DOES new construction lower rents? THEY say so... let's look! 👀 Austin & Minneapolis.

Let’s Talk About Austin and Minneapolis:

DOES New Construction Lower Rent?

And Why Would Richmond Allow Zoning That Wouldn’t Pass as an SUP?

Richmond is trying to eliminate onerous Special Use Permits (SUPs). I get it: I too hate paperwork! But I value more and respect the community voices that determine if something is a benefit… or a detriment to them.

That is why SUPs are important.

In Richmond, all of the following six SUP criteria must be met to pass:

𝟙 It won’t be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community involved.

𝟚 It won’t create congestion in the streets, roads, alleys, and other public ways and places in the area involved.

𝟛 It won’t create hazards from fire, panic, or other dangers.

𝟜 It won’t cause overcrowding of land and undo and an undue concentration of population.

𝟝 It won’t adversely affect or interfere with the public or private schools, parks, playgrounds, water supplies, sewage, disposal, transportation, or other public requirements, conveniences, and improvements, or

𝟞 It won’t interfere with adequate light and air.

“And if any one of them is not met, the special use permit is not permitted,” confirms Rodney Poole, chair of the Planning Commission.

Code Refresh must maintain these same protections of our existing communities… or be rejected.

IF CODE REFRESH DOESN'T EVEN PASS AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (which allows more than the baseline of zoning) why would Richmond pass it as zoning?

Always evaluate the benefits or negative impacts to your community when making decisions on change!

---

Similarly, policyswayers are loudly holding up Austin & Minneapolis as examples where increasing housing supply lowered rent. So let’s look at them!

Policyswayers tell us that if we build a bunch of housing, prices will fall. In Richmond WE observe prices and taxes jump up in newly labeled premium districts that USED to be affordable housing, displacing residents. They cite Austin and Minneapolis as success stories.

I looked into it, and they’re right! Overall, prices fell! Let’s see how these two cities are bucking the trend of skyrocketing rents and displacement near luxury development, and instead became beacons of success.

Austin

In Austin, home prices are down 26% in the last 3 years, dropping 6x more in this crash than in the 2008 crash. See, in 2022, the collapsing rental bubble became a crash market with 40-50% discounts. In short, developers overbuilt condos & apartments by mistake. It peaked, was 50% overvalued, and locals couldn’t afford to buy houses. Then slowed migration and higher mortgages created another Austin crash.

That crash, which is bad enough, permanently scarred the city’s local ownership and attractiveness: over 3,500 homes (including single-family and multi-family) were demolished between 2019 and 2024 to make way for Austin’s “better” denser, Anywhere USA development. 

Austin’s Black population declined to 7.5% by 2024–2026, down from over 12% in the 1980s - almost half of what Austin used to vibrantly be!

Is this the healthy density you want for Richmond?

Minneapolis

Minnesota recently experienced a net loss of native residents to other states. Between 2020 and 2022, the state lost over 37,000 people to domestic migration due to high income taxes, crime, and weather, with notable outflows in middle-to-high income brackets to Florida and Texas.

A new report from the Minneapolis Fed shows the Twin Cities came up short on all three of its annual affordable housing goals, raising concerns about the region’s progress in building homes and closing the homeownership gap.

With institutional investors purchasing increasing shares of single-family homes, Black homeownership rates continued to drop. Experts say high costs and interest rates are major challenges. The Twin Cities region has one of the largest gaps between Black and White homeownership rates in the country, with white households at 77% and Black households at 29% in 2024. The goal had been to increase Black homeownership to 45% by 2030, but after years of improvement, the share of homes with Black owners dropped from 34.3% to just over 29%.

In 2026, migration had a significant, traumatic contraction following "Operation Metro Surge," the largest federal immigration enforcement operation in the agency's history. See, like Richmond, Minneapolis was drawing newcomers from elsewhere, in this case California, newcomers who were attracted to the lower cost of homes. Immigrant communities now have a significant footprint in the Twin Cities, including roughly 9,000 business owners, accounting for 12% of all business owners in the region.

While overall Minneapolis rents went down, it is important to note WHICH rents dropped. Similar to Richmond, new apartment units are usually studios to 2 bedrooms (in an extraordinarily decreasing amount of square footage). Only 8% of new apartments built in the Midwest (not just Minneapolis) were three-bedroom units as of 2024.

3-Bedroom Units, which I assume are mostly in existing, older housing stock (if only 8% of new builds have them), saw a 8% price increase in the past year. 

4-Bedroom prices increased by a significant 32%.

While Minneapolis increased its housing stock significantly between 2017 and 2022, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve reports in 2026 that rent prices are still rising in the Twin Cities, and that slowed rent growth is often linked to demand weakness rather than just housing supply increases.

