Daniel Herriges wrote this article in “Strong Towns” on January 23, 2019. The full text of the article can be found here.
The article “Legalizing More Homes: It Matters How You Do It” discusses the urgent housing affordability crisis in many American cities and emphasizes the importance of process over mere numbers in addressing this issue. It highlights that while quantitative goals, such as the need for millions of new housing units in various cities, can rally support for housing reforms, they can also lead to oversimplification and a focus on outcomes at the expense of understanding the complexities of urban development.
The author, representing Strong Towns, advocates for a thoughtful approach to urban planning, drawing inspiration from urban thinkers like Jane Jacobs. The article critiques proposals that prioritize rapid construction of housing units without considering the implications for community dynamics and urban fabric. Examples of such proposals include statewide zoning bans, the construction of high-rise buildings near transit stations, and the exclusive focus on social housing.
The article warns against the dangers of a narrow focus on increasing housing supply without considering the broader context. Historical examples illustrate the potential harm caused by such tunnel vision, including urban renewal efforts that led to the destruction of communities and public housing projects that resulted in social issues. The author argues that decisions made in the name of increasing housing supply can have significant and lasting impacts on the physical and social fabric of neighborhoods.
While acknowledging the need for more housing units, the article emphasizes the importance of incremental development and the organic evolution of cities. It points out that policies allowing for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods are positive steps, but may not be sufficient to meet the scale of housing needs in cities like Portland. The author references Joe Cortright’s argument that larger multi-family buildings are necessary to effectively address affordability issues.
The article proposes three rules of thumb for addressing the housing crisis in a way that is sustainable and considers the complexities of urban systems:
- Don’t pick winners and losers: The author warns against concentrating development in a few hot areas, which can lead to displacement and neglect of other neighborhoods. Instead, cities should allow for organic growth throughout various neighborhoods, letting productive places emerge naturally.
- Avoid policies that encourage land speculation: The article discusses how narrowly targeted upzoning can lead to speculation, where property owners hold out for higher offers from developers rather than engaging in modest redevelopment. Broad upzoning across neighborhoods is suggested as a way to mitigate this issue.
- Think about the “next increment of development” at a neighborhood level: The author argues for a flexible approach to development that allows for significant changes in neighborhoods over time, rather than adhering to rigid zoning codes. This approach aims to prevent monocultures and encourages ongoing evolution within neighborhoods.
The article concludes by advocating for a decentralized, organic approach to urban development, where numerous decision-makers contribute to the growth of cities. It emphasizes the need for cities to evolve and adapt over time, rather than remaining static. The author expresses hope that the scrutiny of single-family zoning will lead to more inclusive and dynamic urban environments, allowing for a diverse range of housing types and fostering community resilience.
In summary, the article underscores the importance of process in addressing housing affordability, advocating for incremental development that respects local context and encourages organic growth, while cautioning against the pitfalls of top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions.