workers by using some of the same design techniques. Concentrating density around

AVERAGE DAILY CAR TRIPS

10 Y L

I 8 A D

S P I 6 R Single-Family T

F Detached Apartment O

R 4 E B M

U 2 10.0 6.3 N

0 TYPE OF HOUSING

Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997).

suburban offices, allowing and encouraging retail and restaurants in and near the offices, and planning for pedestrian and bike access can all reduce the number of lunchtime car trips required by office workers.

Higher-density mixed-used developments also create efficiencies through shared parking. For example, office and residential uses require parking at almost exact opposite times. As residents leave for work, office workers return, and vice versa. In addition, structured parking becomes feasible only with higher-density developments.

Higher-density development also makes public transit more feasible. When a community that includes residences, shops, and offices reaches a certain threshold of density, public transit-shuttles, bus service, trams, or light rail becomes an option for residents. It is estimated that a minimum density of seven dwelling units per acre is needed to make local bus service feasible with an intermediate level of service.29 Light rail needs a minimum density of nine dwelling units per acre to be feasible.30 When a community can take advantage of these options and increase the transportation choices for residents, relief is greater as total car dependency is further broken. Such choices are impossible for low-density developments.

18 Higher-Density Development MYTH Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates.

TheFACT crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different from those at lower-density developments.

eople sometimes associate density with 4crime, even though numerous studies show that no relationship exists between the two. A study in Irving, Texas, using geographic information systems and crime statistics, found no P link between crime and density. In fact, it found that single-family neighborhoods are “not all associated with lower crime rates.”31 Another study conducted by the University of Alaska found no relationship between housing density and crime in Anchorage.32

PROFILE

Westminster Place Although today Westminster Place is a thriving, safe community in midtown St. Louis, it was not always the case. The area, approximately 90 acres, was well known by the St. Louis police department for its high rate of violent crime, which led to the area’s becoming R A

blighted. McCormack Baron Salazar, a St. Louis–based developer, Z A L A brought the community back through the addition of higher-density S N O R A

mixed-income housing comprising affordable and market-rate units. B K C A

The master plan included for-sale and rental housing, garden apart- M R O C

ments, townhouses, single-family homes, and even an assisted liv- C M ing facility for seniors. A new community pool, a bustling retail cen- Increasing the housing density, adding some market-rate housing, ter, and a magnet school are included as well. The new plan slowed and developing a design that slowed traffic and added additional traffic through the community, added landscaping and street and lighting changed Westminster Place from a crime-ridden neighbor- parking lot lighting, and new “eyes on the street,” making it more hood to a thriving, safe community. difficult for criminals to go unnoticed. The area blossomed into a place where people once again feel safe walking. The success of the community spurred the revitalization of surrounding areas.

Myth and Fact 19 MYTH FOUR FACT FOUR

PROFILE

East Village East Village is a small urban revitalization project on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Before the project was built, the neglected 2.9-acre site contained several deteriorating rental homes, old commercial buildings, and abandoned surface parking lots. The neighborhood wanted to improve the area and the image of one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, Elliot Park. The developers of the project, Central Community Housing Trust and East Village Housing Corporation, developed the new mixed-income housing and commercial community to encourage a sense of community and ownership. East Village now features community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses. Buildings surround the greenway that leads to Elliot Park, a city park with year-round activities and a community center. Brick, bay windows, and French balconies complement historic buildings in the area. In addition, all buildings have multiple entrances to encourage interaction among neighbors. An underground 350- space parking garage frees up space for landscaped areas. This once neglected area has won two awards for innovation and design and become an exceedingly successful vibrant and safe community. T S U R T G N I S U O H Y T I N U M M O C L A R T N E C

The additional “eyes on the street” created by the development of East Village in Minneapolis has led to a safer vibrant community.

20 Higher-Density Development MYTH FOUR FACT FOUR

Arizona researchers found that when police data are analyzed per unit, apartments actually create less demand for police services than a comparable number of single- family houses. In Tempe, Arizona, a random sample of 1,000 calls for service showed that 35 percent originated from single-family houses and just 21 percent came from apartments. Similarly, a random sample of 600 calls for service in Phoenix, Arizona, found that an apartment unit’s demand for police services was less than half of the demand created by a single-family house.33

One reason for the misperception that crime and density are related could be that crime reports tend to characterize multifamily properties as a single “house” and may record every visit to an apartment community as happening at a single house. But a multifamily property with 250 units is more accurately defined as 250 houses. To truly compare crime rates between multifamily properties and single-family houses, the officer would have to count each household in the multifamily community as the equivalent of a separate single-family household. When they do so, many find what the previous studies prove: that crime rates between different housing types are comparable.

Higher-density developments can actually help reduce crime by increasing pedestrian activity and fostering a 24-hour community that puts more “eyes on the street”34 at all times. Many residents say they chose higher-density housing specifically because they felt more secure there; they feel safer because there are more people coming and going, making it more difficult for criminals to act without being discovered. This factor could explain why a ULI study of different housing types in Greenwich, Connecticut, shows that higher-density housing is significantly less likely to be bur- glarized than single-family houses.35 The relationships among design, management, and security became better understood in the past few decades with the publication of several seminal works, including Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman36 and Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities by George Kelling and Catherine Coles.37 Many new higher- density developments include better lighting plans and careful placement of buildings and landscaping to reduce opportunities for crime, contributing to a safer community.

With the emergence of better-quality designs, higher-density mixed-use development is an attractive and safe addition to a community, one that is increasingly attracting a professional constituency seeking safety features. In fact, the luxury segment is one of the fastest-growing components of the multifamily industry.38

Myth and Fact 21 MYTH Higher-density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development.

Low-densityFACT development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land.

5ow-density sprawl takes an enormous toll on our air, water, and land. The United States is now losing a staggering 2 million acres of land a year to haphazard, sprawling development.39 More than 50 percent of Americans L live in places where the air is unhealthy to breathe,40 and childhood asthma and other respiratory diseases are on the rise.41 Almost half the damage to our streams, lakes, and rivers is the result of polluted runoff from paved surfaces.42

It is inefficient land use, not economic growth, that accounts for the rapid loss of open space and farms. Since 1994, housing lots larger than ten acres have account- ed for 55 percent of the land developed.43 This loss of land often causes unexpect- ed economic challenges for rural communities, where farmland, forests, ranchland, and open space tend to be the economic drivers that attract businesses, residents, and tourists. Low-density sprawl compromises the resources that are the core of the community’s economy and character. The majority of American homeowners think it is important to stop these trends. In fact, 76 percent of local ballot initiatives related to land conservation passed in November 2004, making $2.4 billion in funding available for protection of parks and open space.44 But purchasing land is only part of the solution and not always an option for financially strapped governments.

Higher-density development offers the best solution to managing growth and pro- tecting clean air and clean water. Placing new development into already urbanized areas that are equipped with all the basic infrastructure like utility lines, police and fire protection, schools, and shops eliminates the financial and environmental costs of stretching those services farther and farther out from the core community. Com- pact urban design reduces driving and smog and preserves the natural areas that are assets of the community: watersheds, wetlands, working farms, open space, and wildlife corridors. It further minimizes impervious surface area, which causes ero- sion and polluted stormwater runoff. Two studies completed for the state of New Jersey confirm that compact development can achieve a 30 percent reduction in runoff and an 83 percent reduction in water consumption compared with conventional suburban development.45

