The former chair of the UN’s Habitat III conference says, “If you leave the market alone, it’s going to be a spiral of prices.”
Joan Clos, former Mayor of Barcelona and now head of UN-Habitat, has weighed in on the growing housing affordability crisis, now a global problem. In an interview in Metropolis magazine he pointed to the need to address economic factors, and to target the financial mechanisms necessary — especially above the local level. (For Oregon, this would presumably include the State.)
Clos chaired the recently concluded UN Habitat III conference, which produced an outcome document known as the “New Urban Agenda.” The document was adopted by consensus by all 193 member states of the United Nations, including the US.
In the interview, Clos was asked what was required to meet the affordable housing crisis. He replied:
“Successful affordable housing policies are always an outcome of a good coordination between a national housing policy and then local implementation. You need a strong national housing policy, which can help to develop financial mechanisms for addressing affordability, because affordability cannot be guaranteed only by the market. Supply and demand are not sufficient to guarantee affordability, especially in successful cities. If you leave the market alone, it’s going to be a spiral of prices.
“Strong affordability policies have two components. One is income redistribution, usually paid for by the redistribution funds of the budget, which are usually national funds. Then you need another component, which is the local design of the solution. How do you make sure that there are no gated communities, that they are not segregated, that there are no massive poor housing schemes, these kinds of things?
“These are mostly in the hands of local authorities. In order to be successful, you need a good relationship between both. This is the difficulty, because in many places you can have a very committed local authority that puts affordable housing at the center. But if you don’t have the financial mechanisms to support that, it’s not going to work.”
Simon Jenkins, a dean of London’s urban critics and journalists (and former Editor for The Times) writes in The Guardian that the Grenfell disaster reveals more than issues of fire protection. He argues that the very idea of residential towers is fundamentally flawed and anti-urban.
“Towers are again raising their heads across the urban landscape, creatures of egotistical architects, greedy developers and priapic mayors.. They do not converse with their context, they thumb their noses at it.
“They are antisocial, high-maintenance, disempowering, unnecessary, mostly ugly, and they can never be truly safe. No tower is fireproof. No fire engine can reach up 20 storeys, period…
“The housing expert Anne Power spoke of the craving of architects and planners at the time for “something distinctive and prestigious”. Architects even invented a vocabulary to justify what was in effect a sales pitch. They would build “vertical streets … villages in the sky … new cities for a new age”. Social consequences were damned….
“The most “crowded” parts of London are not around towers but in eight-storey Victorian terraces. The boulevards of central Paris have treble London’s residential density without towers. Westminster council’s aborted Paddington Pole, at some 60 storeys, had fewer housing units than the high-density street housing suggested by its opponents. The tall blocks wanted by Boris Johnson for Clerkenwell’s Mount Pleasant estate are at a lower density than the low-rise town houses proposed by the consultants Create Streets…”
“Today’s surge in tower building – some 400 are in the pipeline of London’s uncontrolled property market – is driven by a quite different demand. It is from high-income migratory couples and foreign buy-to-leave investors. These people do not want a neighbourhood. Their social life is dispersed. They want a locked gate, a concierge and a pied-à-terre with a view. They want a gated community in the sky. When I moved from a tower flat to a street flat, I encountered a completely different city, exchanging what amounted to a self-catering hotel for a community of neighbours.
“Lessons will need to be “learned” from the Grenfell disaster. But I hope they extend beyond just more sprinklers and safer cladding. They should plead for the sensitive planning of a modern, sociable city. This has nothing to do with the nature of property tenure, with wealth or poverty, or with population density. Streets can be just as densely packed as towers. By whom they are occupied is a matter for housing policy. What matters in the long term is how flexible the buildings are, how they interact with each other and their surroundings. No one asked such questions of Grenfell.
“North Kensington used to be a tough area, and has long been under pressure from inward migration. That it has responded so well is, I believe, because of its topography, its intimate streets and squares and its relatively subtle rich/poor mix. Towers are here wholly out of place and character. Their plutocratic reincarnation, backed by developer-led mayors Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson, signals only a crumbling, atomised urban society.
“Such atomisation delivers ugly, inappropriate buildings under distant, careless custodians. That is the true message of the Grenfell tragedy.”
The design for the neighborhood square at NW Pettygrove/21st is gradually getting back on the rails since our last report, but the process still needs input from the community to transform the current proposal for a courtyard into a real neighborhood square that fulfills the requirements of the Master Plan.
By Suzanne H. Crowhurst-Lennard
PORTLAND – The Design Review Commission for the Conway Square proposal meets to review the proposal at 1.30pm on July 6, at 2020 SW 4th Ave (Lincoln Room). Public testimony is invited. Please join us to voice your opinion on this new design (see below). To check the agenda (since the schedule may change), click here:
On May 4th the Portland Design Review Commission (DRC) met to review the earlier appalling proposed design of Slabtown Square, which would have been a 65 foot wide courtyard between the 7-story wings of a U-shaped apartment building, with half of the required 16,000 square foot of the square hidden beneath the buildings.
