Above: This rancher, an example of existing affordable housing (in Richmond's historic Frederick Douglass Court neighborhood) is zoned RD-C in Code Refresh's Draft 2 to densely carve up lots to 25' (about the size of a food garden) and allow higher lot coverage (up to 75% paved over) in the name of "solving the housing crisis." Communities' resilience and sustainability opportunities are more valuable than concrete.
Loosened zoning does not lessen our affordable housing crisis.
The authors of a study on whether (and how fast) density brings more affordable housing to cities are Michael Storper (Distinguished Professor of Regional and International Development in Urban Planning and Director, Global Public Affairs at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs), Gregory Randolph (World Bank consultant and writes on Southeastern urban policy), Tom Kemeny (has held positions at the University of Southampton, the London School of Economics, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a PhD in Urban Planning from UCLA) and Maximilian Buchholz of UC Berkley.
I do not have their expertise, so I will not paraphrase, but let them tell you what they found:
"A popular view holds that declining housing affordability stems from regulations that restrict new supply, and that deregulation will spur sufficient market-rate construction to meaningfully improve affordability."
"Part of the appeal of the deregulationist narrative is that it suggests we can achieve affordability without major changes to labor market structure or significant public investment in the housing sector."
The study then proves density INCREASES housing costs:
"... increased access to jobs and amenities will make those same locations more expensive; they will not make desirable locations affordable to households facing onerous cost-burdens, and may in fact worsen their outcomes..."
Housing costs track income, even in cities with no zoning like Houston.
"The study looks at the reality of housing construction, as opposed to the Yimby fantasy.
Eliminating 'constraints' is not going to lead to much more new housing, certainly not affordable housing, as long as the market is driven by for-profit developers..."
Yet C3 Climate Collaborative continues the constraint narrative, stating, "Multiple advocates C3 interviewed referenced zoning as a key contributing factor to unaffordability in the area..." to push blanket density.
What if we completely removed zoning constraints and built tens of thousands of units a year as C3 Climate Collaborative, Homes for All Our Neighbors, and RVA YIMBY want? We would crush Richmond communities' resilience and sustainability opportunities that exist on residential lots.
But even with unrestricted upzoning and wildly unrealistic construction, housing prices would NOT lessen for 20-100 YEARS.
Why would anyone allow density to jeopardize communities' sustainability just for developers to profit?
"In the San Francisco Bay Area, where the
mismatch between prices and non-college wages is the largest, even under the highly optimistic
lower bound scenario it would take about 20 years for house prices to become widely affordable;
under the upper bound scenario, it would take over 100 years."
By now, you know that RICHMOND does not need 39,000 new units of housing. That figure was for the Richmond REGION, over 2,000 square miles, not the city's 62. (Read the report! "Richmond Regional Housing Framework 2020-22 Data Update” p. 2, TinyUrl.com/RVAhousingNeeds)
Now you know that concreting over our communities' soil and trees will NOT lower housing costs. Even in 20-100 years.
Our existing affordable housing, sustainability, and resilience matter more than developers' income.
Above: This existing affordable home in Richmond's Peter Paul neighborhood is enjoying solar opportunities that benefit residents' utility costs and health. Code Refresh will allow density to wipe out resilience in favor of developer/YIMBY interests. This historically under-resourced neighborhood is part of a larger community with high socio-economic challenges, including nearby Creighton Court. They should not have density wipe them out!
Below: Richmonders enjoying a food garden and urban coop tour. We value soil and resilience!
For existing communities, resiliency is more important than density. Resiliency opportunities on residential lots must not be paved in the name of density.
Author: Richmonder Copeland Casati volunteers for resilience and sustainability initiatives from cleaning up public parks, legalizing urban hens (with her fellow CHICKUNZ volunteers, a group she founded to allow urban hens in Richmond), was a past host of Green Drinks, and, to increase her community's resilience further, founded a free babysitting co-op. When not in the city, she lives in an affordable, energy-efficient, passive solar, off-grid home.