22 Higher-Density Development MYTH FIVE FACT FIVE

PROFILE

Prairie Crossing The developers of Prairie Crossing, George and Vicky Ranney, saved $1 million in infrastructure costs through environmentally sensitive design. The 677-acre conservation community is located in Grayslake, Illinois, 40 miles northwest of Chicago and one hour south of Milwaukee. The community features 350 acres of open space, including 160 acres of restored prairie, 158 acres of active farmland, 13 acres of wetlands, a 22-acre lake, a village green, and several neighborhood parks. Houses are sited to protect natural features such as hedge- rows, native habitat, and wetlands. Designed with colors and architecture inspired by the landscape, every home has a view of open space and direct access to ten miles of on-site walking and biking trails. Wide sidewalks, deep front porches, and rear garages encourage neighbors to meet. The homes were built with U.S. Department of Energy–approved green building techniques. As a result, they are 50 percent more energy efficient than other homes in the Chicago area, and More than half they sell for a 33 percent sales premium. Station Village is the the land at Prairie Crossing was last phase of Prairie Crossing. When complete, it will include preserved as open residential, retail, and office space, all within walking distance space, and homes of two commuter train stations. Residents can ride Metra’s were built with North Line to Chicago’s Union Station or the Central Line to approved green downtown Chicago and O’Hare Airport. building techniques. G N I S S O R C E I R I A R P

Myth and Fact 23 MYTH FIVE FACT FIVE

PROFILE

The Preserve USS Real Estate originally held a 550-acre tract of land in Hoover, Alabama, but sold 250 acres to the city, intending to create the Moss Rock Nature Preserve. The 680 single-family homes, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office space are concentrated on the remaining 311-acre site. Before development of the Preserve, Hoover was characterized by sprawling conventional development and lacked a town center. The Preserve’s future town center is planned to include 34 live/work units, 14 retail units, and two restaurants: at the heart of the community is the village green, an impressive eight-acre park with a town hall, Clustering development a fitness center, a junior olympic swimming pool, and a kiddie at the Preserve in Hoover pool. Residents have access to 15 acres of parks and seven miles Alabama, enabled the of trails that connect to award-winning Hoover schools and the creation of the 250-acre newly created Moss Rock preserve. Moss Rock Nature Preserve. E T A T S E L A E R S S U

24 Higher-Density Development MYTH FIVE FACT FIVE

Many communities employ techniques such as infill and brownfield development to transform unused, abandoned lots into vibrant, revenue-generating components of the community. Some create direct incentives for higher-density development. The city of Austin, Texas, for example, created a program that rewards developers for locating projects in the city’s existing neighborhoods and downtown. Others award points for a variety of attributes, such as transit access, the redevelopment of empty lots, and an increase in pedestrian facilities. By employing standards for factors like open space, dense development, and impact on water quality, communities can facilitate good urban design that preserves natural resources.

Although a well-designed higher-density community offers residents a higher- quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite. Because low-density sprawl gobbles up so much land through large-lot zoning, it ends up destroying the very thing most people moved there for in the first place—the natural areas and farmland. It forces people to drive longer distances, increasing regional air quality problems. The average American man spends 81 minutes behind the wheel every day, while women average 63 minutes. And surveys show that the time spent driving has been consistently increasing every year.46 The national road network, currently at 4 million miles according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, is still growing at an alarming rate, mainly for the purpose of connecting new low-density suburbs back to core communities. Along with the water and air pollution, construction of these highways perpetuates the cycle of sprawl, fragments wildlife habitats, and dries up a community’s financial coffers.

Increasing density not only improves air and water quality and protects open space but also redirects investments to our existing towns and cities. It can revitalize existing communities and create more walkable neighborhoods with access to public transit and hiking and biking trails. Pedestrian-friendly higher- density developments offer general health benefits as well. Mixed land uses give people the option to walk and bike to work, shops, restaurants, and entertainment. The convenience of compact communities may help fight diseases related to obesity.47 Higher-density communities are vital to preserving a healthy environment and fostering healthy lifestyles.

Myth and Fact 25 MYTH Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community. FACT Attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained higher-density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities.

6igher-density development comes in many forms. Some of the most attractive well-planned modern development is built at a high density. Across America, appealing higher-density mixed-use town centers have been Hwildly popular with the public. Lushly landscaped boulevards, fountains, and showcase architecture have created a sense of place in areas previously known only for faceless, uninteresting low-density development. The enduring appeal

PROFILE

Post Riverside Atlanta is often called the poster child for suburban sprawl. However, it is also the home of Post Riverside, a revolutionary new mixed-use pedestrian-oriented community developed by Atlanta-based Post Properties, Inc., and located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River between Atlanta’s bustling Buckhead and Vinings communities. As is the trend nationally, 65 percent of all vehicle trips in Atlanta S D N

are to run errands, not to commute to work. With I H E V

tance of the apartments, Post Riverside residents P A R G

depend on autos much less than their neighbors O T O H P

in lower-density areas. In addition, the community , . C N I ,

is connected to Atlanta’s MARTA subway system S E I T R

and the Cobb County transit system. This award- E P O R P

winning 85-acre mixed-use development includes T S O 25,000 square feet of retail space, 225,000 square P feet of office space, and 535 apartments, all designed around a gracious town Post Riverside in Atlanta demonstrates that higher-density square. For many people, this amenity-rich, low-maintenance lifestyle better suits development can be attractive and successful in a commu- their needs than a traditional single-family home in a low-density neighborhood. nity known for lower-density development.

26 Higher-Density Development MYTH SIX FACT SIX

and desirability of older and more gracious higher-density neighborhoods—Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston, and Lincoln Park in Chicago—attest to the PROFILE fact that some of the more desirable neighborhoods in America historically have been of higher density than that found in typical The Plaza at outer suburbs. the Arboretum This return to the design principles of the past is at the core of the This award-winning mixed-use project in new urbanist movement that took hold in the 1990s. The move- Santa Monica, California, developed by ment grew as many people came to miss the sense of community California-based Legacy Partners, achieves that was created by the mixed-density and mixed-use communities a density of 97.5 dwelling units per acre. of the past. They realized that low-density subdivisions isolated The attractive seven-story building includes 10,000 square feet of retail space and 350 their owners not only from pedestrian access to shops and offices apartment units ranging from 612 to 1,555 but also from their neighbors. The growing sense of social alien- square feet. The architecture firm Meeks ation, highlighted in books like Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone,48 and Partners used strong geometric forms has led many back to the comfort of communities that are a to create a playful architectural character reminder of the places where many of us grew up. These new that fits nicely in the avant-garde Hollywood communities combine the best design ideas of the past with the studio section of Santa Monica. The devel- modern conveniences of today to provide residents with what has opment includes a swimming pool, spa, fit- been missing from many sprawling areas—a sense of community. ness center, and clubhouse.

Today’s developers, architects, and planners know that to attract customers and to secure zoning approvals and community acceptance, they must produce attractive and innovative properties that complement their surroundings. Design professionals are driven to produce projects that meet users’ demands, understand and respond to the context of a site, enhance its neighborhood, and are built to last.49 In fact, attendance at a recent American S D N

Institute of Architects–sponsored conference on I H E V E

interest among land use professionals in addressing P A R

50 G O

the design issues associated with density. T O H P , S R E

It is plausible that the high level of citizens’ opposition N T R A P

to density may be based on an outdated notion of what D N A S

higher-density development looks like. A University K E E of North Carolina study revealed that when given a M choice between two attractively designed communities, Higher-density developments like one higher density and the other low density; the majority preferred the Plaza at the Arboretum present the higher-density option.51 Other visual preference surveys con- opportunities to create outstanding firm that there is an almost universal negative reaction to the visual award-winning architecture. appearance of commercial strip sprawl and an almost universal positive reaction to traditional town-like communities of the past, communities that almost invariably included a mix of densities and uses.52

Myth and Fact 27 MYTH No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development.

Our populationFACT is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher-density housing, even in suburban locations.

7hen many of us think of the American Dream, we envision married couples with children living in single-family detached houses in the suburbs. The notion is that the only people who want to live W in higher-density areas are those who cannot afford a traditional house with a back yard or who want to live in the middle of the city. Both perceptions are flawed.