The architects, developer and DRC were seemingly unaware of the five centuries of literature on squares, from Alberti to Sitte to Gehl, which defines “squares” as “gathering places under the open sky”, and the DRC was apparently ready to approve the project.
It took outraged public testimony to bring the developer and DRC to their senses. DRC suggested a working meeting on June 8 between the BDC, NWDA, and the developer to come up with a somewhat better solution. This is what is now proposed:
Speaking for myself, this new version looks nothing like a European-style neighborhood square to me (and I have been studying and writing about them for 35 years). It looks more like a parking lot or private courtyard for the surrounding residents.
Current design project: The resulting proposal from the developer is still far from acceptable. The developer is requesting numerous Modifications and Amendments to the Master Plan to allow them to build a larger building than should be on that site. As NWDA states in their testimony:
“The NWDA adamantly opposes the proposal for Block 290 that was reviewed at the June 8, 2017 Design Commission work session. It fails to meet the goals and standards for the public spaces required in the Con‐way Master Plan.
“By our findings, the applicant will need to seek twelve Modifications and one Amendment to the Master Plan that would, individually and collectively, diminish the size, quality and purpose of the required open spaces. The requested Modifications and Amendment would have the following negative impacts on the public open spaces:
Expand the development site to allow market‐rate apartments in the public park;
Reduce the required size of the neighborhood public square; • Increase the allowable heights of buildings on the square;
Increase the allowable floor area of the buildings on the square by 40,000 sf, or 27%;
Eliminate required top‐floor setbacks for buildings on the square;
Reduce the size of the required connection between the square and park;
Diminish the goals for the Quimby Festival Street;
Eliminate required connection between the square and festival street;
Reduce ground floor active use requirements on the square.
“The NWDA objects to the use of designated public spaces for private development. The proposed Modifications and Amendment would co‐opt required public open spaces for private for‐profit development. The proposal seeks a reduction of required open space by roughly 6,000 square feet and seeks to increase private developable floor area by more than 40,000 square feet in excess of what is defined by the Standards in the Master Plan.”
Simply put, the proportions of the square are unacceptable: the square is too small in relation to the proposed height of the. surrounding building. It is overwhelmed by the excess building that the developer is trying to cram onto the site. The Master Plan intended that on this site, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) should be transferred OFF the site, not onto it as the developer is doing.
If you would like to testify against this unacceptable design, please consider referencing some of the following specific objections:
Building height: The developer seeks a modification to the Master Plan Standards to increase the height of the west wing from 47 feet to 57 feet. As NWDA states: “The Master Plans designates the square as a “major open space.” Increasing heights of buildings on the square increases the sense of enclosure and reduces solar access. Increasing the height limit for buildings on the square does not BETTER meet the design guidelines.”
Ground floor retail facing the square: The developer seeks a modification to the Master Plan standards to reduce the amount of retail facilities fronting the square on the northern building from 75% to 38%. This is not acceptable. As NWDA states:
“The purpose of this Standard is to ensure an appropriate level of social interaction at the perimeter of the square for the square to be successful by requiring that 3/4 of the frontage of the square be devoted to publicly accessible commercial uses that can animate the zone directly outside of their lease areas… Retail activity, neighborhood facilities, and active uses are critically important to a lively and successful square.”
Dimensions of the square: The Master Plan states that no horizontal dimension of the square should be less than 100 feet. This is to ensure that the space of the square does not feel constricted by surrounding buildings. To achieve the required 16,000 square feet the square should therefore be at least 100 feet x 160 feet, or 127 feet x 127 feet, or somewhere in between.
The developer now claims to be providing a square open to the sky of 16,007 square feet. However, this claim is deceptive, because it measures areas beneath the overhanging building on 3 sides. The actual area open to the sky is 14,674 square feet.
Moreover, the 14,674 square feet has only been achieved by pushing the east building out 15 feet into the public space facing the park. The developer should be making the building thinner, not stealing the required area of public space on the park side of the building to try to meet the requirements on the square. I adamantly oppose reducing the overall required amount of public space by 3,000 square feet and handing it over for private development.
Moreover, the developer is proposing to divide the square into 2 sections, the main part between the 7-story buildings (approx. 100 feet x 131.7 feet), and an “apron” at the SW corner of approx. 47 feet x 32 feet, most of which consists of steps. While the SW corner could be sunny, the resulting restricted dimensions of the main part of the square deprives it of sunlight – and it is the main body of the square that should be designed to accommodate the greatest amount of social life.
This “apron” has no dimension of at least 100 feet (required Standard), and has a building only on the north side (3 sides are required) so as NWDA states: “…it does not meet the requirement for the square and the square footage cannot be included in the calculation of the square size.”
Connections to surrounding neighborhood, and between square and park: The Master Plan specifies there must be a link between the square and the park, preferably open to the sky between buildings, or at least 25 foot high to make the transition beneath the building comfortable. The developer asks for Modification of the Standard to allow them to reduce the height of this connection to an average of 15 feet. This would result in a tunnel 60 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 15 feet high.
