Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY

«‹›52 »

NIMBY?
	NIMBY
	YIMBY
	I can't afford my medicine.

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Cicero posted:

NIMBY, anti-density attitudes are way stronger at the local level than otherwise. That's why the significant movement in California for increasing density recently has mostly been at the state level making broad decisions; you're never gonna get most people in smaller cities and towns especially to approve of even moderate levels of density, Americans are just loving terrified of that poo poo. And they can always just act like that's someone else's problem. "Yes, we need more housing, but why here? Can't it be in {major cities that are already dense, suburbs that aren't doing their part, Texas}?"

If you just let cities decide, maybe you could make some inroads in cities like SF or Cambridge or other places where people are at least somewhat reasonable. But, like, Atherton or Los Altos? They'll be richie rich suburbs keeping out the working and middle class forever. They'll never suddenly decide that apartments or even fourplexes throughout their city is okay.

Admittedly I'm in Missouri, where the state preemptively passes a regressive law in response of any whisper of decent local action, which probably colors my biases.

# ? Jan 20, 2022 05:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 05:58

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Huh, it turns out when you get a working majority of Dems in the state house, senate and as Gov, you can get poo poo like missing middle housing! Some competing bills that lack Inslee's direct backing.

quote:

� For cities with between 10,000 and 20,000 residents planning under the GMA, duplex zoning replaces single-family zoning citywide. Such a city may opt to allow for other types of missing middle housing (e.g., triplexes, quadplexes, and courtyard apartments).
� For cities with at least 20,000 residents, within a half-mile radius of major transit stops, sixplex zoning essentially replaces single-family zoning and parking minimums are voided. Cities opting for an alternate minimum density plan must still abide by this condition.
� For cities greater than 20,000 residents, in areas not located within a half-mile of major transit stops, fourplex zoning essentially replaces single-family zoning citywide unless the city adopts a citywide minimum density measure laid out in the bill. Parking minimums are capped at one parking spot per lot, or two for larger lots (6,000 square feet or more).
� If Seattle chooses this option, it must hit a 40 dwelling unit per acre threshold with its rezone plan across the city.
� Cities choosing a minimum density alternative outside major transit stop areas with a population between 100,000 and 500,000 must hit a 30 dwelling unit per acre threshold across their urban growth area with their alternate plan. This density is essentially on par with fourplexes. As of the 2020 Census, cities of this size include Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, Vancouver, Kent, Renton, Kirkland, Spokane, and Spokane Valley.
� Cities choosing a minimum density alternative outside major transit stop areas with a population between 20,000 and 100,000 must hit a 25 dwelling unit per acre threshold across their urban growth area with their alternate plan.

If you're curious about who's covered under the Growth Management Act (GMA), you can look here but it's basically 25/35 counties that actually have people living there.

Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Jan 20, 2022

# ? Jan 20, 2022 07:40

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

PerniciousKnid posted:

Admittedly I'm in Missouri, where the state preemptively passes a regressive law in response of any whisper of decent local action, which probably colors my biases.

Yeah I guess that's fair. I've spent most of my time in the states in blue states, only a handful of years in red ones (Utah and Alabama).

It'd be even better to see federal action, but I have even less faith that this is realistic than state-level action. Feels like this issue virtually never comes up in the national discourse.

Solkanar512 posted:

Huh, it turns out when you get a working majority of Dems in the state house, senate and as Gov, you can get poo poo like missing middle housing! Some competing bills that lack Inslee's direct backing.

If you're curious about who's covered under the Growth Management Act (GMA), you can look here but it's basically 25/35 counties that actually have people living there.

These sound like very good changes; much, much better than what California did.

edit: it gets better

quote:

Another aspect of the bill worth mentioning is that it provides a safe harbor provision for jurisdictions implementing the laws. Actions taken under the laws would be fully exempt from environmental review (State Environmental Policy Act) appeals. That�s a big deal because it would eliminate a lot of red tape and delays that could be created in the courts. As has been well documented, opponents to small projects like the Burke-Gilman Trail �Missing Link� have managed to tie Seattle up in the courts for years over the adequacy of environmental review documents and baseless assertions. So closing that as an adversarial avenue would help realize the benefits of the laws sooner and ensure certainty for all.

Oh thank god. The fact that regulations intended to protect the environment have frequently been used in different areas to halt good-for-the-environment projects is the dumbest poo poo.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jan 20, 2022

# ? Jan 20, 2022 07:51

Freakazoid_: Jul 5, 2013; Buglord

Everett basically saw the writing on the wall 20 years ago and compromised with new single detached homes of narrower width and longer length with an extra floor or two.

10 years ago they compromised again, promoting the building of row homes. With garages, of course.

Perhaps those bills will get us some actual variety instead of trying to hopelessly maintain that suburban aesthetic.