This country’s population is changing, and so are its real estate preferences. These lifestyle changes have significant implications for suburban development. For the first time, there are more single-person households (26.4 percent) than married-

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE: 2003 (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL)

Married couples with children (23.3) 5.6 Married couples without children (28.2)

15.2 23.3 Other family households (16.4) Men living alone (11.2)

11.2 Women living alone (15.2) Other nonfamily households (5.6)

16.4 28.2

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March; and Annual Social and Economic Supplement: 2003.

28 Higher-Density Development MYTH SEVEN FACT SEVEN

couple-with-children households (23.3 percent).53 The groups growing the fastest, people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s, are the groups most likely to look for an alternative to low-density, single-family housing.54

A growing number of Americans are redefining their American Dream. They are seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle. And while some seek this lifestyle in cities, many others seek the same lifestyle in the suburbs. According to a 2002 study by the National Association of Home Builders, more than half the renters questioned said they wanted to live in the suburbs.55 Moreover, a national survey of homebuyers’ community preferences found that nearly three-quarters of all

PROFILE

King Farm This 430-acre community is characterized by the historic architecture of the region but offers an assortment of modern conveniences as well. Developed by King Farm Associates, LLC, King Farm is located in Rockville, Maryland, five miles from the Washington, D.C., beltway, 15 miles from downtown D.C., and walking distance from the Shady Grove Metro station. The neighborhood was designed for pedestrians, but the King Farm shuttle makes getting around even easier. The shuttle runs a complimentary route between the King Farm Village Center, the Metro station, and the Irvington Center, a 90-acre commercial complex next to the Metro. In addition, two types of public bus service are available at King Farm. At the Village Center, 120,000 square feet of retail space is within walking distance from both resi-

dential and commercial development. The center S R E N T

also includes 47 loft apartments and a one-acre R A P D

village green. Watkins Pond and Baileys Common N A S A L

are King Farm’s two residential villages. They offer L A G I

single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, T R O and luxury apartments intertwined with natural T areas. The center of Watkins Pond is a 12-acre King Farm is a successful higher-density suburban city park with tennis and basketball courts, a soc- community that integrates housing, retail shops, offices, and public transit. cer and softball field, two playgrounds, several picnic areas, benches, and paths.

Myth and Fact 29 MYTH SEVEN FACT SEVEN

PROFILE

Victoria Gardens The city of Rancho Cucamonga, located roughly 60 miles east of Los Angeles in California’s Inland Empire, has a rich agricultural history and, more recently, a history of low-density sprawl with no real city center. This situation is changing, however, with the opening of the first phases of a huge new mixed-use development known as Victoria Gardens. The development, designed by L.A.–based architects, Altoon + Porter, and being developed jointly by California-based developers Forest City California and the Lewis Investment Company, will create a vibrant higher-density downtown where none previously existed. Rapidly growing Rancho Cucamonga has been traditionally underserved by restaurants and entertainment options. The long-awaited addition of a “place” in the city has been well received by residents. The 147-acre development will eventually contain 1.3 million square feet of commercial and community space, including retail, entertainment, office, and civic uses with a cultural center and a library. Twenty acres of housing on site will allow people to live within walking distance of all the amenities of Rancho Cucamonga’s new downtown.

A higher-density downtown is emerging in sprawling Rancho Cucamonga at Victoria Gardens. Long-underserved residents now have a “place” to go for restaurants, retail, offices, and housing. S T C E T I H C R A R E T R O P + N O O T L A

30 Higher-Density Development MYTH SEVEN FACT SEVEN

buyers prefer to live in a community where they can walk or bike to some desti- nations.56 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.57 These surveys confirm that many people prefer the suburbs but want the amenities traditionally associated with cities, including living close to work.

With the continuing decentralization of cities and the rise of suburban communities with urban-like amenities, many people find that they can live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience. A recent study confirms that in many regions, more office space is located in suburban locations than downtowns,58 providing an opportunity for people to live near their jobs. Communities and developers that have recognized and responded to the dual trends of decentralized offices and a growing desire for a more convenient lifestyle have been rewarded. Well-placed mixed-use, higher- density developments in the suburbs are increasingly popular, creating a new sense of place.

Communities are being developed using the best concepts of traditional communities—smaller lots, a variety of housing types, front porches and sidewalks, shops and offices within walking distance, and public transit nearby. Communities like Celebration in Florida and King Farm in Maryland have been so popular with the homebuying public that past worries over whether the demand exists for them have been replaced by concerns about their rapid price appreciation, putting them out of the reach of all but the highest-income households. Today’s real demographic and lifestyle changes are inspiring a return to traditional development styles that offer walkable, bikeable, and more dynamic communities that put residents closer to shops, offices, and parks.

Myth and Fact 31 MYTH Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households.

People of allFACT income groups choose higher-density housing.

8ultifamily housing is not the housing of last resort for households un- able to afford a single-family house. Condominiums, for instance, are often the most sought after and highly appreciating real estate in many Murban markets. The luxury segment of the apartment market is also rapidly expanding. Most people are surprised to learn that 41 percent of renters say they rent by choice and not out of necessity, and households making more than $50,000 a year have been the fastest-growing segment of the rental market for the past three years.59 Multifamily housing throughout the world has historically been the housing of choice by the wealthiest individuals because of the access and convenience it provides. From Manhattan to Miami to San Francisco, higher-density housing has been prized for the amenity-rich lifestyle it can provide.

Higher-density development can be a viable housing choice for all income groups and people in all phases of their lives. Many financially secure baby boomers, who have seen their children leave the nest, have chosen to leave behind the yard maintenance and repairs required of a single-family house for the more carefree and convenient lifestyle multifamily housing provides. Interestingly, their children, the echo boomers, are entering the age where many will likely live in multifamily housing. Just starting careers, many are looking for the flexibility of apartment living to follow job opportunities. Their grandparents, likely on a fixed income, may also prefer or need to live in multifamily housing as physical limitations may have made living in a single-family house too challenging.

Providing balanced housing options to people of all income groups is important to a region’s economic vitality. The availability of affordable multifamily housing helps attract and retain the workers needed to keep any economy thriving. In many American towns and cities, rapidly rising house prices are forcing working families to live farther away from their jobs. In fact, the lack of affordable housing is mentioned as the number one problem facing working families today.60

32 Higher-DensityHigher Density Development MYTH EIGHT FACT EIGHT

PROFILE

Rollins Square

Rollins Square, a mixed-use development in Boston’s South ing for up to $750,000. The residences occupy two city blocks End, is a truly mixed-income community that provides housing and integrate seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. for a wide spectrum of people in all income brackets. Twenty The varying heights and diverse exterior materials give the percent of the overall units are reserved for people whose appearance that the development was constructed over income is 30 to 60 percent of the Boston area median income time. Rollins Square was developed by the Planning Office (AMI), 40 percent are for-sale condominiums reserved for for Urban Affairs, Inc., a nonprofit developer associated working households with incomes 80 to 120 percent of the with the Archdiocese of Boston. AMI, and the remaining 40 percent are market-rate units sell-

Rollins Square effectively provides housing for low-, moderate-, and high-income households in one attractive development that is well integrated into the existing community. S T C E T I H C R A S E R A K C E S T N A M T R E B S D L I H C / T B C

Myth and Fact 33 MYTH EIGHT FACT EIGHT

PROFILE

I’On I’On is a 244-acre master-planned community along the deep-water marshes of Hobcraw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Just six miles east of Charleston, the community features 700 single-family homes, community facilities, and a small-scale commercial area. Vince Graham, principal with the I’On Company, is developing six residential neighborhoods connected by narrow streets, pedestrian corridors, and community spaces. An I’On Guild member, one of 18 builders selected for experience, talent, and financial strength, builds each individual home. The architecture Y N A

is inspired by classic Lowcountry style with large balconies, P M O

deep front porches, and tall windows on even taller homes. C N O ’ Homes now sell for $685,000 to $1.7 million. Community facil- I ities include I’On Square, I’On Club, the Creek Club, and the Some home prices in the well-planned Mount Pleasant Amphitheater. Residents also enjoy easy higher-density community of I’On are access to the Cooper and Wando rivers, the Charleston har- approaching $2 million. The traditional bor, and the Atlantic Ocean. One neighborhood boat ramp neighborhood design combined with the community amenities made possible and four community docks are available for crabbing and by higher densities have made the fishing. Two miles of walking trails are available for resi- community one of the most desirable dents; a five-acre pond, the Rookery, is a protected nesting in the Charleston area. site for wading birds. In addition, the public and private schools in Mount Pleasant are some of the best in the area.