NWDA strongly rejects this. As they testify:
“The Master Plan calls for a high degree of connectivity between the park, square, Quimby, and the pedestrian walkways. The required proportion of the connection between the open spaces is necessary for the desired visual and spatial connection. Reducing the size of the connection between the square and park does not BETTER meet the application design guidelines for connecting two public spaces. It is purely a desire by the applicant to reduce the cost of development by eliminating the need for an extra set of elevators or other architectural changes.”
With regard to connecting the square to the surrounding neighborhood, this design is woefully inadequate. If you are approaching from the south, you can enter via two flights of steps or two ramps. If you are approaching from the park, you can enter through the tunnel. But if you are approaching from the north or west, there is no entrance into the square. The block-long buildings are barriers.
This means that those living to the north and west will feel excluded from the square; it will not feel like a place that belongs to them; and they will not be able to take a short cut through the square on their way south, or to the park – they will have to go around the buildings, not through the square. The lack of entrances on the north and west will therefore cut down on the number of serendipitous meetings on the square that happen when people’s paths cross as they pass through in different directions.
Reducing the size of the park to increase private development: The developer is requesting an Amendment to the General Plan to allow them to increase by 15 feet the width of their building facing the park. This reduces the public open space by 3,000 square feet – and it does not increase the size of the square, which is still too small.
As the NWDA testimony states:
“NWDA adamantly opposes allowing private development in areas designated as public open space by the Master Plan. More than 90% of respondents to a recent survey of residents oppose reducing the size of the park to accommodate private development… A smaller park simply is not BETTER than a larger park, and the proposed exchange of public open space for private benefit is unacceptable.”
The biggest problem – Too much building: Perhaps the biggest problem with this project is that the developer is trying to cram 12 pounds of sand into a 6 pound sack. The primary purpose of 290W is to provide a hospitable neighborhood square with a minimum square footage of 16,000 square feet.
As NWDA states:
“The remaining portion of the development site is 23,400 sf. This buildable area, when extended to maximum allowable heights of 47’ and 77’, results in a maximum allowable floor area of ~144,600 sf. The proposed development calls for 184,589 sf. Proposing to build 27% more building than the Master Plan allows, and in doing so building taller buildings surrounding the public square, and being allowed to build this additional building area in a public park does not meet nor BETTER the goals or Standards of the Master Plan.”
It is clear that neither the developer not planning staff have yet accepted that the primary purpose of 290W is to create a neighborhood square (with associated development). They continue to reverse these priorities to a definition that is more familiar to them: “Type III Design Review for a new multi-story residential building (with … a publicly-accessible plaza)”. It is time that they acknowledged that the primary challenge here is to design a neighborhood square!
Conclusion: There is a long way to go before Portland can claim to have created a successful neighborhood square. Judging from previous reviews of this project, the Design Review Commission seems poised to accept the new design. Please join us on July 6th to strongly oppose this project, and to call for a neighborhood square that is truly hospitable for all.
To download the latest building plans, click here:
Stephanie Meeks, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, points to evidence that historic preservation and adaptive reuse are not the enemies of affordability, but one of its best assets
In a reminder that the affordability crisis is hardly an Oregon-specific issue, the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation has pointed out that “tearing down old buildings won’t make our cities more affordable or inviting.” Instead, president Stephanie Meeks says, “it’s time to make better use of the buildings and spaces we already have.”
As anyone who’s tried to find an apartment lately can tell you firsthand, many of America’s biggest cities are in the midst of a full-blown affordability crisis. All over the country, as young job-seekers and empty nesters both look to enjoy a more urban daily experience than offered by the previous suburban ideal, neighborhoods are struggling with skyrocketing housing and rental costs and surging development pressure.
We face some tough challenges in trying to navigate these pressures, but creating a false dichotomy between affordable housing and historic preservation should not be one of them. Creating affordable housing and retaining urban character are not at all competing goals. In fact, contrary to the conventional wisdom, they can most successfully be achieved in tandem.
Meeks mentions Oregon’s embarrassingly ill-conceived HB 2007, and other examples of the “false dichotomy” between affordability and livable heritage. In fact, NTHP research has documented that heritage can be a powerful asset for affordability. “In city after city, we have found that neighborhoods with older, smaller buildings and mixed-age blocks tend to provide more units of affordable rental housing, defined as housing whose monthly rent is a third or less of that city’s median income.” She went on:
These areas also performed better along a host of other important social, economic, and environmental metrics. Across all 50 cities surveyed in our new Atlas of ReUrbanism, a comprehensive, block-by-block study of the American urban landscape, areas of older, smaller buildings and mixed-age blocks boast 33 percent more new business jobs, 46 percent more small business jobs, and 60 percent more women- and minority-owned businesses.
As more people become aware of the problematic logic behind Oregon’s HB 2007 and similar pro-demolition and “anti-NIMBY” measures, attention rightly turns to better approaches
In this blog and elsewhere, I and other critics have taken the proponents of Oregon’s proposed “anti-NIMBY” bill HB 2007 to task for sloppy knee-jerk thinking, a failure to consider the actual evidence of what works, and symbolic gestures of identity politics that only further polarize and divide our community — at a time when we need more urban unity on our challenges, not less.