# ? Jan 20, 2022 21:59

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Article about malls being converted to housing*: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F...-of-shoppers%2F

* really more about building housing in the parking lot space surrounding the mall

# ? Jan 28, 2022 09:05

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1488977555520589824?s=20&t=R3VICxbZSixonKiqP8oKzQ

quote:

To stop usage of #SB9, which allows duplexes in single-family zones, the ultra-affluent (median home value $4.5M), ultra-white (85%) Bay Area suburb of Woodside has declared the entire town to be an endangered mountain lion habitat.

Stunningly shameless.

NIMBY�s are the worst.

# ? Feb 3, 2022 05:34

mystes: May 31, 2006

Cool, send in lots of lions then

# ? Feb 3, 2022 05:38

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

"To avoid situations in which wild animals are drawn to bodies of water that would harm them, #SB10 will require that all swimming pools and hot tubs within the Woodside wildlife reserve are enclosed in buildings."

# ? Feb 3, 2022 11:53

SpaceCadetBob: Dec 27, 2012

Cicero posted:

https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1488977555520589824?s=20&t=R3VICxbZSixonKiqP8oKzQ

NIMBY�s are the worst.

LOL, really hoping this has some nice unintended consequences. Like oops sorry we can no longer dispatch sewer workers to the area due to EPA restrictions against transporting hazardous materials through wildlife preserves.

# ? Feb 3, 2022 13:14

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

mystes posted:

Cool, send in lots of lions then

It�s not the eat the rich that we wanted, but it�s the eat the rich that we need.

We also need a program to put 4K 360� cameras on poles all over the neighborhood so that the rest of us can watch the ~~carnage~~ justice.

# ? Feb 3, 2022 14:16

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

mystes posted:

Cool, send in lots of lions then

This, but with lions instead of bears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQRwzYpiU-0

# ? Feb 3, 2022 15:21

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Cicero posted:

https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1488977555520589824?s=20&t=R3VICxbZSixonKiqP8oKzQ

NIMBY�s are the worst.

Street view in a random spot:

Lol. I could see cougars running wild around there being a problem though.

# ? Feb 3, 2022 15:39

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

https://fullstackeconomics.com/why-america-cant-build-big-things-any-more/

A good article. tl;dr - process to build poo poo in America is insane, and is widely used not for its intended purpose (e.g. protecting the environment), but simply to slow things down enough to preserve the status quo as long as possible, by making it take longer and be much more expensive. Not only does this stall successful projects, it means many projects die or are never even attempted, because gently caress it, it'll be too expensive and take too long.

One of the examples is the NYC subway:

quote:

�The world is going to end in 12 years if we don�t address climate change,� she lashed out at critics in 2019, �and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?�

Forget how we pay for it, for a moment. The bigger problem is that urgency just isn�t there, money or no money. Ocasio-Cortez represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, where you might imagine public transit would be part of the green infrastructure mix. But new subway stops take decades, and are scarcely built anymore. Queens hasn�t gotten a new subway station since October 1989, the month she was born. The Bronx hasn�t gotten one since May 1941.
...
It is obviously fair for authorities to take some time to plan things out and weigh the costs and benefits. But they spend, well, an inordinate amount of time weighing the costs and benefits. In a 2018 study of environmental impact statements under NEPA, the mean statement took 4.5 years to complete�about as long as it took to complete the original 28-station New York City subway back in 1904⁠�and ran 575 pages.

Of course things are more built up now and we have better labor regulations, but on the other hand we should also have superior technology. Process is pretty obviously to blame.

There's a comment from hacker news about the article:

quote:

I�m trying to build a house on empty land in Los Angeles. It�s about 15mins from downtown in Mt Washington. We bought the land in April of 2019 and started on the design and permitting process immediately. Despite it being in populated Los Angeles, we need a septic system, to widen the road and add curbs, move a power pole, relocate 3 trees, and extend a water line. We won�t have gas as we want to go all solar. All of this the city is making us pay for.
Our permit for a small septic system took 14 months to approve.

The power department has told us it will likely take 12 months for them to approve the pole movement (the city is making us move it as part of the road widening).

The water main needs to be extended 12 feet, and it�s mandated that the utility company must do that work and it will cost us $75k.

The tree permit took us 12 months to get and requires us to get a bond too.

We still haven�t got approval for the road widening, it�s been almost 18 months. Keep in mind this is just the road in front of our house in a residential area of Los Angeles. There are lots of homes on our street already.

I�m originally from Australia. The American bureaucracy is insane. The agencies don�t talk to each other. Often times we have been acting as the go between for different departments that worked in the same building!

Los Angeles has a huge housing shortage. If my experience is anything to go by, it�s because the bureaucracy is so dense it takes years to just get the permits in place. It would be cheaper and better if I could just pay a bribe and get it done quickly.

Americans seem to know what the problem is, but just accept that nothing can be done about it. Like you all know the DMV sucks and the USPS sucks, but everyone has just accepted that�s it�s just the way it is and decided to live with it. Why?! Hold your officials accountable to actually run government effectively.

