Legalize Neighborhood Density

Roger Valdez of the Sightline Institute offers an interesting article about Vancouver, Portland, and Seattle's attempts to increase density in single-family neighborhoods without changing the character of those neighborhoods. The article, "Legalize Neighborhood Density" explains some recent efforts by planners, designers, and architects in these cities to influence the city code to allow for accessory dwelling units:

There are ways to create more diversity and choice in single-family neighborhoods—accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can mean mother-in-law apartments, garages converted into detached housing, or rooms for rent. All of these are good growth strategies for cities, providing families and property owners with more options, and maintaining the character of some single family neighborhoods.

Increased density has all too often been associated with high-rise projects, and has at times yielded anomalies like the building now called "The Pinnacle" atop Stringer's Ridge here in Chattanooga. I remember a similar project from the same period in the Forest Hill neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia, and it stood out in a similar way as an odd addition to a neighborhood that had been mostly single-story, predominantly single-family homes.

While I like what the developers have done with The Pinnacle and think that it's actually a valuable addition to Chattanooga's downtown living options, it's important to know that higher density can be accomplished without sacrificing the character of a neighborhood, and need not use the high-rise model. I would have opposed the development were it proposed today. Unfortunately, many American cities' zoning regulations and building codes have been solidified during previous eras, when "density" was a bad word.

I live at Battery Place in Chattanooga, a historical neighborhood with the accompanying protections from development, but also a neighborhood that has increased density over many generations with various degrees of success and failure. More about that in future posts, but I think you have some good examples of how to preserve a neighborhood's character and add density.

Valdez speaks of Seattle's attempts to reconsider the townhouse, noting that "they have generally been resisted by single family neighborhoods because of the increase in density but also because they are seen as ugly. " And so many of them are. Townhouses have too often been used as quick ways to turn a buck on a small plot of land, so neighbors are right in being hesitant to allow them.

What's interesting about the current discussion is the emphasis on good design. Valdez mentions Portland's courtyard housing design competition as an example. Interestingly, none of the winning designs could actually be constructed without changes to the law.

For too long our city codes have been based on concrete facts like the size of a development, the number of dwellings per acre, and similar statistical constraints. New neighborhoods adopt covenants with minimum square footage requirements, lest some redneck cousin show up and build a shack across the street, dragging the entire suburb's values down. While effective to some degree, these measures overlook the qualitative concerns that truly define a neighborhood: what does the neighborhood look like? what materials are often used, and how are they combined? how do the buildings relate to the street, and to each other? what accommodations are made for accessibility, walking, public transit and the like?

There have been efforts to dictate these qualitative factors in city code, to essentially make them law in the same way less helpful constraints become part of city code. The town of Davidson, North Carolina, for example, made a conscious decision to remain a town, even as density increases due to pressure from a growing population statewide as well as the sprawling city of Charlotte. City code, along the lines of Duany Plater-Zyberk's New Urbanist model, dictates everything from choice of materials to a building's distance from the sidewalk and the amount of open space in a development. Their commitment to retaining the town model has become part of their mission statement, right in there with treating people with respect and keeping citizens safe:

Davidson’s traditional character is that of a small town, so land planning will reflect its historic patterns of village-centered growth, with connection of neighborhoods, reservation of rural area, and provision of public spaces. [Full statement]

I do often wonder if a town would have any chance of passing such planning guidelines without the presence of a world-class college faculty present. Nevertheless, the takeaway here for me is that cities and towns are not accidents; they are designed. The come about because people care about their quality of life, they care about the character of their place, and they give freely of their time and talents to help shape the future of their public and private spaces.

I've been encouraged in the past few years as a small but active group of Chattanoogans have given a great deal of time, effort, and money to help us all imagine a better city for ourselves. We've seen variances in city code granted for waterless urinals, as well as the state's first LEED-certified shopping center, a development that makes good use of the land and enlivens an area previously made up of industrial buildings and empty space.