Downtown Minneapolis has lagged with occupancy rates forecasted at 92.1% by late 2025, even with new buildings offering 1–2 months of free rent to attract residents. 

Its office vacancy rate is 30% in 2026, suggesting fewer people want to live or work in the city. 

Declining birth rates and an aging population have led to fewer new households. The region's population grew by only 2.7% between 2020 and 2024, with annual growth rates in the 2020s considerably lower than in previous decades.

Is Austin or Minneapolis the model we want to emulate in Richmond? The policyswayers think so...

Communities respond: “Thank you, but NO thank you.”

Code Refresh Neighborhood Position Statements, Signs, and Neighborhood Conversations.

Neighbors joined for a neighborhood-association-led program to answer community questions in May.

---

The latest neighborhood positions on Code Refresh have been published!

(If YOUR neighborhood has taken a position on Code Refresh, please send them to me!)

Historic West Grace Street

The Board of the Historic West Grace Street Association fully endorses the positions of the Fan District Association and Warsaw Condominium's concerns about Code Refresh.

Position of Historic West Grace Street Association: 

 

Historic West Grace Street is an integral part of the Fan District, containing numerous fine homes that have been carefully restored and maintained by their owners. In addition, West Grace has many properties that provide housing to renters, including families, retirees, and college students. The Historic West Grace Street Association (HWGSA) is closely tracking the City of Richmond’s Zoning Code Refresh (Code Refresh) initiative as it relates to Historic West Grace Street and the City of Richmond at large. As a neighborhood association, we fully endorse the position of the Fan District Association (FDA) that the first and second version of Code Refresh does not support the Richmond 300 as approved.

As Historic West Grace Street is a border of the Fan District AND a designated historic neighborhood, Historic West Grace Street merits additional consideration.

1. HWGSA supports additional housing opportunities but allowing SIX units per original home in addition to an ADU by right returns West Grace Street to the rooming house neighborhood of the 1970’s and 1980’s, which negatively impacted our neighborhood (for reference, review the plethora of city zoning complaints still on record during that time that clearly document rooming house transgressions).

Currently, approximately 40% of our neighborhood are buildings with rental units. The average home has approximately 8 rooms. Allowing 6 units per home fosters locked single rooms along hallways with one bathroom. After World War II, many of West Grace Street’s properties were divided up to accommodate increased demographic growth and, in the 1970s, a growing number of VCU students. With single room occupancy, crime grew along the street in the form of illegal sex work and drug sales. Residents worked hard to eradicate the criminal activities while lobbying successfully to convert West Grace into a quiet, cobblestoned two-way street with stop signs. As a result of this extraordinary advocacy by West Grace Street residents, today we are one of the city’s most vibrant and heterogeneous neighborhoods.

Historic West Grace Street adamantly opposes any removal or change to the definition of family, and that only three unrelated people may reside in a home. 

2. Mandatory shadow modeling must occur for any 3+ story new builds adjacent to existing communities to ensure the city does not violate solar net zero opportunities, the Richmond 300, Climate Equity Action Plan, and Net Zero 2030 commitments. “Balcony solar” or “plug in” solar panels received approval by the Virginia legislature and was signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger in April 2026, to allow renters and homeowners affordable opportunities to lower utility bills and embrace greener energy. These benefits to residents must be protected. 

Code Refresh proposes building heights from five to thirteen stories along the south side of W. Broad Street from Lombardy Street to Arthur Ashe Blvd. The construction of towering buildings across the narrow alleys of West Grace would compromise decades of progress in making West Grace a vibrant, inclusive, and distinctive neighborhood. Further, the 4-story building limit on West Broad from Lombardy to Strawberry, and the 5-story limit on West Broad buildings from Strawberry to Arthur Ashe that HWGSA negotiated with the city during the PULSE Corridor Plan MUST be honored. 

3. RM-A and RM-B are inappropriate for quiet West Grace Street and should be zoned RA like the rest of the Fan. Current zoning minimum lot sizes, building coverage percentages, heights, stepbacks, and setbacks must be maintained to ensure resiliency for our community. 

11% of adults and 8% of children have food allergies, often undiagnosed and life-threatening, so it is further inappropriate to zone residential Grace Street RM, especially when Broad offers food/business opportunities one street over but far enough away to not harm residents.

HWGSA looks forward to the opportunity to work with the City’s elected leaders to ensure that thoughtful, targeted goals of Code Refresh are achieved while supporting the Richmond 300.

Signed, Historic West Grace Street Association

Read the positions of the Fan District Association, Ginter Park, and Warsaw Condominiums communities here:

• FDA Position
• Ginter Park Position
• Warsaw Condominiums Position

---

Want to order a Code Refresh yard sign? You can do so, here!

What the New York Times celebrates, Code Refresh will decimate.

Carolers in Church Hill.