I don't agree that the USPS sucks, but man basic things taking that long to approve is insane. This isn't a skyscraper, it's just one dude's house.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Mar 20, 2022

# ? Mar 20, 2022 09:13

Boot and Rally: Apr 21, 2006; 8===D; Nap Ghost

Cicero posted:

https://fullstackeconomics.com/why-america-cant-build-big-things-any-more/

A good article. tl;dr - process to build poo poo in America is insane, and is widely used not for its intended purpose (e.g. protecting the environment), but simply to slow things down enough to preserve the status quo as long as possible, by making it take longer and be much more expensive. Not only does this stall successful projects, it means many projects die or are never even attempted, because gently caress it, it'll be too expensive and take too long.

One of the examples is the NYC subway:

Of course things are more built up now and we have better labor regulations, but on the other hand we should also have superior technology. Process is pretty obviously to blame.

There's a comment from hacker news about the article:

I don't agree that the USPS sucks, but man basic things taking that long to approve is insane. This isn't a skyscraper, it's just one dude's house.

This lack of communication is what happens when you silo services/processes to 'optimize' them. I'm watching it happen in real time where I work. Groups that used to work together are split and their functions are built so that there is one input and one output. Now each group expects and only handles 'complete' paper work. So work is now serial instead of parallel and often repeated. A project that required input from A and B now gets processed by A, processed by B and expanded outside what A determined, reprocessed by A and reprocessed by B. Once a process is siloed it is a cost center then has its budget cut and so is insufficiently staffed and thus wait times go through the roof.

E:
I forgot, the DMV near me has moved almost everything online, and is amazing. Most re-issues just require paying the fee and you're good to go. Why I had to walk in to hand a piece of paper and pay the DMV to get a title re-issued to the same address the car had been registered to for the last 7 years is beyond me. Issuing new IDs (like REAL ID) still requires you to go in, but all the paperwork and approvals are done before you get there.

Long time poster, first time quote is not editor.

Boot and Rally fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 20, 2022

# ? Mar 20, 2022 17:21

Boot and Rally: Apr 21, 2006; 8===D; Nap Ghost

Q not E

# ? Mar 20, 2022 17:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I cannot help but notice that article is focused on the idea of doing away with environmental impact assessments and is written by a Republican economics policy specialist formerly of the tax foundation, on a site focused on him and a libertarian f trying to find ways to phrase deregulation arguments to sound neutrally beneficial.

Cicero posted:

I don't agree that the USPS sucks, but man basic things taking that long to approve is insane. This isn't a skyscraper, it's just one dude's house.

It is, in fact, insane, and you probably shouldn't take that man at his word, or his example as representative. Also plenty of DMVs are fine; Maryland, for instance, had a lovely DMV and they improved it. They did not improve it by reducing the regulation of cars or drivers.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Mar 20, 2022

# ? Mar 20, 2022 17:47

SpaceCadetBob: Dec 27, 2012

On the building dept side of things, my area has been transitioning to online portals for permit review and inspections. It�s taken a good bit for the various depts to get the hang of the process, but recently permits that im attached to are suddenly moving a lot faster, and getting notes/feedback from bld/fire marshal/public utility/and health depts simultaneously all on the same interface is pretty nice to see.

# ? Mar 20, 2022 20:53

MrYenko: Jun 18, 2012; #2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Discendo Vox posted:

I cannot help but notice that article is focused on the idea of doing away with environmental impact assessments and is written by a Republican economics policy specialist formerly of the tax foundation, on a site focused on him and a libertarian f trying to find ways to phrase deregulation arguments to sound neutrally beneficial.

While I too am wary of these types of arguments, it doesn�t excuse glacial, unresponsive bureaucracy. If a project legitimately has negative environmental impacts it should be noted, and alleviation/mitigation should be required. Crucially, all of that should happen in a timely fashion and be responsive to questions from all stakeholders. Instead, we have a black hole where the developer pours in legal and engineering billable hours and gets silence. The illegitimate use of environmental law to delay projects to death for unrelated reasons (most commonly NIMBY reasons) is common, and is certainly not an intended outcome.

# ? Mar 21, 2022 18:07

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

Environmental impact assessments do take a long time but it�s hard to separate out the causes as to why. I�ve read that CEQA was mostly expanded by the courts in scope (what projects are covered) and so now everyone does a massive one to avoid getting sued rather than because �The Bureaucracy� makes them.

NEPA I�m not sure about, but to me it seems like if we are taking 4.5 years to write environmental impact assessments for mass transit projects that�s a problem with the law itself rather than with the bureaucracy. NYC�s congestion charge is also doing an EIA which seems insane to me.

# ? Mar 21, 2022 18:32

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

So I moved to LA County (Torrance) in late 2020, and I'm getting pretty interested in urban planning both because it sucks living in such a car-centric area, and because I've been talking to my wife's grandfather and he has been talking about how good the local public transit used to be. What are some good books to read on the topic? I ran into Strong Towns through Not Just Bikes, but it seems like this thread has mixed opinions on it. Also, any advice for getting involved and advocating for change locally?