As the problem of affordability worsens, workers on the lower end of the salary scale may move to more affordable cities, leaving a labor shortage in their wake. Such shortages make a region less desirable as an employment center. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, access to a large and diverse labor pool is the most important factor in making corporate decisions on locations.61 Communities that do not provide housing for all income groups become less desirable corporate locations.

34 Higher-Density Development NOTES

1. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf. 2. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&- ds_name=D&-_lang=en. 3. Emil Malizia and Jack Goodman, Mixed Picture: Are Higher-Density Developments Being Shortchanged by Opinion Surveys? (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, July 2000), p. 12. 4. Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors®, 2004 American Community Survey: National Survey on Communities (Washington, D.C.: Author, October 2004). 5. Robert W. Burchell et al., The Costs of Sprawl, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002). 6. Sam Newberg and Tom O’Neil, “Making the Case,” Multifamily Trends, vol. 6, no. 3, Summer 2003, p. 47. 7. “Schwarzenegger Embraces ‘Smart Growth’ Ideas to Curb Sprawl,” CNN.com, Inside Politics, November 21, 2003. 8. Mark Muro and Rob Puentes, Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth Development Patterns (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2004). 9. Kathleen McCormick and Michael Leccese, eds., Charter of the New Urbanism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999), p. v. 10. Michael E. Lewyn, “Why Sprawl Is a Conservative Issue. Part 1,” The Green Elephant, Summer 2002, p. 1. 11. Brett Hulsey, Sprawl Costs Us All (Madison, Wisconsin: Sierra Club Midwest Office, 1996). 12. Ibid., p. 8. 13. U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000). 14. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?isPrinterFriendly= 1&IssueID=215&contentID=827. 15. Muro and Puentes, Investing in a Better Future, p. 15. 16. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 17. Timothy F. Harris and Yannis M. Ioannides, Productivity and Metropolitan Density (Boston: Tufts University Department of Economics, 2000), p. 6. 18. National Association of Home Builders, “Market Outlook: Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts” (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2001), p. 4. 19. Maxfield Research, A Study in the Relationship between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Author, November 2000). 20. Alexander Hoffman, The Vitality of America’s Working Communities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2003). 21. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, “Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-Family Detached Residential Homes,” Working Draft (Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Tech University, 2003). 22. Arthur C. Nelson, “Top Ten State and Local Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing Supply,” Housing Facts & Findings, vol. 5, no. 1. 23. National Multi Housing Council, “Tabulations of 1999 American Housing Survey” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,1999). 24. Robert Dunphy and Kimberly Fisher, “Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights,” Transportation Research Record, 1996. 25. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th ed., vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). 26. “How to Calculate Demand for Retail,” New Urban News, March 2004, pp.10–11. 27. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation’s Travel:1995, NPTS Early Results Report (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1997), p. 11. 28. G. Bruce Douglas III, et al., Urban Design, Urban Forms, and Employee Travel Behavior, TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Papers (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board,1997). 29. Robert Dunphy, Deborah Myerson, and Michael Pawlukiewicz, Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2003). 30. Ibid. 31. Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, “The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application,” http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p508.htm. 32. University of Alaska Justice Center, “The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency,” Anchorage Community Indicators, series 3A, no. 1, http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/series03/ aci03a1.housing.pdf. 33. Elliott D. Pollack and Company, Economic and Fiscal Impact of Multi-Family Housing (Phoenix: Arizona Multihousing Association, 1996).

Myth and Fact 35 NOTES (continued)

34. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism? Winter 1999, pp. 2–3. 35. Marcus Felson and Richard B. Peiser, Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Management (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1997). 36. Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design (New York: Macmillan, 1972). 37. George Kelling and Catherine Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities (New York: Touchstone, 1997). 38. Gary Kachadurian, Debunking the Homeownership Myth (Washington, D.C.: National Multi Housing Council, 1998). 39. American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, National Statistics Sheet, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/ agricultural_statistics/. 40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Issues Designations on Ozone Health Standards,” News Release, April 15, 2004. 41. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2004,” April 29, 2004, http://lungaction.org/reports/sota04_full.html. 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress,” http://www.epa.gov/305b/. 43. Smart Growth America, http://smartgrowthamerica.org/openspace.html#and. 44. National Association of Realtors®, “On Common Ground: Realtors and Smart Growth, Winter 2005; and Trust for Public Land, “Voters Approve $2.4 Billion in Open Space Funding,” press release (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2004). 45. Robert W. Burchell et al., Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Report II: Research Findings (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1992); and Center for Urban Policy Research, The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State Plan (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Author, 2000). 46. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation’s Travel (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1995), pp.13, 22. 47. H. Frumkin, “Urban Sprawl and Public Health,” Public Health Reports, vol. 117, May/June 2002, pp. 201–217. 48. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 49. www.designadvisor.org. 50. David Dixon, personal interview, American Institute of Architects, December 9, 2004. 51. http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=182. 52. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm. 53. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf. 54. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issueID=215&contentitemID=1828. 55. National Association of Home Builders, “What Renters Want” (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002). 56. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm#slide1263.htm. 57. Newberg and O’Neil, “Making the Case,” p. 47. 58. Robert E. Lang and Jennifer LeFurgy, “Edgeless Cities: Examining the Noncentered Metropolis,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 14, no. 3. 59. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issueID=10&contentitemID=1007. 60. Fannie Mae Foundation, Results of the Fannie Mae Foundation Affordable Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002), p. 2. 61. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Trendsetter Barometer (New York: Author, 2002).

36 Higher-Density Development Higher-Density Development • Higher-density development is environ- Myth and Fact mentally more destructive than lower- density development. Richard Haughey • Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density No one likes sprawl and the traffic conges- community. tion it creates, yet proposals for increasing • No one in suburban areas wants density in new and existing neighborhoods higher-density development. often are squashed by community fears of • Higher-density housing is only for public housing, crime, and ugly high rises. lower-income households. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact dispels these negative connotations, by comparing the advantages and drawbacks of higher- and low-density development. The definition of higher-density development is FREE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION! relative to the community the development Ideal to present to planning officials and civic and neigh- is in—it could be single-family homes on borhood groups, this presentation will provide a better smaller lots, or townhouses and apartments understanding of density and the value it provides. in more populated areas. Eight widespread misconceptions about higher-density devel- Download free from www.uli.org/policypapers, opment are examined and dispelled with www.nmhc.org, or www.sierraclub.org, or well-researched facts and examples of high- request a CD-ROM. quality, compact developments. Give a copy of this publication to others. Debunk these common myths about density: Buy a packet of ten booklets for just $19.95! • Higher-density development overburdens CALL 800-321-5011 OR ORDER ONLINE AT public schools and other public services WWW.BOOKSTORE.ULI.ORG. and requires more infrastructure support More Myth and Fact Titles from the systems. Urban Land Institute • Higher-density developments lower Environment and Development: property values in surrounding areas. Myth and Fact • Higher-density development creates more 2002/Order #E14 regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development. Mixed-Income Housing: • Higher-density development leads to Myth and Fact higher crime rates. 2003/Order #M60

Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact 2001/Order #U22

Order #N27 (Packet of 10 Booklets) Order #N28 (Single Copy)

ISBN 0-87420-941-2

$ ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 http://www.uli.org Campoli MacLean Visualizing Density Visualizing Density

Visualizing Density

Julie Campoli • Alex S. MacLean

Visualizing Density

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Campoli, Julie. Visualizing density / Julie Campoli and Alex S. MacLean. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-1-55844-171-2 ISBN-10: 1-55844-171-9 1. Population density—United States. 2. City planning—United States. I. MacLean, Alex S. II. Title. HB1965.C25 2007 307.3’316—dc22 2006039014

Composed in Joanna MT. Printed and bound by Capital Offset in Concord, New Hampshire. The paper is Sterling Ultra Matte, an acid-free, recycled sheet.