What the New York Times celebrates, Code Refresh will decimate. Tourism is drawn to our neighborhoods’ old architecture, gardens, local businesses, and irreplaceable natural resources, setting Richmond apart from tenement-filled, sun-blocked cities, creating almost 24,000 jobs and lowering taxes by over $500 per household a year. Yet our iconic architecture has sparse demolition protection. If Code Refresh has its way with Richmond, revenue-generating historic architecture, local business, and gardens disappear for high-rent concrete towers anchored by chains… or worse, ground floors barren of any activity.

Affordable rentals, homeownership, and Richmond’s entrepreneurs disappear with Code Refresh’s RM zoning of 6-12 units crammed onto any lot, trampling the unique charm that drew the New York Times to our city. Want to see your Code Refresh future? Drive by the Publix area of Carytown and the new builds on Broad and look for any local entrepreneurs or tourism draws.

More than 16 million visitors enjoy the Richmond region each year, contributing nearly $2.9 billion to the local economy. Zoning will cram 3 houses on every lot: our homes, many starter homes and rented (and remember: 1 in 3 standalone homes are rented), disappear. Existing affordable housing is vaporized for new multi-units.

Gardens, our infrastructure that cleanses, absorbs, and are celebrated in tours that draw people from states away, will be concreted to 80% per lot, our trees chopped, our homes razed for luxury rentals. Where are the food plots?

Westwood and other neighborhoods value trees, soil, and water... and our homes.

The New York Times admires “stunning” views from Legends Brewery to Church Hill, but Richmond planners envision boxes obliterating our skyline. Code Refresh will deeply hurt the James: no one kayaks in or hikes by sewage, which Code Refresh will bring. Infrastructure or schools are not mentioned once in Code Refresh.

Parts of iconic Shockoe, Jackson Ward, Church Hill, most of the Fan, and all of Bellevue, Uptown, Highland Park, Forest Hill, Brookland Park, Westover Hills and Heights, Maymont, Byrd Park, Oregon Hill, Randolph, Ginter Park, Stratford Hills, Monroe Ward, the Museum District, our river views, trees and soil: GONE. Richmond won’t protect them; Code Refresh zoning will foster their destruction. 

Richmond’s sustainability and zoning staff admire Singapore and Oregon, but the Richmonders I speak with do NOT want to be a tower-filled tenement city. By protecting existing homes, soil, tree canopy, and the James, Richmond remains a vibrant city where tourism and locals can thrive.

Why would Code Refresh destroy our homes?

Neighbors ask: "Why would Code Refresh destroy our homes?"

In Jackson Ward, the average home is 1,800 square feet. In Randolph and Westwood, 1,300 - 1,400 square feet. Maymont's average home is 1,100 - 1,500 square feet, and in Swansboro, 1,300 - 1,550 square feet.

Church Hill 's average homes span 1,500 - 2,500 square feet; Carver's, 1,600 - 1,660.
The City Stadium neighborhood typically averages around 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. 
Bellevue ranges between roughly 950 to 3,500 square feet.

Does Code Refresh intend to demolish average/smaller Richmond homes to build LARGER duplexes that fill these lots?

Does Code Refresh intend to destroy our existing small ownership opportunities for permanent rentals?

Today, renting a 1,500 sq ft apartment falls between $1,700 - $2,400+ per month.

If Code Refresh *really* cares about AFFORDABLE HOUSING (or the environment!) it would keep additional units small, 500-800 square feet, and focus on RETROFITS.

About 60% of Richmond's housing is rentals. Shouldn't Richmond protect home ownership opportunities so families can achieve home ownership to pass on to future generations?

86% of renters WANT TO OWN A HOME.

Demolishing homes to create permanent rentals keeps the next generation from building wealth, weighing them down with permanent leases. Single-family rental households in Richmond grew 31% over the last 20 years, outpacing owner-occupied homes.

We already allow second units on every lot with ADUs, don't forget. We know the first thing developers are going to do, including the non-profit "affordable housing" developers, is knock down existing cottages (don't forget many neighborhoods' average homes are about 1,500 ft.) to build footprints twice as large just with two units. 

So the insults "green" and "affordable" YIMBYs hurl out as McMansionizing is actually what they intend to do: RentMcMansionize.

A new member added another layer of insight: by allowing duplexes, developers are tapping in to existing pipes without a mandatory infrastructure plan that would otherwise be required on new lots without infrastructure.

Is Code Refresh anti-ownership, anti-environmental? 
It's certainly not following Richmond 300.

Code Refresh must maintain today's unbuilt yard percentages to protect affordable housing and save Richmond's living, irreplaceable trees.

Code Refresh must maintain today's unbuilt yard percentages to protect affordable housing and save our living, irreplaceable trees.