# ? Mar 26, 2022 05:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I just got off the phone with a retired city planner to discuss options for "redensification" in existing urban cores in response to the hollowing and aging of existing unused commercial space. His starting assumption, on the topic of rezoning such buildings for residential use, was that any refitting started with bulldozing the building completely, because commercial spaces, e.g. office buildings, are virtually never readily convertible to residential use. He also stated that any building more than 10 years old was close to a write-off for such a standing conversion because the existing infra in the building, particularly utility infra, would already all be either out of date or well into its useable life.

His view was that core redensification would happen, and would likely look similar to existing freestanding and gentrifying mixed use clusters, where parking and commercial occupy lower floors (coupled with public entities like libraries) and housing (including "moderate income", his words) would occupy the upper floors. This is really popular as a new development model for luxury apartments, but is less viable for mixed income dense housing where there isn't a strong zoning requirement. He pointed out that there were already modeled grant programs for this sort of purpose, including one that specifcially incentivized building elderly housing in higher levels of mixed use buildings, which was a major investment area for the Catholic church in the 1960s. These programs were all killed off by Nixon's consolidation into the state revenue block grant program. So that's how far we have to look back for prior federal solutions- but that's where some potential solutions lie. If I have time (and no one else does it) I'll try to find more details on what these programs entailed.

# ? Jun 18, 2022 00:40

SpaceCadetBob: Dec 27, 2012

Not really sure where 10 years old being a writeoff is coming from. Mechanical components live pumps and motors might be pretty aged by 20 years, but the overall systems including piping ducting and wiring can be easily reused or refurbished going on 40 years.

Occupancy loads between traditional urban office space and modern residential space is actually relatively similar, so your overall building requirements for electricity, air, and water/sewer tend to be within capacity for the conversion without major new civil upgrades.

Im working pre-construction on a project to convert a large 80s office building into 400 apts and while it has some complications it will certainly be doable.

# ? Jun 18, 2022 17:16

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Maybe they're in Japan? Apparently it's a thing there to just demolish poo poo every 10-20 years.

# ? Jun 18, 2022 17:34

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

SpaceCadetBob posted:

Im working pre-construction on a project to convert a large 80s office building into 400 apts and while it has some complications it will certainly be doable.

The office buildings I have recently worked in probably can't be converted into legal apartments simply based on their footprint ---- they have a lot of interior space, and apartment rooms are supposed to have windows.

# ? Jun 18, 2022 17:39

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

The 50yo suburban concrete bunker I used to work in is being turned into apartments, apparently.

# ? Jun 18, 2022 18:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

SpaceCadetBob posted:

Not really sure where 10 years old being a writeoff is coming from. Mechanical components live pumps and motors might be pretty aged by 20 years, but the overall systems including piping ducting and wiring can be easily reused or refurbished going on 40 years.

Occupancy loads between traditional urban office space and modern residential space is actually relatively similar, so your overall building requirements for electricity, air, and water/sewer tend to be within capacity for the conversion without major new civil upgrades.

Im working pre-construction on a project to convert a large 80s office building into 400 apts and while it has some complications it will certainly be doable.

Because the asset age and cost of refurbishment reduces the relative benefit extracted from the conversion. edit: this may be influenced by the guy having done a lot of really specialized infra project work outside of city planning.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jun 18, 2022

# ? Jun 18, 2022 19:07

whiskey patrol: Feb 26, 2003

Badger of Basra posted:

Environmental impact assessments do take a long time but it�s hard to separate out the causes as to why. I�ve read that CEQA was mostly expanded by the courts in scope (what projects are covered) and so now everyone does a massive one to avoid getting sued rather than because �The Bureaucracy� makes them.

NEPA I�m not sure about, but to me it seems like if we are taking 4.5 years to write environmental impact assessments for mass transit projects that�s a problem with the law itself rather than with the bureaucracy. NYC�s congestion charge is also doing an EIA which seems insane to me.

I used to do NEPA for transportation projects and for NEPA specifically I'd say it's a combo of the law and the bureaucracy. It's also an area that is burdened by history because of the disregard to environmental issues when they built the highway system. For example building I-290 to racial segregate Chicago and concentrate the impacts in low income neighborhoods (environmental justice is supposed to be a major component of these assessments now to avoid repeats of things like that) or the creation of a bunch of special laws to protect parks (commonly referred to as section 4(f)) because they put the highways through a bunch of national parks with little regard to the environment when they built the interstate system.

It's important to remember that NEPA is different than most other environmental regulations because it is purely process based. It is a process that a project has to go through to prove that alternatives were analyzed and the potential impacts are weighed against the need and the alternative courses of action. Also, that those findings are made public. The process also makes sure appropriate mitigations are implemented where there are specific state or federal laws that require action (such as on wetlands or parkland) but otherwise it is mainly focused on process. The impacts determine what process it goes through.