MANUFACTURED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Cover: Somerville, Massachusetts Title page: Phoenix, Arizona Page vi: Glendale, Arizona Contents

Foreword, Armando Carbonell vii

Growing Closer 2 Patterns of Density 22 The Density Catalog 62

The Count 4 Planning for Density 22 The Coming Boom 5 Spreading Out or Growing In 5 Designing for Density 36 References 150 Crosscurrents 6 The Benefits 8 Acknowledgements 151 Why We Hate Density 11 How We Can Love Density 13 About the Authors 151 Visualizing Density 21 About the Lincoln Institute 152 of Land Policy

Foreword

For many Americans density is associated with ugliness, of land consumption? The second chapter, “Patterns of Den- crowding, and congestion, even though it can be shown that, sity,” can be used as a manual on planning and designing for when properly planned and executed, higher density can save “good” density, bringing together both quantitative and quali- land, energy, and dollars. Moreover, many people—includ- tative aspects of residential development. Finally, “The Den- ing some trained planners and designers—have difficulty esti- sity Catalog” is a set of reference images presented in order of mating density from visual cues or distinguishing quantitative increasing density, based on Alex MacLean’s superb aerial pho- (measured) and qualitative (perceived) density. We tend to tography and clear diagrams of street patterns drawn by Julie overestimate the density of monotonous, amenity-poor devel- Campoli. opments and underestimate the density of well-designed, I am very pleased to be adding this book to the body of attractive projects, thereby reinforcing the negative stereo- materials on planning and urban form produced by the Lincoln types. A primary objective of this work is to correct these Institute. It is the culmination of more than five years of collab- misperceptions. oration with Alex and Julie, who have developed a classroom This book was commissioned by the Lincoln Institute of course offered at sites around the country, as well as illustrated Land Policy to help planners, designers, public officials, and working papers and a Visualizing Density Web site that can be citizens better understand—and better communicate to oth- accessed through www.lincolninst.edu. We have packaged this ers—the concept of density as it applies to the residential envi- book with a CD of the images in the Density Catalog to facili- ronment. The need for such a work is borne out repeatedly tate their noncommercial use in public discussions and educa- by participants in our classroom courses, also titled Visualizing tion programs. Density,who share stories of proposed residential developments We hope this dramatic visual material and explanatory of appropriate density that had been rejected outright or forced text will provide a robust set of tools and techniques for those to reduce the number of housing units owing to public mis- engaged in planning and designing the roughly 60 million conceptions about density. This is not to say that every resi- housing units that we can expect to build in this country over dential project that has failed to win approval on account of its the next 25 years. While all density may not be “good” den- density was necessarily well conceived. To address this issue, sity, it is time we redeem the word and reap the social, eco- the authors also discuss and illustrate the importance of good nomic, and environmental benefits of creating the right density planning and design in gaining acceptance of density. in the right places. This book addresses both the “why” and the “how” of density. In the first chapter, “Growing Closer,” Julie Campoli — Armando Carbonell describes the density challenge in the United States: Will we Chairman be able to accommodate significant growth in population and Department of Planning and Urban Form housing units while reversing the trend of increasing rates Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

vii Growing Closer

Newark, Ohio This is where America lives—a neighborhood of free-standing market, the apartment building is far from reaching icon status homes built on half- to quarter-acre lots, each with a yard and in the American imagination. a garage, located on a sparsely traveled street. It’s a simple con- We can’t seem to get the low-density suburb out of our cept—one family per house, each occupying its own distinct minds, which makes it easy to continue to build it. It’s what realm defined by an expanse of lawn. When we think of hous- everyone expects—the architects and engineers who design it, ing, this image usually comes to mind. Many of us live in this the bankers who finance it, the planners who approve it, the type of place, and many others aspire to. It has become a sym- developers who build it, and the homeowners who move in. bol of comfort, security, and privacy. In the past 50 years, we’ve created tens of thousands of these Or maybe it’s just where we think we live. Although most neighborhoods. We can almost do it in our sleep. The low- Americans occupy single-family homes, a full 40 percent of density subdivision has achieved a kind of inevitability. existing housing units are attached or multifamily structures But despite its hold over our imagination, this type of (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In fact, many Americans are living neighborhood will not serve us well in the future. We simply side by side in cities or dense suburbs. Their duplexes, town- cannot afford to use the land and resources required to house houses, and apartments make up a substantial portion of the our growing population at such a low density. housing stock. Yet, despite its solid presence in the housing

Visualizing Density 050629-0165

Growing Closer ■ The Count the same amount of land. Whether this reality is problematic or Every 10 years the U.S. Census counts Americans. In 2000 the not depends on our appetite for land. Census 2000 revealed that count was 281 million. The Census also keeps track of many lately it has been voracious. In the past few decades we have other details of our lives—where we live, how big our families combined steady population growth with unprecedented land are, what types of houses we occupy, what our ethnic back- consumption. Urbanized land, or land that is used for residen- grounds are, and how much money we make. To anyone even tial, commercial, industrial, or institutional purposes, increased remotely interested in how we shelter ourselves and how we by 47 percent in the 1990s while population expanded by only use land, the U.S. Census of 2000 revealed a startling fact: After 17 percent (Fulton et al. 2001). In essence, we’re taking up dipping slightly in the past 50 years, our population growth more space per capita than we used to. rate has turned sharply upward. Between 1960 and 1989 it Across the United States, suburbs grow faster than central ranged from 22 to 24 million people added per decade. In cities, and jobs continue to migrate out of cities. As of 2000, the 1990s, however, we grew by 33 million. Each year we add more than half of the population in 46 metropolitan areas lived about 4.7 million people. At this rate, by 2030 we will be a more than 10 miles from the city center; in 1970, this was the nation of roughly 350 million. case in only 13 metropolitan areas. Boston, with its tradition- While the pace of population growth has accelerated, ally dense urban fabric, is a good example of this recent trend. another fact remains constant—we have, and always will have, Unlike in earlier years of settlement, one-third of Boston-area

Tualatin, Oregon

Visualizing Density 050629-0447 residents now live 30 miles or more from downtown. One- fifth live at least 40 miles away (Joint Center for Housing Stud- ies 2005). An increasing number settle not in the city, or even in inner-ring suburbs, but on large parcels in emerging suburbs farther afield. This echoes the national trend—40 percent of new homes built between 1985 and 2001 were on lots of more than an acre (Nelson 2004).