Retrofits are Richmond's most powerful affordable housing tool - and they save trees.

Retrofits affordably modernize aging structures, keeping longtime residents in place instead of displacing them. They cut energy bills by 30% or more, directly lowering costs for low-income families. They improve health through better insulation and air quality. They cost far less than new construction. Retrofits don't destroy Richmond's irreplaceable trees.

Retrofits overwhelmingly preserve affordable housing AND our tree canopy. That's not a coincidence. That's smart, humane city-building.

WE NEED TREES EVERY SINGLE DAY, not just for Earth Month.

It's refreshing to hear planning and sustainability staff talk about trees, sunlight, and soil. (Last year, sustainability staff told us tall concrete was great because it puts neighbors in permanent shade and brings wind shear!)

But our lungs don't work on a calendar: Richmond needs every inch of tree canopy shading us in brutal summers, opening us to winter light, filtering our air, absorbing our stormwater 365 days a year.

Here's what's at stake:
- 2008: Richmond's tree canopy covered 42% of our land.
- 2018: 32%.
- Today: The average Richmond neighborhood has just 23% coverage.

Picture your block from above, only 23% trees. The rest? Concrete. No air filtration. No heat relief. No stormwater absorption. No food gardens. Just heat, flooding, and pollution.

We cannot afford to lose another inch.

Why do yards matter so much?
Because 85% of Richmond's trees are on private residential lots.

Not in parks. Not in tree wells along sidewalks. In yards, that Code Refresh is about to diminish.

Planners talk often about public tree wells, but they don't replace yard trees, and they can't. Public trees serve public space. They do not fulfill a private lot's obligation to its neighbors, just as a public park cannot substitute for private green space. That's not a technicality. That's the difference between a livable block and a heat island.

Tree funds don't work. Up to 50% of newly planted urban trees die within the first year. Ninety percent of tree funds fail. A mature, thriving tree is not a line item you can budget for. It took decades to grow. It cannot be replaced.

Reducing unbuilt lot percentages in Code Refresh is a direct attack on Richmond's health.

Eighty-five percent of our trees are in yards. 

Reduce those yard requirements, and you are choosing - in writing, in city code - to sacrifice the air quality, heat resilience, and livability of our neighborhoods. You are telling low-income residents that their block doesn't deserve shade. That their children don't deserve clean air. That their flooding doesn't matter.

Unacceptable.
Code Refresh must not only maintain today's unbuilt lot percentages, it must strengthen them. Every lot, including apartment buildings, should be required to support soil-based habitat, food-growing gardens, and tree canopy. Resilience isn't a luxury. It belongs to every neighbor, on every block.

Protect the trees we still have. Grow more. Code Refresh must protect Richmond, not destroy it.

Photos: Irreplaceable trees in Richmond's irreplaceable Bellevue and Frederick Douglass Court.

Concerned Over Code Refresh? Join the NeighborhoodS.

Concerned Over Code Refresh? Join the NeighborhoodS.

NeighborhoodS are concerned!

• Loosening Zoning Does NOT Lessen Our Affordable Housing Crisis.

• RKG Associates' Consultant Conflict: Beyond Subdivisions: Mapping the By-Right Density Expansion in Richmond’s RA and RM Districts

• Homes for All Our Neighbors is... MISLEADING and ANTI sustainability.

• Code Refresh Eliminates Family, to Bring Back Rooming Houses.

Don't believe a tuk tuk, WHERE'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE?

Want a sign? Order yours here.

That's not all that's missing. Stay tuned, for more.

December 5

We are pleased to see some changes to the proposed zoning codes and land use regulations in Code Refresh Draft 2, but believe that these zoning and land use reforms will mean monumental changes for neighborhoods city-wide, and so should be carefully researched and vetted for potential outcomes. 

We heard from neighborhoods who are not pleased with draft 2.0 and from others who have felt excluded from the conversation. This is worth taking our time to get it right and to engage as many stakeholders as possible, including those often marginalized. If you believe that the process should be slowed down to ensure that the process ensures open, effective dialogues with stakeholders, that we have as many tools as possible in the toolkit to incentivize the kinds of diverse and affordable housing as we need for our future, and that land use regulations regarding conditional uses and criteria for bonuses awarded to developers are clearly defined, then sign the petition today!

As we chew over Code Refresh's 2nd Draft, a few items come to mind:

1. The preservation bonus is a good step. Richmond values carbon life cycles and historic charm! Retrofit is 60% less expensive, greener than any new build, and doesn't displace residents! Carbon counts in whole life cycle impacts on communities, and thus there should also be a demolition tax!

2. We don't understand how sublots and duplexes will create affordable housing vs. removing affordable housing to become luxury rentals and short-term rentals remotely owned. Where is zoning's action on STR oversight on these majority remotely-owned illegal Airbnbs? Investors are already speculating on their next lucrative duplex possibilities that used to be affordable housing.