The reason it takes forever is because every agency (FTA/FHWA, EPA, FWS, USACE, and add in state and local stakeholders etc.) needs to be at the table and sign off on multiple decision points through the process. Meetings are only held quarterly or (more likely) biannually, so any missed deadlines cause a 6 month delay and it's not uncommon for an agency or two to hold approval till they get questions answered if they have concerns. The design aspects take a while as well, especially on the alternatives analysis, since the environmental needs to be done in conjunction with preliminary design. You also need field checks for wetlands (and hope that there is no need to look for threatened and endangered species or potential historic surveys needed). And a lot of work is done by consultants that then needs to be reviewed and approved by different agencies. Add in mandatory public involvement on the back end 4-5 years is an optimistic timeline (especially if there is a any level of organized opposition to a project). Then once you're looking at that time frame, political climate and funding changes can also delay projects more. 10+ years is common for anything that needs an Environmental Impact Statement (the highest level).

Way more staffing would help. Opening up the categorical exclusion category would help. Public involvement needs a total re-work if it's ever going to be meaningful to a project instead of a box to check. But it's going to be able to streamline the process much because there are so many agencies that need to be involved.

# ? Jun 18, 2022 20:04

Cugel the Clever: Apr 5, 2009; I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

I don't have concrete data to back it up, but it certainly seems like a huge amount of environmental review these days is used as a cudgel against public transit and residential density, while highway expansion and sprawling, greenfield suburban developments slip through without the slightest problem.

In the Twin Cities, spurious suit after spurious suit has been leveraged over light rail expansion and, very recently, struck a potentially huge blow to Minneapolis's 2040 plan with obviously disingenuous arguments over the supposed environmental impact of enabling the city to grow up instead of out and for people to get around without depending on cars.

Car- and sprawl-friendly "environmentalism" needs to be purged with fire and the entire review system needs a drastic reworking to eliminate the countless bullshit roadblocks rich assholes can present.

# ? Jun 18, 2022 21:03

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

This Boston Globe article is the perfect encapsulation of planning.

The yes guy is a experienced town manager explaining the benefits and why this is a good thing and why its necessary to create dense projects.

The second is a guy who says gently caress you no from a wealthy community.

# ? Jul 19, 2022 14:13

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Mooseontheloose posted:

This Boston Globe article is the perfect encapsulation of planning.

The yes guy is a experienced town manager explaining the benefits and why this is a good thing and why its necessary to create dense projects.

The second is a guy who says gently caress you no from a wealthy community.

In order to read it I had to sign up some poor bastard for a newsletter so here it is so you don't have to:

quote:

YES

Adam Chapdelaine

Former Arlington town manager; president, Metropolitan Area Planning Council; Dedham resident

Growing up in a three-decker in Fall River, I was fortunate to experience the benefits of life in a community with mostly multifamily housing. It is my hope that the new law requiring MBTA communities to zone for multi-family housing near transit stations can expand opportunities like this throughout Greater Boston.

There are three reasons the new law�s requirements make good public policy.

First, it is a clear acknowledgement of the scope of the housing crisis facing Greater Boston, which to meet demand needs 300,000+ new units over 2010 levels by 2040. The region is growing due to continued economic expansion, and with that comes jobs and the people who fill them. Providing housing options for these families, along with ensuring that families currently living in Greater Boston are not displaced, will require the creation of new units. As this is a regional challenge, the solutions must be broad-based, and opportunity must be provided throughout the region. The new policy recognizes this and provides a regional framework for addressing the projected housing shortfall.

Second, the new policy is not a construction mandate, but a mandate for zoning allowances that can offer expanded opportunities to build homes. No municipality would be forced to build units on any specific timeline � or even build them at all. Instead, MBTA communities would need to remove existing zoning � such as large lot or single-family requirements � that are a barrier to multifamily housing near transit facilities, and replace them with zoning allowing for that development. Any changes resulting from the law would occur over many years, allowing communities to grow and change along with the region.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new law makes it clear that housing policy is climate policy. If the region grows as projected, it cannot sustain a corresponding number of vehicles added to local roadways. That would only exacerbate already challenging congestion, and increase carbon emissions at a time we are desperately trying to reduce them. Building housing in reasonable proximity to transit will provide residents lower-carbon transportation options and help the region meet its climate goals.

The new law provides a starting pathway for addressing our burgeoning housing crisis at a time when action can no longer wait.

NO

Randall Block

President of the community organization Right Size Newton

The state has developed a deceptively simple strategy to solve the housing crisis � just require MBTA communities to build denser housing. Guidelines developed by the state Department of Housing and Community Development apply a one-size-fits-all formula for determining the increased number of housing units required of each of the 175 MBTA communities. This approach shows a total lack of understanding of the issues facing cities and towns.

Let�s consider two examples.

Chelsea has 40,787 residents living in 14,554 housing units on 2.2 square miles of land. One of the most crowded cities in Massachusetts, Chelsea is also an �environmental justice� city facing rising sea level and urban heat-island effects. How many more housing units do our brilliant policy makers think Chelsea should add? 3,639, for an increase of 25 percent. Did they stop to think for a moment that Chelsea has little or no vacant land that can be developed? Did they stop to think that perhaps Chelsea is already overcrowded? Instead of making it even denser, we should help the city create open spaces to cope with climate change impacts.

