Community Builders

These expressions would probably get me into trouble but it begs the questions: In California, are we placing too much onus on our residents to solve the housing crisis?

Accessory dwelling units, ADUs, Granny Flats - there are many names to describe adding a touch of density into the single family zones. I heard some numbers thrown about that illustrated the way neighborhoods could fix our housing issues. Imagine if 100,000 residents build a small studio in their backyards. The numbers are clearly staggering. Accomplishing the task, in a short period of time, is quite a mountain to climb. It is a long term effort and a way to quell housing shortages over time and convert single family zones to include a more diverse set of housing choices. Unfortunately, our cities need results now.

There has been some positive progress and companies have risen to take on this specific challenge. Thousands have signed up and put up the investments to use their land to bring in extra income and provide housing. The efforts are there and I hope they continue, but we are still falling short.

Our newest housing regulations geared towards increasing density within existing communities has a resident component built in. A homeowner is not able to split the lot into four and build a quadplex. To do this, the homeowner, who is now a landlord, must live in one of the units for a minimum of three years. This regulation prevents large developers from completely disrupting a neighborhood. It also prevents small developers, who do not possess the capacity to purchase a large bulk of properties, from doing multiple, small-scaled projects within a community.

In this, we are placing the full load of our societal issues onto our residents, most who have other occupations away from the building industry. This responsibility, along with the community’s power to affect and restrain the form of the built environment, can hamper developers, large and small, from building the amounts of units we need.

I am all for communities being empowered and charting the path of the places where they live. I believe that most developers understand neighborhood concerns, but also understand how to provide the amount of units that are needed. A community might not be able to handle that type of load. I believe that we are creating an imbalance where neighborhoods that are resistant to change will negatively affect the whole of society. An adversarial relationship, similar to the sometimes contentious relationships between developers, architects, and contractors, is pitting city governments, development teams, and community residents into conflict. What is most interesting, like developers, architects, and contractors; cities, developers, and communities all want the same thing. The city wants more housing to create an increased tax base and eradicate homelessness. The developers want to build more housing to increase their annual revenue, grow, pay their debts, and apply any profits to build more housing. Communities want to include more housing choices for existing and potential residents but not if that means disruption.

Obviously, every community is different. There are many neighborhoods that have completely transformed and increased density, walkability, commerce, and overall quality of life. These developing neighborhoods cannot do it alone. Existing neighborhoods, especially those within close proximity to an urban center, are being pressed for that same level of cooperation where scaled developments can occur. The communities that resist are most often those where minorities have lived for many generations. There is already a mistrust with the authorities and change in these communities has increased consequences to existing residents that could be priced out of their homes due to significant increases in land value.

On one side of the coin, developers are sensitive to the community’s plight and our regulations which empower the local planning groups provides the ability to craft developments, even if that means scaling back density away from something that when view at the city scale would be acceptable. On the other side, developers are wary that unnecessary costs are expended to appease what seems like the handful of residents that are involved in the community planning process. This process can be somewhat chaotic and lacks definable guidelines and standards, although some community groups are chaired by building industry professionals. These costs derived from an increase in time and design changes filters down to the tenants and governments that provide rental subsidies. Those adverse affects, along with the continual rise of labor and material costs, is a facet of the housing issue.

To me, the solution seems fairly simple: empower developers with a standard set of community design guidelines through a form based code that governs height and bulk and then get out of the way. Once those community rules are established the planning approval process becomes by-right with a ministerial review by the planning department. All density bonuses, variances, and incentives will be approved by the planning department.

To prevent the accumulation of existing lots for a large development, projects of a certain scale must go through a preliminary community review based upon the guidelines. During this review, the developer will show conceptual level plans and basic renderings illustrating bulk, height, and amenities. The planning department will be included in this meeting as the observer to ensure that what was promised is included when the plans are submitted for planning approval.

For example, a developer has accumulated properties for a 200 unit development that fits within the bulk and height requirements. At a meeting the developer specifies the project scale and intent. The community expresses their desire for three to four bedroom apartments amongst other relevant and acceptable items. The developer then gets busy producing the work which is then submitted to the planning department for approval based upon the content of the meeting. The developer is able to be timely about the work and the community is able to influence, but not direct, the course of the project.

In semantic terms, I believe that the problems we face in community development exists there: influence versus directing. The argument is sort of like the chicken and the egg; which is of primary importance. Does a development professional or architect, that has been trained in the work of the built environment for many years through education and experience supersede the local knowledge of an existing resident? I believe that the industry professionals, although not intimately familiar with the neighborhood dynamic, can see a community from different perspectives and from many points of reference of what exists elsewhere in the built environment. The professional has access to the case studies and can translate them to fit into the local environment. The professional also has the ability to see what will not be feasible. This can come into question when dealing with professionals that always desire to accommodate others even when it might not be the best path forward. In the built environment, the customer is not always right m and it is the professionals responsibility to inform and educate the public even when it might not be popular.

To make the system work properly, there needs to be a type of balance, but not an equal balance. The community does need input but not so much as to hinder work progressing that will uplift all city residents. The developer needs local sensitivity to navigate the design and must be ethical in the approach to delivering an appropriate project for the site and community. Developers must take an elevated approach and view neighborhoods from the perspective of the city. How does their project tie into the existing city system?

We must regain our understanding of what our immediate goals are. We need housing units and we need them now. We need to eradicate or at least reduce homelessness and we need to do it now. Going through any discretionary review process is not allowing “now” to happen. This might be a bit controversial but we need to understand that everyone is not going to be happy with the process or results. We do not want to intentionally upset citizens but when a new project is built, I am sure that there are many happy new tenants. When a new project is built I am sure that a former homeless person is happy and hopefully on track to a transformed life. We all might be better off pushing through our differences if we focused on those things a bit more.