3. Land values continue to rise and upzoning raises them further! Displacement is underway.

4. Height transition standards must be driven by solar impacts! Mandatory shadow-modeling for anything over 3 stories to allow solar opportunities for ALL OUR NEIGHBORS! Richmond is supposed to be Net Zero by 2050.

5. Tree canopies must be protected and not diminished. Tree Removal Permits for any tree 4" in diameter!

6. We love adaptive reuse of churches, especially for affordable housing! YIGBY (Yes In God's Back Yard) is great but it seems like the majority of properties are simply being sold instead being redeveloped affordably. MX3 has huge implications on communities and should be more gentle.

7. WHERE'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE? We can't evolve without adequate sewer, solar, water, and other utilities. The Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Works staff must be part of the Code Refresh process.

RKG Associates' Conflict: Beyond Subdivisions: Mapping the By-Right Density Expansion in Richmond’s RA and RM Districts

This quiet street, made up of mostly 2-story owned and rented homes, has now been zoned mixed-use 5 stories allowing 6 units by right. Investors are enticed, and local home buyers lose out.

An analysis submitted by a resident of Southside shows conflicts and missing data in RKG Associates' study that claims "...even under the most intense development scenario, Richmond’s citywide rezoning would lead to the addition of new units on just under 300 lots in existing single family neighborhoods annually."

"The Richmonder March 19 report on the RKG Associates study presents an incomplete dataset by focusing on 'subdivision feasibility' rather than volumetric density increases. While the study grounds its findings in RD lot constraints, it fails to account for the by-right density shifts in the RA (Residential Attached) and that Code Refresh made them RM-A (6 units), RM-B (12 units), and RM-C (unlimited Residential Mixed-use) districts.

1. The 1,200% Volumetric Loophole

The study calculates impact based on "new lots" created, ignoring unit-counts per existing lot. In the RA-C district (prevalent in the 23223 and 23220 zip codes), the 2026 Code Refresh allows for "Stacked Flats" of up to 12 units per building by-right. Replacing a single-family structure with a 12-unit multi-family building represents a localized density spike that requires no subdivision. By removing the Special Use Permit (SUP) requirement, the City eliminates the public's ability to audit the infrastructure load of these 1,200% increases before approval. 

2. Fiscal and Infrastructure Incompatibility 

The RKG study ignores the correlation between by-right density and the $47.6 million Department of Public Utilities (DPU) debt anchor.

• Administrative Incapacity: The Finance Department currently reports a 1/3 vacancy rate. 
• The Gap: A city that cannot project its own surplus—revising its $22M estimate down to $12.6M in February—cannot be trusted to monitor the tax compliance or physical load of 12-unit developments in neighborhoods where utility infrastructure is already failing to recover costs. 

3. Forensic Conflict: The 897-Page Nexus 

The "independent" nature of the RKG study is contradicted by SCC filing history. On October 4, 2013, an 897-page batch filing moved ​RKG Associates and thousands of development entities to a centralized administrative hub at 100 Shockoe Slip under Commonwealth Legal Services Corporation (a subsidiary of CSC). 

​RKG Associates shares the exact same Registered Agent and administrative infrastructure as the entities currently land-banking parcels in Blackwell​, a significant conflict of interest. The firm providing the "limited impact" analysis is structurally linked to the organizations benefiting from the rezoning. 

Furthermore, the August 13, 2015, Articles of Domestication for RKG is missing its digital image in the SCC portal, preventing verification of the signatures that link these out-of-state principals to Richmond land-holders. 

The RKG study is an analysis of lot layouts, not community impact. 

For Southside residents, a 1,200% density increase on 19th-century infrastructure is not "limited." It is a fundamental restructuring of our blocks without a corresponding plan to address the $47.6M utility deficit."

District	Pre Code Refresh	Post Code Refresh 2026	Impact
RA-B	1-2 units, duplex	Up to 6 units BY RIGHT	+300% density BY RIGHT
RA-C	1-4 units (Limited)	Up to 12 units BY RIGHT	Multi-Family By-Right Consolidation
RX-4	Variable height	Up to 4 Stories BY RIGHT	Commercial VERTICALITY

About the Author
I live in a historically Black neighborhood south of the James River with my wife and kids, where the sound of the river rapids and the 19th century train trestles are our daily backdrop. We walk our dog, Lucy, past the brick building  of the old Dunbar School and through the streets of Blackwell, while our cat, Tobi, stays home in our historic house. As a member of the Richmond Civic League, I value the preservation of these actual blocks over the abstract models used to justify citywide rezoning. I remain anonymous to keep the focus on the data, but I am a neighbor who sees the consequences of city planning every time I cross the T-Pott bridge.