But the next question is only fair: what, then, is the alternative?
First, it should be recognized that the problem of housing affordability is hardly a Portland-specific or Oregon-specific problem. I just returned from speaking at the Pacific Cities Sustainability Initiative conference in Los Angeles, sponsored by the Asia Society, USC and other partners. The stories from different cities were all remarkably similar — and indeed, compared to many places, Portland’s and Oregon’s problems seem relatively modest.
Representatives from cities across the Pacific Rim, and indeed other parts of the world, all described similar problems – from Los Angeles to Hong Kong, Vancouver to Sydney. A wave of global capital is rushing into real estate, fueling speculation and land price surges. Cities that try to build their way out of the problem without dealing with the underlying economic forces are likely to exacerbate, not remedy, the problem. And the result may be not only less affordable housing, but a steady, tragic loss of their most valuable sustainability asset – their livable heritage.
What, then, is the answer? A number of participants spoke of effective tools and approaches that have been found to work in other cities. Here are some of them that were discussed:
Taxation, including land value tax. Patrick Condon, professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, described the “Vienna Model” — new projects are taxed heavily, which depresses land cost without raising costs for market-rate housing. The taxes go to affordable projects, and to buying more land – which is then less expensive. Other cities tax the land value directly, using so-called “Georgist” tax policies. We need to look at similar tools to conserve resources (like land) and reward good development. Such policies can help to “monetize externality costs” (like sprawl).
Other tools to damp down speculative real estate bubbles. Housing is a human need, not an interchangeable investor commodity – yet current policy is rewarding a dangerous new wave of speculation. The last time this happened, 2008, the world found itself in a global financial crisis. We need better tools, including local regulations, that control excessive speculation. We need less childlike faith in the magic of markets.
Better tools to unlock under-utilized sites. There are enormous reserves of wasted land, empty lots, parking lots and other suitable sites, in Portland and elsewhere — but there is a shortage of imagination and tools to access them. The National Trust for Historic Preservation recently cited a 2014 survey that found that in just a part of New York City, nearly 2,500 vacant lots and more than 3,500 empty buildings had enough capacity to house 200,000 people.
Tools for “gentle densification”. Some of these tools are addressed under the misguided HB 2007 – but we need less heavy-handed, more incentive-based approaches to apply them. They include accessory dwellings, duplexes or rental conversions, pocket neighborhoods, “tiny houses,” and other innovative forms of compatible, human-scale housing, as alternatives to “jamming it in.”
“Beauty In My Back Yard”. Portland is full of beautiful, neighborhood-compatible typologies, including a rich tradition of human-scale courtyard apartments. Where sites are available, such positive alternatives should be developed through “win-win” consultations with residents.
Targeted protections for existing renters and owners, and aggressive help for the homeless. There is no excuse for letting people suffer, particularly when proven alternatives have been demonstrated by other cities. Salt Lake City, for example, has demonstrated one positive approach to ending homelessness; there are others. Some cities have developed policies that legally disincentivize increases in rents above inflation (like property tax re-assessments based on higher incomes). Portland needs to be less insular and over-confident, and more willing to share global lessons, showing greater humility and willingness to learn from others’ lessons.
Above all… Stop demonizing NIMBYs. As Jane Jacobs said, sometimes NIMBYs are right – things should be done differently. In a democracy, people who live in a community should have the right to participate in land use that affects their public realm, with a voice in decision-making. (That principle is enshrined in Oregon’s land use system as “Goal One”.)
The political environment in this country is ugly enough without fomenting more needless divisions with communities that have been allies in the past, including the historic preservation community, and the community of neighborhood activists — the one that was key to creating the Portland we love today. The new divisive tactics are not only ineffective and counter-productive, they are unconscionable (especially when they stoop to unfounded and offensive accusations of “self-segregation”). Such polarizing foolishness won’t solve the housing crisis. But it might help lead to a Portland that is increasingly polarized, unable to meet its challenges, and facing decline – a sad shell of the city it once was, and could be again.
Coming back from Los Angeles, I couldn’t help but think: Portland and Oregon have a narrow window of choice. We can try harder to learn from other cities, and spend a little less time being so insular and self-satisfied with our own aspirational politics. I fear the result of the latter is that we will only become less and less distinguishable from the growing list of cities in crisis – just another fashionable victim of deluded “command and control” thinking and “voodoo urbanism”, with a progressive veneer.
But I would like to think we can once again be pioneers for other cities, in finding and combining effective new solutions. May that needed conversation begin.
Over-focusing on the wealthy cores of cities only fuels inequality, displacement, and other runaway urban problems — and degrades the cores too
The story is distressingly similar in many cities around the world. Newly popular city cores are drawing more people, pushing up prices, and driving out small businesses and lower-income residents. City leaders, alarmed at the trends, try to build their way out of the problems, on the theory that more supply will better match demand, and result in lower rents and home prices. But the efforts don’t seem to work – and even seem to exacerbate the problems.