Now let�s consider the small town of Nahant, which has 3,334 residents living in 1,680 housing units on one square mile of land. The experts at DHCD decided the minimum number of additional housing units required for any MBTA community would be 750. This would be a 45 percent increase in housing units in Nahant. Not only would that destroy the town as we know it, but the terrain is such that it�s probably not feasible. Fortunately, such a zoning change would never be approved at Town Meeting � more proof that DHCD policy makers are out of touch with reality.

The current administration has misdiagnosed the problem. The �housing crisis� is really a �housing cost crisis� which will not be remedied by building more market-rate housing that happens to be near an MBTA station. To help families with below-average income, we need more housing in communities where land is available and affordable. And we need to raise revenues to subsidize the housing that is built. The only sensible course is to throw out the state�s mandatory zoning scheme and start over.

quote:

Did they stop to think that perhaps Chelsea is already overcrowded? Instead of making it even denser, we should help the city create open spaces to cope with climate change impacts.

The gently caress does this even mean? Create open space how? I was in Boston this May so I have a general feeling for the area, but had to check out the map

Maybe demolishing the oil terminal and airport parking to build a few more SFHs?

mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jul 19, 2022

# ? Jul 19, 2022 14:19

Cugel the Clever: Apr 5, 2009; I LOVE AMERICA AND CAPITALISM DESPITE BEING POOR AS FUCK. I WILL NEVER RETIRE BUT HERE'S ANOTHER 200$ FOR UKRAINE, SLAVA

mobby_6kl posted:

quote:
NO

Randall Block

President of the community organization Right Size Newton

Funny how it always seems that folks across the country using language like "right size" always find that the right size of their neighborhood is the current size (or smaller).

Another NIMBY phrase that I love to hate is "human-scale", which somehow always aligns with their preference. Ludicrous McMansion? Human-scale. Modest duplex? Oversized and oppressive. I've been annoyed, though, to see some YIMBYs embrace the term, just recast as their preference for mid-density, 6-story apartments. I couldn't care less about the size of a building, so long as it's creating homes where people want to live, but can't. In most of America, the 6-story will work just fine given our SFH sprawl, but there's no sense in preemptively giving ammunition to those seeking to reject more where it might be appropriate.

# ? Jul 19, 2022 14:52

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

There is some historical irony about a guy from Arlington being in the "pro housing in MBTA communities" side since IIRC Arlington has MBTA commuter rail but not subway because racism.

# ? Jul 19, 2022 15:04

Mecca-Benghazi: Mar 31, 2012

That oil terminal is being sold off actually :getin:

I'll point out that Newton, the town that guy lives in, is mostly sfh home zoned with the barest minimum of apartment complexes to keep the state happy. They're not McMansion size because it's a streetcar suburb but it's kinda ridiculous for a place so close to Boston (for example, Boston College is basically in Chestnut Hill, one of Newton's villages)

# ? Jul 19, 2022 15:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Cugel the Clever posted:

Funny how it always seems that folks across the country using language like "right size" always find that the right size of their neighborhood is the current size (or smaller).

Another NIMBY phrase that I love to hate is "human-scale", which somehow always aligns with their preference. Ludicrous McMansion? Human-scale. Modest duplex? Oversized and oppressive. I've been annoyed, though, to see some YIMBYs embrace the term, just recast as their preference for mid-density, 6-story apartments. I couldn't care less about the size of a building, so long as it's creating homes where people want to live, but can't. In most of America, the 6-story will work just fine given our SFH sprawl, but there's no sense in preemptively giving ammunition to those seeking to reject more where it might be appropriate.

# ? Jul 19, 2022 15:12

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

This is a few months old, but here's a good article about rents slightly dropping for the first half of the year in the city I live in: https://streets.mn/2022/05/06/minneapolis-rents-drop/

For a snapshot of the article, here are the graphs of Minneapolis and St Paul average rent prices for the past couple years:

As a back-drop, Minneapolis has been building like crazy and made national headlines for being the first major city in the US to eliminate single home zoning. Obviously a lot more comes into play for why the rents are slowly falling here, but it is interesting being able to compare it to St Paul. Especially going forward, as St Paul just enacted a 3% rent stabilization law while Minneapolis doesn't have one (yet).

Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 5, 2022

# ? Aug 5, 2022 17:35

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

Apropos of the impact of NEPA on project timelines - maybe it's not NEPA but there is definitely a lot of unnecessary (and not even legally required) process BS going on

https://twitter.com/numble/status/1557525354788577282

https://twitter.com/numble/status/1557525425110278145

# ? Aug 11, 2022 07:19

VictualSquid: Feb 29, 2012; Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.

If it takes you 10 years to ask the locals about your plans for your impact study, the problem is not the talking to locals it is that you suck at talking.

# ? Aug 11, 2022 13:14

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

VictualSquid posted:

If it takes you 10 years to ask the locals about your plans for your impact study, the problem is not the talking to locals it is that you suck at talking.

This tends to be where I come down too, as someone who works in the ecosystem of NEPA compliance. Quite a lot of the delays and costs associated with the environmental review process come from the architecture of agency practice and judicial procedure we've built up around the process, rather than from the environmental review itself. As an example, it's entirely too common for agencies and their partners to try to goose projects to fit into an Environmental Assessment or even a categorical exclusion rather than go through the steps to create an Environmental Impact Statement. Inevitably this gets litigated to hell and back (sometimes correctly, sometimes not), and the costs and time for the litigation are added to the expense of potentially having to go back and do the EIS anyway. Then, a lot of the work of doing public outreach, actually surveying a project area, and generating reports is done by contractors and consultants, in part because government agencies have been so thoroughly stripped of funding and in-house talent since NEPA et al were put in place. This creates extra costs, both for the actual man-hours and for the opportunity cost of the in-house expertise that could have been kept and used for the next project. Because the courts are the backstop for the whole process, at every stage they end up filled with civil suits. They're too overloaded to deal with those promptly because we've also systematically underfunded the courts while simultaneously handing them enormously increased administrative responsibilities and criminal caseloads, so that's months or years of delay on top.

Undoubtedly there are ways to reform the basic structure of laws like NEPA, but I think it's undersold how much of the problem we've created for ourselves after the fact by not investing in the people, resources, and procedures we'd need to actually fulfill the requirements of the law in a reasonable time.

# ? Aug 11, 2022 15:09

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Been a while since this thread has seen any activity, so I'll kick it off with some local news: https://www.twincities.com/2023/04/23/by-hud-counts-st-pauls-apartment-construction-permits-fell-48-after-rent-control-was-it-temporary/

quote:

National apartment construction hit record highs last year not seen since the early 1970s, but the same did not hold true in Minnesota�s capital city.

When it comes to construction of duplexes, triplexes and other forms of multi-family housing, St. Paul�s building permits plummeted by 48% last year compared with the year before, according to HUD, the federal department of Housing and Urban Development. The numbers of permitted units ended the year roughly on par with the city�s 10-year average, which was weighed down coming out of the Great Recession a decade ago. That�s fair, bad or really bad, depending upon how you slice it.

Minneapolis, on the other hand, registered an average to above-average construction year, with a 16% increase in permitted multi-family housing units from the year before. That�s fair, good or really good by the same standards.

�The slowdown is real,� said St. Paul City Council member Chris Tolbert, who chairs the city�s Housing and Redevelopment Authority. �I think St. Paul has got some work to do to regain our momentum.�

Next few months could be telling
Overall, new multi-family housing construction was more than three times busier last year in Minneapolis than in its sister city, with 3,626 units permitted in the bigger twin compared with 1,072 units in St. Paul. The capital city hasn�t kept pace with Minneapolis in terms of housing construction in recent history, so the gulf between the two cities is nothing new, but it loomed larger than usual in 2022.

Opponents of rent control have been quick to point out a key policy difference between the two cities. St. Paul voters approved the city�s first-ever rent-control policy at the ballot box in November 2021, a strict 3% rent cap that was later loosened by the city council last September, with the mayor�s blessing, to exempt new development for 20 years.

Could sluggish rental housing growth in St. Paul be a temporary market reaction, and if so, is it over? The next few months could be telling, but some urge caution in interpreting the numbers.

�We are not prepared to make generalizations about the housing market with an appropriate degree of confidence based on a relatively small number of datapoints that have been generated since the two different versions of rent stabilization have been adopted or gone into effect,� said Crystal King, a spokesperson for St. Paul�s Department of Planning and Economic Development, or PED.

St. Paul officials doing their own analysis of building
Officials with PED are doing their own internal analysis of recent building permit activity and they caution that HUD data tends to differ from their own, in part because HUD doesn�t count commercial-to-residential conversions, which are not uncommon in downtown St. Paul.

�Housing construction most likely slowed somewhat in the months after the passage of the initial rent stabilization ordinance, but nowhere near as much as the HUD data suggests,� King said.

Another discrepancy: HUD counts the last building permit needed to make a structure occupiable. The city, on the other hand, counts new development as soon as a permit is pulled for a project�s footings and foundation.

A case in point would be the 304 units of housing dubbed �Lexington Station� under construction on Lexington Parkway near University Avenue. While the footings/foundation permit was issued on Sept. 19, HUD wouldn�t count the project until March 13 of this year.

At 150 W. Water St. near Harriet Island, the new Farwell Yards project will create 221 new apartments. While an initial construction permit was issued Feb. 10 of this year, �it won�t be counted for some months in HUD�s data, even though the city would have counted it in our internal counts,� King said.

In addition to exempting new construction from rent control, St. Paul has allowed landlords to self-certify 8% rent increases, if justified by documented expenses showing the need for a consistent return. Landlords can seek permission for even larger rent increases of up to 15% through a public hearing process at City Hall.