Homes for All Our Neighbors is... MISLEADING and ANTI sustainability.

This quiet cobblestoned street, a mix of mostly 2-story renter and homeowners is now zoned MX5, allowing 5 stories to shade out neighbors. This will deeply impact the community's solar, soil, sustainability, and resiliency opportunities. 

To: Richmond Office of Sustainability
Subject: Opposition to Homes for all our Neighbors Manifesto
Date: March 18

Homes for All Our Neighbors (HOAN) Endorsement

The Richmond Sustainability and Resilience Commission has on your agenda this week an endorsement of a lengthy statement from Homes for All Our Neighbors regarding the rewriting of Richmond city’s zoning regulations. It is inappropriate for a city entity to support or join such a dubious private coalition.

Most people support the coalition’s stated goals of using the city’s proposed Code Refresh zoning overhaul to:

• “expand housing options,
• promote affordability, and
• prevent existing residents from getting pushed out”.

What is more debatable are the specific policies that are being proposed to try to implement these goals. While we are now in the period between the second and third draft of the proposed ordinance, I would ask you to re-examine and not support that organization’s statement. It contains a number of misleading or inaccurate statements, has one-sided information, and presents speculative assumptions.

In their online statement HOAN states -“What we know: Some of Richmond's most desired neighborhoods could not be built today. Zoning changes in the 1960s and '70s made it illegal to build popular housing types like many of those we see in the Fan, Jackson Ward, Carver, and Church Hill“

WRONG! - There are no “illegal” housing types in the city of Richmond (other than structures that don’t meet standard building codes for safety and construction integrity). There are tens of thousands of parcels in the city that are currently designated for duplexes and row houses. These lots allow construction of new houses exactly like buildings in these listed neighborhoods.

HOAN states - “It’s also illegal to build apartments in most parts of our city. Richmond’s current zoning code allows only single-family homes on 59% of the land here.”

WRONG! -There are apartments of all shapes and sizes in most neighborhoods in the city. There are now many areas that allow large apartment buildings in areas that recently were primarily commercial and industrial. Just look at all the new construction in Scott’s Addition, Shockoe Bottom, lower Chamberlayne Avenue, the Diamond District, and Manchester. Look at all the tall office buildings in downtown that are being converted to apartments.

American Heritage apartments in downtown's Central Business District.

There are no longer any single-family parcels in the city of Richmond. When the zoning code was updated two years ago to allow Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADU), all residential parcels are now “multi-family”. 

HOAN states -“Renters are 58% of our population—a majority competing for a minority of space. Stiff competition drives up prices and pits neighbors against each other.”

MISLEADING! - The percentage of renters in the population has remained fairly steady in recent decades. It is a questionable assertion that there is link between zoning policies and availability of rental units. The economic evaluation has struggled to find correlations between availability of homes for purchase, and rental unit numbers and the availability/affordability of those units.

HOAN states - “In a 2023 resolution declaring a housing crisis, Richmond’s City Council estimated that we have a shortage of at least 23,000 homes.”

MISLEADING! - There have been a number of projections of the Richmond region’s population growth and housing needs incoming decades. These are regional projections and the population growth and related problems problems don’t stop at the city line. Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, and even New Kent are integral parts of the solution to area housing needs. Richmond is only a fraction of the area’s population and can’t be expected to solve issues on its own.

HOAN states - “Housing costs are historically high. Mortgage payments today for median-priced homes are double what they were in 2020. Average Richmond rents have jumped by a third in the same span.”

MISLEADING! - Housing costs are indeed high. This is a nationwide problem. Zoning is only a small part of housing cost. Construction materials, labor cost, and land prices all contribute to the total. The solution isn’t to build more houses in already dense and desirable neighborhoods where land prices are high. Affordable housing starts with acquiring and building on parcels where land costs are not as expensive.

HOAN states - “Richmond has room to grow: today’s population is 20,000 lower than in 1970. But the homes we have don't meet the needs of today’s neighbors and families.

MISLEADING! - While the city’s population has dropped over the last 50 years, the available housing stock has continued to increase. There are almost 40,000 more units now than in 1970. Therefore, the amount of housing units is not a direct factor in availability and affordability.

Note the lack of trees & permeability, how this concrete structure (and others) enhance Richmond's urban heat islands WHILE shading historic Black neighborhoods in concrete, permanently destroying their solar benefits in Newtowne West, Carver, Jackson Ward... but I bet those new towers have green roofs and solar for their luxury residents!

HOAN states - “Richmond's legacy of segregation means some neighborhoods have absorbed development pressure while others have been protected. If Code Refresh takes a truly citywide approach, we can ensure all neighborhoods contribute to solving our housing shortage, rather than asking a few to shoulder the entire effort. Richmond has an opportunity to expand housing choice and create less segregated, more inclusive neighborhoods—action required by the federal Fair Housing Act. Our current zoning code sharply limits where families of different backgrounds can live. Code Refresh could help reverse decades of exclusionary policy and create pathways to opportunity for all residents.”