■ The Coming Boom To shelter a fast-growing population, the next few decades will bring a significant need for new housing. There were almost 116 million units of housing in the United States in 2000. By the time we reach 350 million people in 2030, we’ll need a total of 155 million homes. Considering that about 18 percent of existing units will be lost to fire, natural disasters, or demo- lition in the next 25 years, we’ll need to build about 60 million new units to house the population—that’s more than half of the housing stock on the ground now. And that doesn’t include the 104 billion square feet of new space that will be needed for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The next generation of Americans will face an unprecedented building boom 041215-0432 (Nelson 2004). Given this need for housing, our tendency to sprawl will place a great strain on our environment and our future econ- tionally shifted to accommodate the need for built space. It’s Buckeye, Arizona omy. How long we can sustain ourselves on our finite land mass the density of that new growth that has changed. The rapid pace will depend on how carefully we use land in this new century. of conversion from resource land to suburb is due not to the As we face the coming boom, we can choose between two amount of development, but to its low density. We are spread- basic approaches to land development—spreading out or growing fewer people across each square mile and using up more ing in and up. land in the process. The alternative to spreading out is to concentrate—to grow in and up. This is the way we grew before the automobile age ■ Spreading Out or Growing In transformed our sense of scale and distance. Before World War For the past 50 years we’ve been growing out—extending II, cities expanded outward in small increments in a dense beyond the limits of existing settlements and converting farm- fabric. Developers filled in vacant parcels and rebuilt existing land, deserts, and forests into building sites. Expansion outward structures, making room for newcomers within an area limited is nothing new. The edges of our cities and towns have tradi- by pedestrian access and public transportation. As they added

Growing Closer the 1990s. Several cities and suburbs in the West grew in rather than out. People returned to the central cores of a few cities. The market for multifamily homes grew. The movement toward greater density is mostly evident in the West, where land costs are high or water is scarce. Although this countertrend was minor in relation to the amount of sprawl overall, it may well point to a future direction. One indicator is that a small minority of metropolitan areas became more concentrated in the last decade of the twentieth century. These cities used less land per capita to accommodate their fast-growing populations (Fulton et al. 2001). Areas that were originally built to a low density filled in at a faster rate than they expanded outward. Phoenix is a good example of this 050630-0192 trend. Density in Phoenix increased from 2,228 persons per square mile in the 1970s to 2,707 in the 1990s. Unlike other cities, population and employment grew and remains concentrated in the center. Density in Los Angeles increased by 8 percent between 1982 and 1997 (Fulton et al. 2001). People are moving back into the hearts of some cities in search of an urban lifestyle. Despite the fact that their larger metropolitan areas sprawled, many downtowns grew denser. Central districts of downtown Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and Houston, among others, grew at a faster rate in the 1990s than Above: Seattle, Washington population, cities grew more dense as an increasing number of the cities around them (Liu 2003). Demographic trends indi- Opposite: Chicago, Illinois people shared each square mile of land. cate an emerging market for urban locations and city housing, As we confront dwindling land and energy resources, this due in part to an aging population and declining family size. concentrated growth pattern makes more and more sense: reuse Empty nesters and young singles, two of the faster growing land that has already been altered; limit the range of new devel- segments of the population, are choosing multifamily hous- opment to an area that is easily accessible; and build up, not ing over single-family options. Immigrants, who made up 34 out. It is becoming clearer that these ideas should not be rel- percent of new U.S. residents in the 1990s and represent a egated to our past, but are the key to our future. growing presence in the housing market, also tend to seek out urban settings. This new market for density has emerged in places like ■ Crosscurrents Washington, DC, and its suburbs, where the demand for multi- Along with the sprawl trends evident in the Census 2000 sta- family housing is high. Developers have stepped up production tistics, researchers have detected some interesting crosscur- of apartments and condominiums and are having little trou- rents. It seems that not every corner of the nation sprawled in ble renting and selling them to residents of all incomes. Sales

Visualizing Density 050529-0104

Growing Closer are highest in the upper-income groups, which are choosing sity growth into existing areas of Massachusetts found that $11 luxury condos in mixed-use locations over detached homes in billion could be saved over the course of 25 years. Most of the outer suburbs. Loft-style high rises and mid-rise buildings built savings would go to homebuyers and developers, but local and near metro stations are also increasingly popular (Allen 2005). state governments also stood to gain (Burchell 2003). In the Seattle area, between 1996 and 1998, half of all new When it comes to sewer, water, roads, electric, and other suburban housing was made up of multifamily dwelling units. infrastructure elements, compact form equals fewer pipes and poles, and less asphalt and concrete per unit of housing. Add- ing population to existing service areas creates an economy of ■ The Benefits scale that translates into lower installation costs for developers Just as we’ve discovered the specific negative impacts of sprawl and lower operational costs for municipalities. Consumers and in recent years, we are now beginning to understand the par- taxpayers save money, too. Although the amount of the sav- ticular ways in which arranging our towns in a compact pat- ings varies from study to study, research over the past decades tern can provide benefits. A growing body of research shows has consistently shown that low-density development leads to that concentrating homes, jobs, schools, and shops into a higher public and private development costs (Muro and Puentes smaller area will help us prosper, protect our environment, and 2004). strengthen our communities. Transportation savings is one of the biggest benefits of Building at a higher density boosts the economy because it concentrating people and jobs into a smaller geographic area. saves money for governments, developers, and consumers. One Households can save thousands of dollars a year if they drive study analyzing the fiscal benefits of channeling higher den- less because the services they need are nearby. One recent study

Olympia, Washington

050701-0203

Visualizing Density found that families in low-density regions like Houston and Atlanta spend more than $8,000 per year to get around, while those in Chicago average $5,000 (McCann 2000). Chicago residents, who have less expensive travel options such as walking, biking, and public transit, are able to translate their transportation savings into better-quality housing through the Location Efficient Mortgage program. Lenders recognize the efficiency and cost effectiveness of urban locations and are willing to extend more credit to those buying homes in dense areas served by public transportation. Where homes are spread out, more energy must be expended to serve them: more gasoline to access them; more oil or natural gas to heat them; and more electricity to cool them. Freestanding or “detached” homes consume 85 to 99 percent more energy than houses of equal size that share a common wall. Combining energy used for travel, home, and an individual’s portion of what is used for community infra- 7806.12 structure, the contrast in energy consumption between low- density and high-density housing is striking. The owner of a 3-units-per-acre, detached, suburban house uses an average of 440 million British thermal units (Btus) per year compared to An urban resident living at a density of 12 units per acre Reading, Pennsylvania 360 million Btus per year for his urban counterpart living in an generates about one-third less of these harmful emissions than attached townhouse at a density of 24 units per acre (Allen and someone driving the miles necessary to live at a density of McKeever 1996). 3 units per acre. She is also responsible for emitting a lower We don’t often think of cities as environmentally friendly amount of the pollution that causes global warming—10.4 places, but by most significant measures they are. City dwell- tons of greenhouse gases per year at 12 units per acre versus 16 ers use fewer energy resources and generate less pollution than tons at 3 units per acre (Holtzclaw n.d.). Cities generate high their suburban and rural neighbors. People drive less in places concentrations of pollutants, but on a per capita basis residents where densities are high, streets are interconnected, and jobs of leafy suburbs are far more responsible for air pollution and are interspersed with housing. They take fewer trips, and the global warming than their urban neighbors. ones they take are shorter. They don’t start up their cars— Living closer together helps save agricultural and resource a significant source of harmful emissions—as frequently land. The typical suburban density of 3 units per acre requires because they have other travel options. Fewer vehicle miles four times as much land as a medium density of 12 units per traveled translates into lower amounts of volatile organic com- acre. At a small development scale, this may seem like a negligi- pounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulates that pose risks of ble difference. To build 10 houses at the lower density, only 29 asthma and cancer. more acres of land would be needed. But when the growth rate

