Last week I headed to Highland Terrace / North Highland Park to drop off "Concerned About Code Refresh" signs and mused on the clear destruction that would happen in these neighborhoods if Code Refresh passes.
Look at these neighborhoods on the Code Refresh map: these cottages and foursquares are now zoned mostly RD-C.
RD-C is Code Refresh's brand-new, high-density residential category that overlaps (targeting?) historically lower-income areas. If you look at Code Refresh's current zoning map, it is easy to see RD-C in neighborhoods noted for cottages and two-story homes, with yards large enough for food gardens like in Highland Terrace, Maymont, Oakgrove, City Stadium, Blackwell, Randolph, Fonticello, Westwood, Swansboro, Church Hill, Frederick Douglas Court, Barton Heights, Oakwood, Montrose, North Barton Heights, Manchester, Highland Park...
RD-C lots, whose blocks are currently often composed of 50-foot lot widths, now have a minimum width of just 25 feet, compared to the 50 feet maintained for RD-B and 90 feet for RD-A, making them far more exploitable by developers seeking to squeeze in new units.
The concentration of RD-C follows the redlining map
These new lots designated RD-C are often in neighborhoods previously redlined. This is perhaps the most damning structural problem: Council member Robertson observed that many of the areas designated for denser zoning, RD-C and RM, correspond closely to neighborhoods that were redlined in the 1930s as "least desirable," which served as shorthand for areas with large numbers of Black and immigrant residents.
These previously mentioned neighborhoods fit squarely into this pattern: a historically Black/immigrant/working class neighborhoods now being targeted for the smallest minimum lot sizes.
RD-C creates a developer incentive to buy and demolish affordable homes
ZAC member Philip Hart (also a real estate attorney) admits that RD-C "does create an incentive for developers to purchase less expensive lots to convert them into much denser uses." In the aforementioned neighborhoods, where land is still relatively affordable, this is precisely the dynamic most likely to play out — acquisition, demolition, and replacement with market-rate duplexes or triplexes.
Planning director Kevin Vonck acknowledges the risk: he noted concerns about "physical displacement in certain neighborhoods, where people may look and say, 'the ratio of improvement value to land value, you've got a small house and a decent-size lot; if I can get two plus one out of there, this might be right for redevelopment.'" He said the city shifted to requiring preservation of existing units in part to address displacement in lower-income areas, but that is not enough.
The "preservation bonus" rule doesn't protect renters or homeowners
Draft 2 attempted to address displacement by requiring that a new duplex unit can only be added if the existing home is preserved. But Laura Dobbs of Housing Opportunities Made Equal warned that this requirement may in many cases limit or prevent the creation of genuinely affordable new homes. But she's not talking about OWNERSHIP- duplexing means she wants RENTAL units in neighborhoods that traditionally contain existing affordable home ownership.
Further, the preservation bonus does NOT protect lots zoned RM. Look for RM in your neighborhood - now, by right, there's no home, but 6-12 units of rental concrete on what used to be yards with trees.
Many of these RM parcels are 2 story homes. How will they cram in 6 or 12 units without allowing SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCIES? There is no way they can fit a kitchen in with every unit within that square footage.
RENTmansionization is as bad as McMansionizing.
Ms. Dobbs argues the draft allows single-family homes to be demolished and replaced with larger, pricier "McMansions," creating a perverse outcome where existing affordable stock disappears without being replaced by anything more affordable. This is valid! (Which is another reason we must maintain current zoning's unbuilt yard percentages and setbacks!!!)
In further destruction, RD-C INCREASES THE CONCRETING OF A LOT from today's maximum of 35% to 75% concrete!!!! Where are the protections for food gardens, tree canopy, and permeable soil, critical to neighborhood resiliency?
Don't kid yourself, Laura: these RENTmansion duplexes will be leased at market rate or flip to illegal short-term rentals!
No parking minimums amplify pressure on narrow streets
Community commenters flagged that there is no requirement to provide on-site parking under the new code, meaning excess cars would need to park on the street. In neighborhoods with drainage ditches and narrow roads, this could effectively reduce streets to single-lane usage, making it difficult for fire and ambulance services to respond to emergencies!
New buildings can be significantly taller than existing homes
Height restrictions in the new code allow new buildings to be up to 14 feet taller than the existing buildings around them, to a maximum of 35 feet. In a neighborhood of one- and two-story bungalows and modest post-war homes, this means new market-rate development could loom over the existing fabric, changing the neighborhood's character, reducing the community's solar health and energy cost benefits, and impacting land value trajectory in ways that further accelerate displacement pressure.
Lot subdivision without meaningful limits
Under the new code, owners can subdivide lots into three smaller parcels, with no requirement for on-site parking on the divided lots. On blocks of modest lots in Highland Terrace, Maymont, Oakgrove, City Stadium, Blackwell, Randolph, Fonticello, Westwood, Swansboro, Church Hill, Frederick Douglas Court, Barton Heights, Oakwood, Montrose, North Barton Heights, Manchester, Highland Park and more, already small by historic standards, this opens the door to rapid parcel fragmentation and cascading redevelopment.
Absence of anti-displacement tools in the code itself
The city acknowledged that a zoning ordinance on its own cannot solve the affordable housing crisis, and that policy interventions and direct investments (subsidies, social services, homebuyer credits) must come from outside the code.
Code Refresh contains no inclusionary zoning requirement, no community benefit agreements, and no rent stabilization mechanism. Upzoning to RD-C lands in neighborhoods like those mentioned, without any binding mechanism to ensure the resulting development serves existing residents.
If Code Refresh can't meet the basic criteria required in today's Special Use Permits, requiring zoning to benefit existing residents, why should it go through?!?
Are YOU Concerned about Code Refresh?
DON'T MISS the July 21 Code Refresh RALLY! Bring your neighbors!