WRONG! - The city’s current housing code was implemented (and has been updated numerous times) under minority leadership. The implication that the desire for zoning rules and preservation of existing neighborhood character is a racial issue is incorrect.

HOAN states - “RVAGreen2050, Richmond's Climate Equity Action Plan, notes that changing our land use and transportation patterns is critical to reducing emissions. Building more housing near transit, jobs, and services can create more walkable areas, resulting in fewer car trips and a greener, healthier city.”

WRONG! - The climate equity action plan and the city’s master plan have a number of environmental goals. Reducing emissions via the zoning update is just one small part. 

Code Refresh has largely ignored or negated many of these environmental protections in other city plans.

• First, there is the inability of the city’s current water, sewer, and stormwater utilities to handle the increased construction incentivized by the proposed rezoning. Much of the utility infrastructure is now 50 years older, and that the environmental requirements are now more stringent, than in 1970. Back then, the city was allowed to dump almost unlimited raw sewage in the James River whenever it rained. The city is now under a strict deadline to reduce its combined sewer overflow.

• More importantly, the dense zoning proposal doesn’t address the issue of the last mile connectivity. We have significantly more dwelling units now than in 1970. In 1970, there were almost 3 people in every dwelling unit. By 2020, the average number of people in each unit was down to 2.1. So while we have fewer people, we have more separate units and connections under our streets, but less capacity to add new units.
  
  
• The new zoning increases the allowable impermeable structures on most city parcels. This will also increase the environmental impact on the James River.
  
  
• The new zoning does for the first time specifically address the tree canopy. However, while there is a small incentive to keep current trees when developing, the plan does little to address the profound benefits of mature trees in carbon sequestration, shade, reducing the heat island effect, and reducing storm runoff.
  
  
• The new zoning proposals generally increase new building height, reducing the ability to use solar panels and have green yards.
  
  
• The master plan incentivized the development of transit corridors by calling for density to be focused on the high frequency transportation networks and the commercial nodes they connect. By increasing density across the board, the zoning proposals are in direct opposition to the goals of the master plan.

HOAN states - “Code Refresh—building on the city’s nationally award-winning master plan, Richmond 300—would make it easier to build the homes we need, gently adding to the landscape of housing options here while retaining neighborhood character through sensitive design standards and community engagement.”

WRONG! - Many of the proposals in Code Refresh bypass, or directly contradict, key elements of the master plan. By making many of the zoning options “by right”, there are no guard rails in place to retain neighborhood character or design. There is no opportunity for community engagement as under the current plan where special use permits require notice and discussion.

Thanks,

Rich Souser

The Author: Rich Souser is a resident of Northside.

Oregon Hill Home Improvement Council (OHHIC) on Code Refresh, Draft 2

Dear Richmond City Council members, Richmond Planning Department staff, and the Zoning Advisory Council,

Thank you for the opportunity for the Oregon Hill Home Improvement Council (OHHIC) to comment on the DRAFT 2 of the proposed city rezoning of the Oregon Hill Historic District. 

Please find the attached 23-page detailed comment in response to the "Code Refresh" proposals. 

As detailed in the attached 23-page comment, we strongly object to the appalling zoning proposals in the Code Refresh Draft 2 that would impose inappropriate MX-5 and RM-A zoning within the Oregon Hill Historic District of two-story homes.  We strongly object to the Code Refresh proposals to allow “By Right” maximum lot coverages of 60%, 70% and even 80% with no required back yards and allow building heights as high as 75 feet on some blocks.

We are very concerned that these and other inappropriate rezoning proposals threaten to undo all of the progress that OHHIC has made in the last 30 years in combining the twin goals of providing affordable work-force housing while preserving the historic homes of Oregon Hill.

The “Code-Refresh” proposals are so lacking in respect for the Oregon Hill Historic District that we urge our elected City Council members to name a new Zoning Advisory Commission, as authorized by Section 4.02 of the City Charter, to advise City Council on equitable rezoning for our city. There is little representation from the preservation community, environmental advocates or neighborhood leadership on the current Zoning Advisory Council, which was appointed by the unelected chair of the Planning Commission.

Please respect the input from OHHIC, which has successfully worked for over 30 years to improve the affordable housing and historic resources of the Oregon Hill Historic District. OHHIC has renovated 20 affordable homes and has built 16 compatible infill affordable homes in Oregon Hill. We are undergoing a renaissance of young families with children moving to the relatively affordable homes of neighborhood. Please do not undermine our successful efforts with ill-advised and inappropriate zoning. 