Growing Closer 050629-0225

10 Visualizing Density is high and the number of households rises, the need for land hood shopping center with local goods such as convenience Opposite: Portland, Oregon also rises dramatically. One thousand new homes at a suburban items, videos, or a dry cleaner needs a minimum of 3,000 low density would consume 250 more acres of land than they people within a three-mile radius to be viable; a supermarket would at a medium density; 5,000 new homes would require requires far more—40,000 residents within three to six miles 1,250 more acres of land. That development would most likely (Beyard and O’Mara 1999). be on soils suitable for agriculture or on land that provides an important ecological function. Increasing the density in urban areas while restricting ■ Why We Hate Density growth on resource lands prevents this loss of crucial land. Despite all the advantages of building closer, resistance to Oregon has pursued this policy for the past 30 years. In 1973, density is widespread, to say the least. One reason is cultural. 300,000 acres of productive farmland in the Willamette Valley Unlike other nations that developed over a millennium, we were rezoned from rural residential to agricultural use. Dur- don’t have a long-standing tradition of designing cities and ing the same period, urban growth boundaries around Portland sharing close quarters. Our cities and villages were dense for a directed growth inward. The results have been encouraging. mere 150 years before losing population to the suburbs in the Only 1 percent of the farmland in the valley was lost between middle of the twentieth century. Psychologically, we’re a nation 1987 and 1999, while the population of nearby Portland rose of single-family homeowners. We’re accustomed to a lot of by 23 percent. Compare this to a productive region of another space between our neighbors and ourselves. This cultural bias state without a similar policy: California’s rich Central Valley often underlies discussions of growth and development and loses 15,000 acres of farmland every year (1000 Friends of merges with negative stereotypes of recent public housing fail- Oregon n.d.). Other studies have calculated the potential land ures. Many people view density as a threat, believing that savings of following a similar course. For example, Massachusetts it leads to sinking property values, rising crime, and traffic could save 51,000 acres of land by switching to a smart growth congestion. development pattern for the next 25 years (Burchell 2003). In addition to economic and environmental benefits, den- Crowding Although skepticism toward density is often sity offers the advantages of urban life, namely the choices and based on fear and misconceptions, not all opposition is unjus- options available wherever people live and work in close prox- tified. There is such a thing as “bad” density—that which is imity. Cities generate diverse and specialized services that are poorly planned and designed without an understanding or not possible in places with smaller populations—things like concern for human needs. Much recent development has cultural events, medical services, shopping, and dining options. proven to be a poor model of how to live closer together. Many At higher densities, it’s possible to offer more of these ameni- new subdivisions create density without amenities. They are ties within a smaller geographical area. crowded and monotonous, offering few of the environmental Many people like the idea of having a corner store or café or economic benefits described above. in their neighborhood. In housing surveys, homebuyers regu- Density is often associated with crowding, but it is impor- larly express a preference for “shops within walking distance.” tant to distinguish between the two. Density is the number of But retail businesses need residents to survive. The larger a gro- people in a given space, while crowding is the subjective per- cery store is—and the more extensive its selection—the more ception that that number is too high. Places can be very dense, customers it needs to stay in business. For example, a neighbor- but may not be perceived as overcrowded if they are designed

Growing Closer 11 to comfortably accommodate many people. William H. Whyte’s research into the use of public spaces revealed how this can be true. The two plazas that New Yorkers cited as the most pleasing and the least crowded—Paley Park and Greenacre Park—were also the most heavily used per square foot (Whyte 1980). They attracted and held the highest density of users, but left people with the impression that there was plenty of room. Livable, or “good,” density requires a state of balance between housing and population. Even if many people live within an acre or square mile, enough housing units are available to shelter them comfortably. In residential settings, the perception of crowding may be the result of too many people trying to fit into too few housing units. Measured in persons per square mile, some areas of South Central Los Angeles are the densest neighborhoods in the country, but measured in units per acre they have a relatively low density. They are dense 050528-0055 in population, but not in housing units. Another phenomenon, known as “dense sprawl,” is growth that is simultaneously dense and sprawling. Recent growth in desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix has forced us to rethink our assumptions about density and sprawl. The word “sprawl” means spread out, so it’s natural to assume that density is its opposite. In fact low-density development has long been a key component of the standard sprawl definition. But sprawl as a land use pattern is defined by other characteristics as well. In sprawling environments, uses are separated by geographic area, and the circulation and storage of vehicles are prime generators of form. Development gathers along highway corridors and leapfrogs across open space in a haphazard pattern. Growth in the desert Southwest fits this description, but it’s occurring at a higher density. A remote 500-acre subdivision of single-family homes on cul-de-sac streets, located near a highway interchange, but with a relatively high density of 8 units per acre, could be accurately described as sprawl. It’s just a denser version of sprawl.

12 Visualizing Density monotony Many examples of “bad” density arise from the “stack ’em and pack ’em” approach to housing design, which is tempting to developers in our age of mass production. This option has been available since the 1940s, when William Levitt built 17,000 homes seemingly overnight on a 1-30AX1801 Long Island potato field. Applying factory techniques to on- site construction and working at a large scale, his development company created an instant suburb of affordable homes, which sold quickly to first-time homebuyers. Levitt’s strategy relied on speed and standardization. He offered only one model—a 30-by-20-foot Cape Cod–style house—that stood in a uni- form location on a standardized lot. By eliminating variety and employing an assembly-line construction method, Levitt produced thousands of homes in record time. Levittown became a model for the successful mass production of housing. It also became an icon of 1950s uniformity. While large-scale standardization brings down the cost of construction and makes housing more affordable, it also breeds 050309-0186 monotony. When the same building form is repeated relent- lessly across a broad area, it provokes a response that there are “too many” structures, regardless of the actual number. Density is perceived to be greater than it is. All too often, the term “density” evokes an image of repeti- tive, featureless housing developments with little greenery and no privacy. Some dense neighborhoods are bleak, but it’s not 1-30AX1801 a function of how many housing units are built on each acre. Crowding and monotony are the consequences of poor design, not the inevitable results of density.

■ How We Can Love Density If the next 25 years are like the past quarter-century, we will continue to spread ourselves thin across a diminishing landscape. If our fear of density persists and we build the next 60 million housing units at 3 to 5 units per acre, the costs will be huge. To maintain the low-density lifestyle in this new era Top and bottom: Las Vegas, Nevada Opposite: Chicago, Illinois

Growing Closer 13 Phoenix, Arizona

041215-0226

of rising energy costs and shrinking budgets, we will consume the land is subdivided, how the buildings are arranged and significant energy resources and require government subsidies. detailed, whether trees are planted, and where the sidewalks Our supply of resource land will shrivel within a generation. lead. These are all functions of design. What type of pattern will and should dense growth take? Living closer together is more appealing when the built What will it look like? Depending on the pattern it fits within environment is designed well and cared for. Dense urban neigh- and the form it takes, density can be a blessing or a curse. borhoods such as Chicago’s Oak Park, Seattle’s Capital Hill, and Despite the word’s power to provoke emotional responses, den- Brooklyn’s Park Slope have been valued over time for their high sity merely expresses a numerical ratio—typically the number quality of life. These places offer the benefits of density without of housing units to the acre of land. Examined rationally, it tells negative aspects like overcrowding or monotony. Not limited to us something about how much activity is compressed into a big cities, dense, livable neighborhoods are common in settings given area, but it reveals nothing about physical form. as diverse as Boise, Idaho; Sandusky, Ohio; and St. Johnsbury, Two neighborhoods with the exact same density can look Vermont. There are many historic examples to serve as models, as different as night and day. Although they measure out at the as well as newer places that combine the best attributes of the same density, they are not necessarily perceived to be equally old. The key to creating new, high-quality density lies in how dense. What really matters is how the streets are laid out, how we plan and design communities.

14 Visualizing Density Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

050906-0058

Density in the Region Planning for density sively on private automobiles. At very low densities this mode should begin at the regional level with a fundamental question: of transportation works well. There are few people per mile of Where should growth go? Densities should vary across a town roadway and plenty of space to store vehicles. Parking is plenti- as well as throughout a region. Determining which areas can ful and highways are clear. At the other end of the transporta- accommodate more intense development and which should be tion spectrum, urban densities support a mix of alternatives, protected is a good first step. Density is appropriate in built-up including walking, biking, buses, and trains, in a setting with areas where infrastructure and services are already in place to little room for private automobiles. serve a growing population. Underused urban sites with access Numerically speaking, there is not a large gap between to public transportation and nearby jobs and commercial ser- these two ends of the spectrum. Rural densities are typically vices are also a good choice. Density neither belongs in remote less than 1 unit per acre; transit-friendly densities begin at locations, where a substantial investment in new roads, sewer, 6 units per acre and extend into the hundreds. Given the water, and electric lines is required, nor on natural resource broad continuum of possible densities, this span of 1 to 6 land or fragile soils. units per acre is small, but it represents a huge portion of Successful density requires a major shift in our thinking the housing stock and a very common density for new about how we get around. Currently, we rely almost exclu- construction.

