The Solution Is Right In Front Of Us

Hello Everyone:

Now that the chaos of Brett Kavanaugh nomination is finally over, it is time to focus on other things, like affordable housing.  Honestly, "the rent's too damn high."  Part of the problem is the lack of housing units and the lack of units has reached epidemic proportions. Laura Bliss wrote in her CityLab article "Rent Is Affordable to Low-Wage Workers in Exactly 12 U.S. Counties," "In 2017, the average U.S. worker would need to bring in a whopping $21.21 per hour to reasonably afford a modest two-bedroom apartment" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018).  This hourly wage figure is three times the federal minimum wage $7.25 per hour.  One more argument to raise the federal minimum wage but that is an argument for another day.  Another part of the affordability crisis is struggling neighborhoods. Urban centers are powerful magnets for young job-seekers and empty nesters.  Both demographic groups are looking for more urban experiences than offered by suburbia. The result is urban neighborhoods are struggling to keep up with increasing development pressure, housing and rental costs.

Trying to wade through all the pressure is a very daunting task, be that as it may, there is a solution right under our urban noses.  The solution is (dramatic pause), historic preservation. Affordable housing and historic preservation are not mutually exclusive entities.  Some, however, have a differing opinion. Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser wrote in 2010:

Restricting new construction in historic districts drives up the price of housing,.... This, in turn, increasingly makes those districts exclusive enclaves of the well-to-do, educated, and white.... As if it weren't enough that large historic districts are associated with a reduction in housing supply, higher prices, and increasingly elite residents,... they protect an abundance of uninteresting buildings that are less attractive and exciting than new structures that could replace them.... (city-journal.org; Spring 2010; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018) 

On the contrary, they are mutually compatible. 

On the surface, this may sound shocking, given the debates going on, right now, in cities. In Portland, for example, there is a highly contentious state bill (portlandtribune.com; May 2, 2017; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018) make its way through the state legislature, 

House Bill 2007 was introduced by three Portland three downstate legislators,... Although the summary says it is intended to speed up the production of affordable housing... (Ibid)

President and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Stephanie Meeks wrote, "[...highly contested state bill] aimed at spurring affordable housing also threatens to weaken historic protections and, in so doing, foster a wave of demolition that only threatens to further raise the cost of homes there" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017).  In San Francisco, voters rejected a measure (citylab.com; July 20,2015; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018) that placed a moratorium on housing in the Mission District, a traditionally Latino neighborhood. In Blogger's hometown, local voters passionately argued over Measure S (citylab.com; Mar. 9, 2017; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018) which would "have restricted any large-scale construction that did not confirm to the city's planning guidelines" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017).

As you might have guessed, affordability and community character are at odds with each other.  Research by the NTHP (forum.savingplaces.org; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018)  suggests that this may not be quite the case. The NTHP's ReUrbanism Initiative (savingplaces.org; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018) argues that "Adaptive reuse should be the default, and demolition a last resort."  Specifically,

Historic preservation encourages cities to build on he assets they have--unleashing the enormous power and potential, of older buildings to improve health, affordability, prosperity, and well-being. Ultimately, it's the mix of old and new buildings, working together to fashion dense, walkable, and thriving streets, that helps achieve a more prosperous, sustainable, and healthier future... (Ibid)

In short, the research demonstrated "that in neighborhoods with older, smaller buildings and mixed-age blocks tend to provide more units of affordable housing, defined as housing whose monthly rent is a third or less of that city's median income" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017).

The National Trust for Historic Preservation's research was compiled their comprehensive survey, Atlas of ReUrbanism (forum.savingplaces.org).  The survey found that neighborhood with older, smaller buildings and mixed-age blocks "also performed better along a host of other important social, economic, and environmental metrics" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017). The survey looked at the urban landscape in 50 cities, block-by-block revealing that "...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" (Ibid).

Boston's North End and Miami's Little Havana are examples of historic districts that are denser than newer areas.  Both places feature "low-slung, human-scale neighborhoods with older fabric...." (Ibid).  They are the "missing middle" (nextcity.org: Jan. 18, 2018; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018)

Stephanie Meeks succinctly states, "Simply put, older blocks often offer more affordable housing options than newer areas of the city, while creating employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for urban residents.  At a time when cities are struggling [citylab.com; Apr. 20, 2017; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018] with the high costs of adding new affordable housing, making better use of the tremendous adaptive potential of under-used existing buildings is a proven way forward that sidesteps many of the problems posed by demolition for new construction" (bid).  

Of course, new construction, in many cities, does need to keep pace with the influx of new residents.  However, it does not mean that new construction has to loom over existing neighborhoods or disrupt the established urban fabric to accommodate new growth.  One of urban design's favorite phrase is "smart growth."  In this case, smart growth can imply "opportunities for sensitive and compatible infill that can enrich urban character rather than diminish it" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017).

Downtown Louisville, Kentucky is a good example of infill potential.  The streets are dotted with surface parking lots (brokensidewalkes.com; Aug, 3, 2011; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018) that create " asphalt dead zones."  They present great opportunities for new, mutually agreeable construction. Louisville is not the exception, even in the most densely populated cities, parking consumes an inordinate (islandpress.org; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018) amount of valuable real estate. 

Parking lots are not the only underused urban assets.  Ms. Meeks observed (citylab.com; Feb. 10, 2017; date accessed June 9, 2017). In New York,... a 2014 survey of a third of the city [whyhunger.org; date accessed Oct. 9, 2018] found nearly 2,500 vacant lots and more than 3,500 empty buildings, enough room to house 200,000 people" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017).  Putting these older distinctive building to use often pencils out better than wholesale new construction.

Cities should ultimately works towards creating housing that is both distinctive and affordable. The public, civic leaders, the state and federal powers that be need to embrace policies that remedy the outrageous high cost of housing, in a way that acknowledges the basics of what makes cities work.  Fifty years ago, cities embarked on a disastrous ((citylab.com; Feb 13, 2017) "Urban Renewal" experiment which proved "demolishing existing urban neighborhoods is a giant step in the wrong direction" (citylab.com; June 9, 2017).  Instead, let us our buildings and spaces to better use if we want to create cities that are affordable, attractive, diverse, and exciting for everyone.