That’s because cities aren’t simple machines, in which we can plug in one thing (say, a higher quantity of housing units) and automatically get out something else (say, lower housing costs). Instead, cities are “dynamical systems,” prone to unintended consequences and unexpected feedback effects. By building more units, we might create “induced demand,” meaning that more people are attracted to move to our city from other places – and housing prices don’t go down, they go up.
Unfortunately, we have been treating cities too much like machines, and for an obvious reason. In an industrial age, that has been a profitable approach for those at the top, and in past decades, it seemed to fuel the middle class too. More recently, the results have been destructive, creating cities of winners and losers, and large areas of urban (and rural) decline. Even government programs meant to address the problems have seemed at times like a game of “whack-a-mole” – build some social housing here, see more affordability problems pop up over there.
In the years after World War II, and especially in the United States, the largest areas of decline were often in the inner cities, leaving the “losers” of the economy behind, while the “winners” (often wealthier whites) fled to the suburbs. But more recently it has been the cores of large cities that have become newly prosperous, attracting the winners of the “knowledge economy”.
Meanwhile, the inner-tier suburban belts and the smaller industrial cities have suffered marked decline, with a predictable political backlash from the “white working class”. Lower-income and minority populations have been relegated to even more peripheral locations, with limited opportunities for economic (and human) development. This gap in opportunity means a gap in the lower-end “rungs of the ladder” that are so essential for immigrants and others to advance. It is a gap in urban justice too — and it is not just bad for those in the peripheries, it’s bad for the city as a whole.
This more recent pattern of core gentrification and geographic inequality has also been an unintended result of conscious policies. This time we aimed to achieve not suburban expansion, but the urban benefits of knowledge-economy cities, and their capacities as creative engines of economic development. In the USA, authors like Ed Glaeser and Richard Florida have come to prominence by promoting the economic power of city cores. Florida’s “creative class” ranks alongside concepts like “innovation districts” to promote a critical mass of talent and interaction. Glaeser’s “triumph of the city” points to the environmental efficiencies of compact living, as well as the economic benefits.
These and other authors have cited as inspiration the urban economics of Jane Jacobs, who did indeed champion the capacities of cities as creative engines of human development. But Jacobs warned against the kind of “silver bullet” thinking that imagines an innovation district or a downtown creative class is going to generate benefits that will automatically trickle down to the rest of the city. On the contrary, she pointed to the dangers of any form of “monoculture” – including the monoculture of an innovation district or of a creative class.
Instead, Jacobs argued for a more diverse kind of city – diverse in population, diverse in kinds of activities, and diverse in geographic distribution too. Hers was a “polycentric” city, with lots of affordable pockets full of old buildings and opportunities waiting to be targeted.
This is a point that Ed Glaeser, Richard Florida, and the fans of “innovation districts” might not yet comprehend. Glaeser for one has been harsh in criticizing Jacobs’ defense of old buildings – for example, in Greenwich Village – which he sees as a sentimental preservation instinct that only feeds gentrification. His formula has been to demolish and build new high rises.
But Glaeser and other critics seem to miss Jacobs’ point. For Jacobs, the answer to gentrification and affordability is not an over-concentration of new (often even more expensive) housing in the core. Rather, we need to diversify geographically as well as in other ways. If Greenwich Village is over-gentrifying, it’s probably time to re-focus on Brooklyn, and provide more jobs and opportunities for its more depressed neighborhoods. If those start to over-heat, it’s time to focus on the Bronx, or Queens. Or Cleveland, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans…
There is no end of good urban fabric, in the US and in other countries, that is ready for some positive gentrification, the kind that increases diversity and opportunities for human development. (As we also offer targeted protections for existing residents.) It is not wise to over-concentrate on the existing cores, in the belief that this “voodoo urbanism” will magically benefit all of the city’s residents.
(Those who believe that cramming new units into existing core neighborhoods will do much good — indeed will do anything, other than to degrade existing neighborhood quality, and create bitter, needless political divisions — would do well to read Jacobs more carefully. Oregon’s ill-conceived House Bill 2007 is a disturbing case in point.)
A second, related issue is the scale of urban plots or lots. Here too we need diversity at the smaller scales, just as we need geographic diversity at the largest scales of the city. Just as old buildings tend to be more affordable, accommodating smaller businesses and startups, so too, small plots and lots tend to be more affordable for those same users.
But as the cores experience hypertrophic growth, often the pressure to build very large buildings on very large sites also becomes irresistible. A mix of small and large plots can help to tamp down this tendency. At the same time, other tools can manage overheating of the core, and steer growth into new locations. For example, as Jacobs recommended, new public projects in new locations can serve as catalytic “chess pieces” to redirect growth into more benign forms.
These are examples of Jacobs’ “toolkit” approach – one that is badly needed today to cope with the dynamic challenges of rapid city growth around the world.