Growing Closer 15 Colorado Springs, Colorado

8282.16

As a region is solidly built out at densities of 1 to 6 units in alternative transportation and less in auto-oriented infra- per acre, the demand for space on roads and highways often structure. Transportation funding in projects such as transit exceeds the supply. This explains the epidemic of traffic con- centers, bike lanes, sidewalks, ride-sharing programs, and bus gestion across the country that has accompanied widespread shelters should begin to take precedence over roadways and suburban development. Depending on the extent of the devel- parking lots. In addition to this shift toward alternatives, land oped area and road network, densities of fewer than 6 units use decisions should complement transportation investments. per acre are often too high for the cars-only approach, but too The maximum distance people are willing to walk to catch a low to support alternatives, resulting in a transportation limbo bus or train is about half a mile. It makes sense to concentrate between rural and urban. housing within that radius around transit centers, allowing Density goes hand in hand with alternative transportation. more people to take a shorter walk. Higher concentrations of people make mass transit feasible, and Planning for high-density development requires two differ- transit is the most efficient way to move larger numbers of ent leaps of imagination. It involves sacrificing the primacy of people. As communities grow denser, they should invest more both the car and the big yard—each dear to American hearts—

16 Visualizing Density San Francisco, California

8349.25 to achieve a different sort of mobility and convenience. It areas are protected, where they are located, and how they are compels us to embrace alternative transportation at a policy managed are decisions that need to be addressed through town level and to choose it on a personal level. In this sense the and regional planning. Like a good transportation system, open psychological gap between 1 and 6 units an acre can be space should be extensive, varied, interconnected, and acces- immense. But in order to make density fulfill its promise of sible to all neighborhoods. a better living environment, living closer together must be This is not a new concept. Frederick Law Olmsted advo- accompanied by a willingness to drive less and walk or cated for open space networks in the nineteenth century and ride more. convinced many cities to build them. He believed that dense One of the most significant benefits of density is the poten- urban environments required the counterbalancing effects of tial to save open land from development. Homeowners may green oases and that the restorative power of nature must be be more willing to forgo a big yard if they have access to large available to all city dwellers. Olmsted designed city parks to tracts of natural land for recreation. Like context and transpor- fill this need, but also suggested they be linked across a city or tation, open space is a key issue in planning for density. Which region by greenways. His advice that no neighborhood be more

Growing Closer 17 St. Johnsbury, Vermont

8001.24

than a few minutes walk from a greenway or park extension is than large, blank lawns. Diversity in architecture is key. Green worth heeding if cities and towns are to grow inward. infrastructure in the form of parks, greenways, or tree-lined streets offers the connection with the natural world we all crave. Density in the Neighborhood Living closer An interconnected street network that serves both vehicles and together has some negative aspects—less private space, fewer pedestrians can make neighborhood life more community ori- parking spaces, and more noise, to name a few—but good ented and convenient. These are the amenities that make people design can help overcome some of these drawbacks. Specific forget, or not even notice, that a neighborhood is high-density. design elements, or amenities, should be present in all dense Dense housing can be bleak if it’s architecturally monoto- neighborhoods. Carefully placed and proportioned public nous. When the same building type is repeated up and down spaces often compensate for the loss of large lots. Clearly identical streets, the result is tedious to look at. Density can also defined private gardens can be more appealing outdoor spaces be boring to live in if there is only one type of use and one

18 Visualizing Density type of housing. The best dense neighborhoods include a lively thing looks the same. The architecture is not distinctive enough mix of uses, housing types, architectural styles, and public to register in our memories and serve as landmarks. As human spaces. There is more to observe and more to do. Most impor- beings, we have an innate desire to know where we are and tant, a broad range of people lives in them. Variety on every how to find our way around. This is easier when our environ- level is what keeps dense neighborhoods from feeling oppres- ment is varied and has a comprehensible structure. In a neigh- sive. It helps create places that are both visually stimulating and borhood setting this requires an assortment of buildings and a socially dynamic. coherent street network. Distinctive elements such as a unique One byproduct of monotony is an uneasy sense of disori- building or a view of a distant mountain provide landmarks. entation that one feels moving through a setting where every- Neighborhood design should take this into account, not only

Camden, New Jersey

5417.28

Growing Closer 19 in the design of buildings, but also in the layout of streets and arranging buildings to create well-proportioned outdoor public spaces. spaces, and designing streets to encourage human interaction. One of the great benefits of density is that it brings people Street trees, narrow roadways, wide sidewalks, prominent close enough together that they can interact without traveling crosswalks, bike lanes and racks, and bus shelters are some of far. The higher the density, the more people and activities there the design elements of a pedestrian-friendly street. As pedestri- are within walking distance. This proximity shrinks the propor- ans, we like buildings that are a few footsteps away, walls that tions of a place from a scale oriented to vehicles to one suited don’t dwarf us, windows that reveal a glimpse of life within, to pedestrians. Since we perceive the world at the size of a and doorways that invite us. We move slowly and appreciate human being and not a car, this is an inherently more comfort- details that are lost to drivers. We may not consciously notice able scale in which to exist. The design of dense neighborhoods the well-trimmed cornice or gracefully proportioned fenestra- should take full advantage of this, by locating a mix of uses and tion, but our experience of it makes walking a pleasure rather public spaces within an optimal walking distance from homes, than a chore.

Location to come

8258.21

20 Visualizing Density Density increases the need to formalize and strengthen our about density, there is a growing realization that design and connection to nature. Just as all cities need infrastructure in planning are at the heart of the issue—that people’s attitudes, the form of roads, pipes, and wires, healthy cities need a green pro and con, reflect the quality of the housing around them, infrastructure. Such a system of open spaces and natural ele- rather than the concept of density (Oppenheimer 2006). Many ments would reach into every neighborhood. Green infrastruc- Oregonians now recognize they need to determine why some ture could include natural features like riparian stream edges density appeals, while other density disappoints, so they can and wooded tracts, but it also might contain formal elements learn to do it better. like pocket parks and tree-lined boulevards. The greenspace Which is what this book is all about—showing density and system should weave through town, offering every resident a the design behind it to help you decide what works and what direct connection to nature and natural processes. Trees, which doesn’t. When you examine the many ways to achieve density, fit in the smallest of spaces, play an indispensable role. Green you can begin to understand how different design approaches infrastructure offers many environmental benefits—cleaner create different results. air, better water quality, cooler summer temperatures—but the Chapter 2 presents “Patterns of Density,” a selection of main advantage is that it provides an element of tranquility photographs that illustrate the points made in this introduction. to areas of high activity. It satisfies a human need that is often The accompanying images show examples of monotony, diver- denied in urban life. sity, amenities, open space, and other elements to demonstrate In dense neighborhoods, architectural design matters how they contribute to or detract from an environment. They down to the last detail of construction. It is just as important highlight the differences among various planning and design to add sound insulation to apartment walls as it is to build a strategies, showing how town and neighborhood layout, build- parking garage. High ceilings add a sense of spaciousness.Large ing design, and landscaping affect the quality of living spaces. windows let in more daylight. A balcony offers a place to eat Chapter 3 is a “Density Catalog.” This collection of neigh- outdoors. One large tree in the back patio can make the neighborhood photographs represents a broad sampling of density bors seem twice as far away. Shielded streetlights help keep the at many levels, from rural low to urban high. It will help you night sky dark. Living close together should not mean saying get a feel for what different densities look like. And it will show goodbye to privacy and quiet. how design, much more than density, is what shapes the physical character of a place.

■ Visualizing Density Americans will be wrestling with issues of growth and density for generations. We are growing rapidly and are not sure we want to continue to sprawl. We can learn something from Oregon, a state that chose density 30 years ago. After decades of brisk growth and a land use policy mandating density, the state has experienced both successes and failures. Compared to other regions, sprawl has been curtailed and open land protected. But Oregonians give mixed reviews of the density they’re now living in. Some love it; others are skeptical. In the public dialogue

Growing Closer 21