Please make the zoning changes recommended for Oregon Hill Historic District as detailed in OHHIC's attached 23-page comment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles Pool

For the Board of the Oregon Hill Home Improvement Council

Code Refresh Eliminated Family, to Bring Back Rooming Houses.

Remarks before the Zoning Advisory Committee – Wednesday, February 11, 2026

My name is Patty Merrill and I am the President of the Westhampton Citizens Association.

I want to briefly highlight a topic that is worthy of discussion by the Zoning Advisory Committee. Under our existing zoning, we achieve limitations on the occupancy of a dwelling unit, in part, through the definition of “family” which applies to “persons living together as a single housekeeping unit” and, among other things, limits the occupancy of a dwelling unit to 3 unrelated individuals.

Code Refresh has eliminated the definition of family and, in doing so, has eliminated both the requirement that the group of people are living together as a single housekeeping unit and any limitation on the number of unrelated people living together.

Under Code Refresh, “household living” means “residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a household. A household is considered one or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of, all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit. Tenancy is arranged for 30 days or more.”

As for a limitation on occupancy of unrelated people in such household, you have to go to the definition of group living which starts at 9 unrelated people. Accordingly, one can deduce that the limit for household living is 8 unrelated individuals.

To date, I have been primarily focused on the alleged incremental density generated by number of dwelling units on a lot, particularly in single family detached neighborhoods. However, this suggests we also need to be very focused on the potentially exponential additional density resulting from the permitted number of unrelated people living in each dwelling unit.

I have done some informal research of other Virginia jurisdictions with a focus on those jurisdictions who have recently revised their zoning. The standard appears to be approximately 3 to 4 unrelated individuals. I would strongly advocate that Richmond adopt something similar. I would also like for Richmond to reintroduce the concept of “living together as a housekeeping unit” to reduce the potential for dwelling units being converted into rentals where no one appears to be responsible for the property and it is difficult to identify, let alone reach, the landlord.

Thank you. 

Author Patty Merrill is a 25-year resident of Richmond’s First District and President of the Westhampton Citizens Association.

Does Code Refresh's “Preservation Bonus” Incentivize Mansionization?

Does Code Refresh's “Preservation Bonus” Incentivize Mansionization?

Many neighborhood lots (like Southside's Woodland Heights, pictured) allow gentle density while protecting their irreplaceable existing tree canopy, their soil for food resilience, and sunlight to allow sustainable solar opportunities that thoughtfully enhances a thriving (not snuffed-out) community.

The Preservation Bonus Promotes Affordable Local Housing, NOT Mansionization. But Before We Consider Duplexes, FIRST: Remove Illegal Airbnbs And Co-Hosts, Returning Those Rentals To Richmond. Second, Keeping ADUs 500 Square Feet Keeps Those Units Affordable!

A critic complains Richmond's proposed Preservation Bonus will lead to Mansionization: replacing modest homes with oversized mansions, as “that’s the only way developers can make money.” This concern fundamentally misunderstands how the Preservation Bonus works. The Preservation Bonus incentivizes multi-unit development, not larger single-family homes, while protecting Richmond’s authenticity. To receive the Preservation Bonus to add density, property owners must preserve existing structures rather than demolish them.

But before we explore this, look around YOUR dense neighborhood: block after block now teems with Airbnbs that used to be affordable rentals. Overwhelmingly, they are owned by illegal out-of-town investors, and operated by illegal co-hosts. SHUT DOWN this overwhelmingly illegal business that removes affordable housing FIRST before considering adding more illegal rental fuel to the luxury profiteering fire! 

When zoning shuts down illegal co-hosts, it is suddenly extremely difficult for far-away property owners to manage their illegal, revolving-door, short-term rentals. They are then incentivized to return the rental to local, annual leases.

Zoning must keep ADUs to 500 sf for an added local benefit: when rented, those units remain affordable… permanently! Keeping ADUs to 500 sf is a barrier to illegal short-term profiteering, as the majority of luxury short-term rental bookings are for 2-4 people. ADUs at 500 sf adds more housing opportunities for tenants who aren’t families, yet can still accommodate two bedrooms for those who are.

Mansionization is enabled when zoning removes size, setback, and lot coverage constraints. Out-of-town large investors prefer new builds with more units. Preservation requirements favor locals!

The Preservation Bonus explicitly rewards keeping neighborhoods intact while adding housing, creating smaller, thus more affordable units. 

Ask instead: Why has zoning not shut down the infiltration of illegal Airbnbs choking our city? Why does zoning staff support the profiteers who removed over 1,000 of Richmond’s affordable apartments to become illegal luxury rentals?

Loosening Zoning Does NOT Lessen Our Affordable Housing Crisis.

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.

San Francisco's 48 Hills expounds further:

"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!

Above: 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.