As St. Paul officials worked out that policy over the course of last year, many housing developers put key projects on hold in the capital city or gave the city a cold shoulder, with some saying their hands were tied by the lending market.

�The reason for development slowdown is probably multifaceted, but I do feel it had a lot to do with the rent control in St. Paul, especially with out-of-state investment and the apprehension that caused with the market,� said Stefanie Sokup, marketing director with Minneapolis-based developer Schafer Richardson, in an email. �Of course, interest rates played a part in the slowdown as well.�

Some developers back at the table
Some � but not all � developers have since come back to the table. After a long pause, Alatus, for instance, found new major investors to serve as limited partners and resumed apartment construction at Lexington Station. At Highland Bridge, Weidner Homes has not.

�I think rent control�s had a chilling effect on our economic development,� said Tolbert, who represents the Highland Park neighborhood where Highland Bridge is located. �You add on inflation, cost of building materials, and the uncertainty of the economy in a way we hadn�t seen in prior years. All those things together had an impact on our housing numbers.�

Tolbert is cautiously optimistic that building activity will pick up again now that the development and financing community better understand how rent control is structured in St. Paul and who is eligible for exemptions, which was all up in the air before the city council�s amendments last fall.

�The lack of surety � �What does this mean? How does this work? How is this going to affect my numbers?� � and then you add on that the mayor and the council, including myself, said let�s amend this, they said let�s let this play out before we put $60 million into a project,� Tolbert said.

Four city council members who openly opposed taking rent control to public ballot in 2021 � Tolbert and council President Amy Brendmoen, Jane Prince and Dai Thao � are not seeking re-election in November. That means a majority of the seven-member city council will turn over next year, which could lend itself to future amendments.

Council member Mitra Jalali, a proponent of rent control, said she doubts any major changes to rent control will be enacted before the new council is seated, and she looked forward to helping guide future discussions.

Rent-control advocates react
St. Paul has seen construction activity diverge from and be overshadowed by its sister city before, beginning long before rent control was in play. In 2017, for instance, the number of multi-family housing units under construction in Minneapolis was eight times greater than in St. Paul.

Other factors, such as rising interest rates, availability of developable lots, concerns about crime, remote work and the pandemic in general also factor into whether developers are ready to pull the trigger on one location over another. And some rent-control proponents emphasize that any market recoil against the capital city�s version of rent control could be temporary.

Overall, �2020 and 2021 were particularly strong years for permitting activity in St. Paul,� said Monica Bravo, executive director of the West Side Community Organization, whose members pushed hard for rent control. �2022 was closer to an average year based on development trends over time, but there are also a fair number of developments that are in various stages of planning.�

Critics continue to argue that rent control has taken the wind out of the sails of housing construction, undermining the very intent of price controls by reducing the supply of new housing coming into the market. They fear the loss of affordable units that would have been constructed alongside market-rate units, either within the same multi-unit development or side by side through tax subsidy arrangements.

�We�ve got to build a lot more supply,� said Neel Kashkari, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, during a March 30 forum at the Wilder Foundation in St. Paul.

Kashkari raised concerns about regulatory barriers limiting real estate development, from minimum lot sizes to minimum number of bedrooms, including rent control.

�High prices come first, and then people get upset about it, and they say we need a rent control to stop them from going higher,� said Kashkari, responding to questions posed by Anne Mavity, executive director of the Minnesota Housing Partnership. �It�s kind of a trap. � You say, �Well, we�re going to adopt rent control to try and put a lid on it.� And then you�re stuck. � It�s such an inhibitor to new supply coming online.�

�If we actually want to move the needle for working-class families across Minnesota, we need to unleash a lot more supply,� he added. �And every policy that I would look at, I would judge on, �Is this going to help supply or not?'�

HUD data shows a tale of two cities
When it came to building multi-family structures � think of apartment buildings with two units or more � Minneapolis enjoyed a relatively productive year in 2022. St. Paul did not.

HUD�s multi-family housing building permit data shows developers pulled permits for 3,626 housing units in Minneapolis last year, which keeps pace with the city�s five-year average and is several hundred units above its nine-year average. The pace of construction picked up about 16% in Minneapolis, or 500 units, last year compared with the year before.

In St. Paul, developers pulled permits for 2,043 units in that category in 2021, compared with 1,072 units last year, which is several hundred units below the city�s five-year average and about on par with the city�s nine-year average.

Year over year, that�s nearly a 50% decrease in construction activity.

I've heard from so many people claim that the drop in St Paul's multi-family permits is a temporary thing. Unfortunately, this is exactly what I expected when rent control was passed there.

I hope that the city I live in, Minneapolis, takes a close look at this and decide to take a more targeted, direct approach to specifically help out those who cannot afford or can barely afford housing. The last thing we need is to have future generations cursing us for worsening the housing shortage.

Kalit fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Apr 23, 2023

# ? Apr 23, 2023 22:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 05:58

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Minneapolis also broadly upzoned residential land recently didn't they?

# ? Apr 23, 2023 22:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY

«‹›52 »