I agree that large scale projects aren't "the" answer. Most of the housing that we need to build (and would get built without regulatory constraints) is going to be townhomes and medium density apartments (probably a lot of 5 over 1s!).
But the legal tools that are used to block large scale projects are the same tools that we use to block smaller scale projects. And so I think of these kinds of fights as opportunities to look at all the places that where we need to dismantle the tools used to block such projects.
Project blocked by Environmental Impact Statements? Let's remove that barrier to housing. Project blocked by Design Review Boards? Let's remove design review boards. City council not issuing permits despite being legally required to? Maybe we make an alternate approval pathyway through the State government, bypassing the city entirely.
If we can remove all the regulatory obstacles that cities can use to block highly visible megaprojects, they'll also lose the tools to block the less visible incremental housing.
Exactly. There are so many regulations blocking infill residential projects that also apply to mega-projects. Watch 1000 flowers bloom once these barriers are removed.
Proactive title for a pretty good fundamental point, which is we need more missing middle to scale. I am curious in a city like Austin or Raleigh with high supply increases and falling rents, what proportion of new multi-family is in small, medium, or large-scale projects? Either way I like your observation that the big flashy projects become political flashpoints more easily
To support your point, in Palo Alto, where I work as a housing advocate, we’ve been working on reforms to facilitate ADUs bc they’re already popular, successful, spreading quickly. We’re getting traction there—ADUs just aren’t so controversial anymore, and recent state reforms to allows “condo-ization” of ADUs, reduced fees, even bonus ADUs open a pathway for them to be a more impactful housing type
At the same time, so many expensive neighborhoods in the SF Bay Area have been locked in R-1 for so long that unless a homeowner owns the land already, a lot of missing middle won’t pencil unless it can leap an increment of density bc the land costs are so high. At a certain point, we do need to make it feasible for developers, not just existing homeowners, to build. The Sunset was built largely to its current density by developers; we’re talking a 50-year time horizon to wait for RWC (where I also work) to “thicken up” to similar densities. That’s still meaningful if the process plays out across the Bay Area, but it’s not either/or with big projects either
Yes well, I’ve been encouraged to write titles that are more “engaging” 😅
But, on a serious note, I hope it’s clear I’m saying:
1. This is a both/and question not an either/or question. We need to open up development in general, not just narrow cases.
2. I think “big projects” get too much attention. What we should really obsess over is broad freedom and adaptation, finding the way forward that creates the most responsive housing market *in aggregate.* There’s no single project, no matter how awesome, that can “solve” an unresponsive market.
I feel like that second point is really hard to make. It’s so easy to think about a single development, and harder to think past that to how the entire system works.
I agree that large scale projects aren't "the" answer. Most of the housing that we need to build (and would get built without regulatory constraints) is going to be townhomes and medium density apartments (probably a lot of 5 over 1s!).
But the legal tools that are used to block large scale projects are the same tools that we use to block smaller scale projects. And so I think of these kinds of fights as opportunities to look at all the places that where we need to dismantle the tools used to block such projects.
Project blocked by Environmental Impact Statements? Let's remove that barrier to housing. Project blocked by Design Review Boards? Let's remove design review boards. City council not issuing permits despite being legally required to? Maybe we make an alternate approval pathyway through the State government, bypassing the city entirely.
If we can remove all the regulatory obstacles that cities can use to block highly visible megaprojects, they'll also lose the tools to block the less visible incremental housing.
Exactly. There are so many regulations blocking infill residential projects that also apply to mega-projects. Watch 1000 flowers bloom once these barriers are removed.
Proactive title for a pretty good fundamental point, which is we need more missing middle to scale. I am curious in a city like Austin or Raleigh with high supply increases and falling rents, what proportion of new multi-family is in small, medium, or large-scale projects? Either way I like your observation that the big flashy projects become political flashpoints more easily
To support your point, in Palo Alto, where I work as a housing advocate, we’ve been working on reforms to facilitate ADUs bc they’re already popular, successful, spreading quickly. We’re getting traction there—ADUs just aren’t so controversial anymore, and recent state reforms to allows “condo-ization” of ADUs, reduced fees, even bonus ADUs open a pathway for them to be a more impactful housing type
At the same time, so many expensive neighborhoods in the SF Bay Area have been locked in R-1 for so long that unless a homeowner owns the land already, a lot of missing middle won’t pencil unless it can leap an increment of density bc the land costs are so high. At a certain point, we do need to make it feasible for developers, not just existing homeowners, to build. The Sunset was built largely to its current density by developers; we’re talking a 50-year time horizon to wait for RWC (where I also work) to “thicken up” to similar densities. That’s still meaningful if the process plays out across the Bay Area, but it’s not either/or with big projects either
Yes well, I’ve been encouraged to write titles that are more “engaging” 😅
But, on a serious note, I hope it’s clear I’m saying:
1. This is a both/and question not an either/or question. We need to open up development in general, not just narrow cases.
2. I think “big projects” get too much attention. What we should really obsess over is broad freedom and adaptation, finding the way forward that creates the most responsive housing market *in aggregate.* There’s no single project, no matter how awesome, that can “solve” an unresponsive market.
I feel like that second point is really hard to make. It’s so easy to think about a single development, and harder to think past that to how the entire system works.