We need to become become wiser stewards of urban diversity, in both scale and location, so that we can counteract the effects of our current overheated urban growth. There are ample lessons in the past successes of cities that offer us effective tools and strategies. By doing so, we can support a more even and equitable growth of smaller businesses, and viable employment for lower and middle classes. Out of that creative exchange, we will continue to get unimaginable marvels of innovation, and we might also get the next new world-famous startup. But we will also get many thousands of other healthy and creative businesses, forming the real backbone of great cities.
Planetizen, the Los Angeles-based US planners’ website, ran some of our material on HB 2007 for a nationwide and international audience of planners and policy experts. The comments were very interesting.
Jeff Joslin, Director of Current Planning at San Francisco Planning Department, wrote:
Since this is a national forum and not a local op-ed, I thought I’d shed light on one aspect.
The reviews the bill would obviate are not onerous, and there’s no data to support the case that eliminating them would result in more housing faster or meaningfully reduce the cost of housing (and increasingly true as projects scale up and the cost of review is spread across multiple units). This is because Oregon – since the 70s, has had in place a requirement that ALL discretionary reviews (even the largest and most complex in the land) be complete within 120 days of an application being complete, including any local appeal. This is remarkably streamlined by any measure, and provides a level of certainty that is readily incorporated into any project budget.
If this legislative effort was genuinely about the affordable housing it feigns to address, exceptions to certain types of reviews would be a carve-out rather than universal. Such is not the case. It is a jaded, opportunistic effort by certain forces (with a local and a national agenda) to wave the “housing crisis” banner and use it to significantly erode land use controls in the one state and city where they’ve been most effective (and which have served as a replicable model elsewhere). By bringing down a cornerstone of Portland and Oregon’s systems, the strategy can be applied throughout the land.
The problem is a genuine one, and the solution needs to be as well; not the cynical hijacking of the affordable housing issue to suit other agendas. This legislative effort is not that solution.
June Weenen, an advocate of “Georgist” land value tax policy based in the UK, wrote:
Affordability issues have zero to do with the supply side. A 100% tax on the rental value of land would half average selling prices and rental incomes while raising the disposable incomes of working households by thousands of dollars. Sorted.
It would also allow the market to allocate immovable property at optimal efficiency eliminating excessive vacancy and under occupation.
Sure, more building is always needed to put people where the economy requires and give them the living space they need. But until the demand side is sorted out first, then a dysfunctional market cannot know what to supply or where.
This is the kind of focus on a broader set of tools and strategies that we think is so badly needed. (See more on Georgist policy and “Land Value Tax” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax)
Closer to home, Ethan Seltzer, Professor of Urban Planning at Portland State, made a rather shocking comment in criticism of our piece:
When livability gets equated with faux tudor bungalows hyped up as historic, you know you’re in trouble.
From this it appears that Professor Seltzer believes that Portland’s classic bungalow neighborhoods (full of “faux” houses, apparently) are entitled to no historic protection, and we should be free to demolish them at will — anyone, at any time, for any reason. Let’s demolish them all then!
I must say I find it a sad day when Portland and Oregon are willing to sell out their own livable legacy, on so slender a foundation of evidence and sloppy thinking.
A story on NPR’s Weekend Edition on May 28th illustrates why “Build, Baby Build” — the strategy to force existing neighborhoods to accept tear-downs for new housing under Oregon’s proposed HB 2007 — is an inept approach to deal with the challenges of affordability and urban diversity. Indeed, it is likely to feed the opposite outcome.
The interviewee is Svenja Gudell, Chief Economist for Zillow. Host Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked Gudell what was causing the sharp spike in unaffordability in many cities around the country (not just Portland):
GUDELL: You know, it’s a little bit of everything, and it’s hard to kind of narrow down the exact reason. But a lot of builders that we’ve talked to say that due to the cost of regulation, land and even labor and supply costs, they don’t believe they can build a house on the periphery that would be considered, perhaps, more an entry-level home at a price point that they think they can sell it for.
They need to be able, of course, make some profits if they’re willing to build that home. And they think they have to price it as such a level that no one that would be able to pay that price would be willing to commute for an hour and a half to their job into the city. And so that means they simply don’t build those types of homes. So most builders have been concentrating on what’s called Class-A locations. That means usually fill in…
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Luxury properties.
GUDELL: Luxury properties – really nice locations within the city that oftentimes come at a really high price point.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: We’re also seeing another effect for lower-income homeowners, at least in the cities. We’re seeing gentrification. People are moving in to places where working-class people lived, and their properties are being developed and marketed to people with more money. What is behind that push?
GUDELL: You know, it’s really a drive, oftentimes, to make cities more dense. You know, as many cities are experiencing population increases right now, you have these developers coming into neighborhoods that used to be a little bit more rundown or a bit cheaper, and they buy up single-family homes that were built in the ’50s or even older. And they try to put townhomes in or condos – any sort of higher-density living. And that, of course, displaces a whole bunch of residents that used to live there because most of time, they aren’t able to afford to still live in the neighborhood at these new places because they often run at a much higher rate than they’re used to paying for their old place.
Or, as we see in Portland, they simply tear down more affordable single-family houses and build much more expensive… single-family houses. Or maybe duplexes or triplexes if we’re lucky — but far short of a meaningful response to the metro-wide scale of new demand for housing.
So why throw existing neighborhoods under the bus, for such a dubious gain? Have we really run out of suitable empty sites in the metro region — parking lots, wasted space, “SLOAP” (Space Left Over After Planning), greyfield malls, etc? Hardly.
Have we really run out of good compatible infill types that would likely be accepted by residents, instead of the current polarized and counter-productive attacks on “NIMBYs”, shoving ugly, incompatible “space invaders” down their throats? Hardly.
What we’ve run out of is the vision and the expertise to develop the tools and strategies needed for actually effective results.
But it feels good to do something — anything! And to make it symbolic of social justice, demonizing advocates of livability and historic preservation as the problem. Even if the actual evidence should tell us that we’re… dead wrong.
Author note: The aim of this testimony was not to “rally the troops” but to reach out to legislators who are undecided about HB 2007, and might reconsider some of the flawed assumptions behind its logic. This is a “teachable moment” to reconsider what the great urbanist Jane Jacobs called “the kind of problem a city is” — not a problem that is amenable to “command and control” approaches. Still, there ARE tools available, but we must be careful to use them wisely, if we are going to actually meet our urban challenges. HB 2007 still has a long way to go in that respect.
This is a companion post to an earlier report here.
Good morning, and thank you for the invitation; these are certainly serious issues before us today. I’m Michael Mehaffy, and I’m a consultant in sustainable urban development, and currently a senior researcher at KTH University in Stockholm. I’m also a resident of Portland, and president of the Goose Hollow neighborhood association, and I’m executive director of the Sustasis Foundation, an Oregon non-profit developing tools for sustainable urban development. I’ve also taught at the University of Oregon and elsewhere.
Over my career I have also served as a homebuilder, developer, planner, designer, and consultant, working on sustainable development policies for the City of Portland, for Metro, and for a number of other area governments. I’ve also worked on projects in North America, South America, and Europe, and most recently for the United Nations, on the challenges of rapid urbanization, affordability, equity, and cities for all.
I wanted to preface my remarks with this background, because I think what we face today is really a global challenge – the failure of many cities to work well for all their citizens, particularly as they grow rapidly. And to meet this challenge, I think we will have to better understand what the great urbanist Jane Jacobs called “the kind of problem a city is,” and learn from our considerable mistakes of recent decades – especially our tendency to focus on top-down approaches that produce regrettable unintended consequences – as my colleagues have alluded to.
As Jacobs pointed out, urban diversity is not only a matter of justice – it’s really a question of how well our cities actually perform, as engines of sustainable economic and human development. The research shows that, to the extent that some populations are cut off from open access to the city and its benefits, the city will under-perform economically and socially, with impacts on prosperity, quality of life and health for all the residents.
So in that respect, I applaud the motivation behind this legislation, as my colleagues have. At the same time, I think we have to ask very hard questions about what the actual outcomes will be from our approaches, and who will actually benefit. So in that spirit, I’d like to share with you what I think are three significant lessons from an international perspective:
Lesson one is that real estate markets clearly do not follow a simple supply-demand-price formula. Building more supply does not always lower cost – not if the supply itself is more expensive than the existing supply, or if it serves to make the location more desirable relative to other places – if we are more affordable, for example. Of course, we are not in an isolated, fixed housing market here in Oregon. There is a dynamic problem of “induced demand” – the more affordable we make our housing, the more we attract residents from the more expensive markets of California and elsewhere.
Of course, we do need to build to accommodate a growing population – but I think it is essential to do so in places and ways that build on, and do not destroy, the existing assets of our cities. There are indeed many diverse places within the Portland region and other Oregon cities, where “gentle densification” can and should occur.
As we saw when I was working with Metro on development within its centers and corridors plan, there is a surprisingly large capacity of building sites, in many existing infill sites, in parking lots, and other under-utilized places. The result can be popular mixed-use assets for the surrounding neighborhoods, as I think we showed at Orenco Station, if you’re familiar with that project, where I was project manager. We do not need to destroy our livable heritage, or force existing residents to accept major disruptions to the quality and beauty of their neighborhoods. We do need better tools to unlock and incentivize development in these other places.
Following that, lesson two, I would say, is that more broadly, complicated formulas and mandates are no replacement for a careful “toolkit” based approach, as I’ll call it, using locally applied fine-grained tools to incentivize the kind of growth we need, and to provide the kinds of protections also needed for existing residents and disadvantaged populations, and also for our heritage assets, as Peggy talked about. You’re on the right track in some ways, but again, I think it needs a lot of work.
