Affordable housing versus stable neighborhoods?

Public hearing begins at Council of the District of Columbia

The Council of the District of Columbia met into the wee hours last night, hearing comments from residents about proposed amendments to the 2006 comprehensive plan. 273 citizens had signed up to present comments; your humble blogger hung around to hear from 32 of them, as well as the members of the Council in attendance, so you may take what follows for what it's worth. Reports from those who hung in there longer are in the sources.

A few themes emerged as Council and public commented on these amendments, which focus on housing. The proposed revisions take note of Washington's recent population increases, as well as some striking demographic trends. The growth has put pressure on local housing markets, with particular effects on the middle class and black residents. From the draft:

Recent migration patterns of those leaving the District suggest conditions cause the city to lose certain types of households. While those moving to DC tended to be young adult white individuals either with or seeking higher education, those moving out tended to be parents and their children, older adults, and blacks. (203.03)

The vast majority of Washington residents are either well-off or poor: Council member Robert White Jr. cited data that show less than 25 percent of Washington residents have household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, and lack of access to housing is presumably a cause of what we might call the missing middle class. Washington, like many other cities, faces the housing policy conundrum: how to maintain access to housing when demand (and probably speculation) are driving up prices?

Since 2006, the single largest increase in the types of households were those comprised with members that work in the Professional Services industry, and who tend to earn higher wages. The increased demand and competition from higher income households was greater than anticipated and has made the city one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The District now has a large percent of both high and low income households with very few in the middle-income ranges. Increasing rental housing costs are the primary household budget item that is making it difficult for low or even moderate income residents to continue living in the city. Some estimates suggest that between 2011 and 2016 the cost of purchasing a home rose by almost 50 percent, while the cost of renting rose 18 percent. Housing costs are perhaps the central challenge toward maintaining and growing an inclusive city. (204.10)

No one at the public hearing spoke against increasing the supply of affordable housing; the rub was how we get there. Some argued that a significant obstacle to supply is the ability of community residents to convince the City Council, or failing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to block projects. They supported language in the proposed amendments, like changing "define" to "describe" in zoning categories, that would make it harder to overturn decisions of the zoning commission. They also supported amendments that loosened requirements for buildings, like maximum heights.

"Stop the Comprehensive Scam" group gathers in the lobby

Opponents of the amendments--easily identifiable by their white stickers that read "Stop the Comprehensive Scam"--expressed concern about the loss of check-and-balance in the process. Easing development is, they argue, a gift to developers, and threatened the stability of existing neighborhoods. It is important to note that a number of speakers explicitly rejected the NIMBY label. They are not against development, they said, just concerned that avoiding the error of inadequate housing supply the city would invite the opposite error of runaway development.

Pretty quickly "stable neighborhoods" emerged as the freighted phrase of the early part of the hearing. What does it mean? Is it a legitimate policy goal? If so, how should the Council and ultimately the Zoning Commission weigh it against development of affordable housing? I have some sympathies for historic preservation, and DC features some spectacular swaths of it. It would be sad to tear down beautiful old houses for a generic apartment building, though not quite as sad as it would be to make room for McMansions or convenience stores. But is that the only way to get affordable housing? The amendments hint at a more form-based approach to zoning. There are plenty of examples, near me on Capitol Hill, of multi-unit buildings that are indistinguishable from the single-family row houses next door. A lot of these are small apartments, of course, so that doesn't address the needs of middle-income families.

My point is that there are productive ways to densify (Is that a real word?) that don't denigrate the appearance of neighborhoods. (See Maitland 2018 for ways to address legitimate concerns of those concerned about negative impacts of development.) If the comprehensive plan needs tighter language to fend off Soviet-style housing blocks, propose that language; a purely defensive crouch is NIMBYism, whatever you'd rather call it. The lack of easy solutions shouldn't deter us from improving our common life, for which affordable housing is a necessity, in Washington or any other growing city.

Crowd waiting for the hearing room to open. The ambient noise was such as to
ruin a TV reporter's stand-up. I confess to finding that amusing.

COVERAGE OF THE HEARING:
Cuneyt Dil, "Marathon Comprehensive Plan Meeting Encapsulates District Development Tensions," Washington City Paper, 21 March 2018
Fenit Nirappil, "Dry D.C. Planning Document Fuels Heated Debate Over Future of Expensive City," Washington Post, 21 March 2018

SEE ALSO:

David Alpert, "What's More Important, 'Neighborhood Stability' or Affordable Housing?" Greater Greater Washington, 22 March 2018, reflections on Tuesday's hearing from GGW founder who testified in favor of the plan amendments

Daniel Herriges, "Calming the Waters: How to Address Both Gentrification and Concentrated Poverty," Strong Towns, 26 February 2018, is a long but worthwhile read. He reviews the housing conundrum of growing cities and suggests strategies for successfully addressing it. First on the list: "Counter the 'Big-Ness' Bias" i.e. help small developers build neighborhood-compatible projects rather than relying on large developers who need the margins only high-rise apartment buildings can provide.

Shannon Graham, "A City Under Pressure," Strong Towns, 14 March 2018 on Victoria, British Columbia, which despite many dissimilarities shares with Washington population pressures within a mostly fixed boundary, as well as cherry blossoms

Tanvi Misra, "Gentrification Doesn't Mean Diversity," City Lab, 15 May 2017: interview with Derek Hyra, author of Race, Class and Politics in the Cappucino City (University of Chicago Press, 2017) that focuses on Washington's Shaw-U Street neighborhood

Doug Trumm, "This Small Wallingford Apartment Building is Fine-Grained Urbanism at Its Finest," The Urbanist, 22 March 2018: Seattle example of small-scale development that both is affordable and plays well with its surroundings