Lesson three is that I think it’s vital to work with existing residents, not against them. Over my career in public involvement I’ve seen how residents can be converted into partners to find good win-win solutions. For example, discretionary review can be supplemented, not replaced, with a streamlined “prescriptive path” for projects to be essentially “pre-approved” – but only if they follow specifications developed with the neighborhood residents to assure compatibility and maintain quality. Portland and other Oregon cities are full of wonderful compatible examples of what we might call “beauty in my back yard,” and that neighborhoods would support, and could support.
I know my colleagues have already pointed out the important economic and cultural value of Oregon’s heritage assets, and I probably don’t need to remind colleagues of that here. And these are resources we should value and protect, surely. May I also point out that when residents are upset over demolitions, it may be less a case of fear of change, and more a case of seeing beautiful structures replaced by ones of much lower quality. And I think that degradation is something we all have to take very seriously as environmental stewards, of both the natural and the built environment. And of course those have to go hand in hand.
By the way, I want to say, I regard my colleagues at 1000 Friends of Oregon as friends and allies on most issues. Like them, I believe that accommodating new residents and managing affordability does not require us to make bad decisions outside of our urban growth boundaries – decisions that would compromise our natural heritage. That’s a false choice, and Oregon’s land use legacy shows that if we work carefully, much better choices are available to us.
Just so, may I say that accommodating new residents and managing affordability does not require us to make bad decisions inside our urban growth boundaries either – decisions that could cause irreparable harm to some of Oregon’s most vital urban environmental assets. I would have to conclude based on the evidence, that in its present form, this bill still poses that grave danger. Thank you.
What we learned from a hearing at the Oregon Capitol: HB 2007 has not improved, but at least it has gotten more complicated
Representatives of the homebuilder lobby were conspicuous by their absence at a May 25th hearing before the Oregon House Committee on Human Services and Housing. That is particularly curious, because it’s homebuilders that clearly have the most to gain from HB 2007, the Oregon bill titled “Relating to housing development; declaring an emergency.”
Instead, seven of ten invited speakers joined two legislators to speak largely in praise of the bill, and to re-frame the argument as a broad-brush attack on Oregon NIMBYs (short for “Not In My Back Yard”). Precious little evidence was examined on effective tools for affordable housing or even housing supply. Little consideration was given to the actual impacts and possible unintended consequences of the bill. It became clear that the central argument for the bill was an ad hominem attack on Oregon neighborhoods that allegedly “want to self-segregate,” in the remarkable words of bill sponsor Tina Kotek:
“HB 2007 would get rid of some of the loopholes that allow NIMBYism to block development when wealthy neighborhoods simply want to self-segregate, and prevent affordable housing development in their communities.”
But does the evidence show that “NIMBYism” in wealthy neighborhoods is actually a significant barrier to affordable housing? How much of the problem up to now has been, to be blunt, a heavy-handed failure to work WITH residents to find good win-win solutions? (I say this as one who has put his own money where his mouth is on this issue, winning entitlements for affordable housing projects as well as much higher density infill developments.)
And when new housing is created over neighborhood objections, how often is it really more affordable? What actual percentage of new units are occupied by people of color for the first time? More pointedly, what is the evidence that those who oppose HB 2007 (like the National Trust for Historic Preservation or Restore Oregon, to name two) do so out of a desire to “self-segregate”?
And to be blunt, how much of the proposed “solution” is a fantasy, inspired by ideologically charged identity politics and ill-conceived “command and control” thinking, and egged on by self-interested lobbies — and how much is grounded in real evidence of what works, including the cautionary evidence from other cities and countries?
In one of the few citations of actual evidence, Restore Oregon president Peggy Moretti gave statistics of how many homes were demolished in Portland in 2016 (376) and showed a series of examples of single family units in the $300,000 to $500,000 range being replaced by other single-family homes or duplexes of up to a million dollars each.
Moretti concluded, “As it currently stands, this bill is a case study in overreach, unnecessary complexity, and bad unintended consequences.”
Moretti and others (including this author) were at pains to acknowledge the real problems, and the value of “gentle densification” from accessory units and multi-unit conversions. We also pointed to alternative tools and strategies that are likely to be more effective, on the basis of the evidence of what actually works.
Let us hope that this bill will get more considered review on the facts and the merits, and that the over-heated and divisive attacks on existing residents and historic preservation advocates will subside.
So to recap, what did we learn on May 25th?
No evidence has been presented that HB 2007 will significantly increase housing supply in Oregon.
Even assuming it did, no evidence has been presented that HB 2007 would increase affordability.
Even if it did, no evidence has been presented that the bill would increase neighborhood diversity.
Instead, HB 2007 is being sold with a largely symbolic ad hominem attack on existing neighborhoods and advocates for Oregon’s urban heritage.
The consequences will not be symbolic: continued slow (and not so slow) destruction of the livable and historic fabric of Portland, and other Oregon cities. And possibly, an increasingly ugly and divisive tone in Oregon’s urban politics.
We give the final word to the great urbanist Jane Jacobs:
“Communities that want a certain thing are derided for saying ‘not in my back yard.’ If you listen to ‘not in my back yard’ people, their objection is often to something that shouldn’t be in anybody’s back yard. What has been proposed should be done differently”.