Affordable Housing Downtown
The Advocate reports today the city has rejected plans for a 12 story residential complex on Summer/ 4 story complex on Franklin St. The abridged version of the dispute is as follows. To build in downtown Stamford, a developer needs to set aside 10% of the residential space for affordable housing. On the plots in question, to build to the developers desired height & density requires a “bonus” from the zoning board, which requires a higher percentage of affordable housing. In this case that’s 24%. Developer wanted a compromise, city did not – looks as if the project is dead.
Dumb move from my perspective. Let’s put aside the fact Summer St, a series of squat, single use ugly buildings and a streetscape that is essentially dead most hours of the day, could have really benefited from this type of development (going out on a slight limb not having seen the plans) and look it from a broader angle.
What is the current zoning on Summer St? Are 12 stories appropriate? If the answer is yes, why the need for this “special bonus”. If the answer is no, then we should not allow developers to buy the city off and create something out of character and relation to the neighborhood under any circumstances. Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to develop a serious of guidelines for buildings that speak to form – height, density, setbacks, etc, aimed at promoting the desired character or that neighborhood and stop making each building proposal some back and forth haggle.
The second issue here is affordable housing. The 10% affordable requirement is a noble aim to include lower income brackets in the city fabric. I think it’s important to recognize though it’s basically just a gesture, you are never going to fully satisfy the demand for affordable housing with 10% in each development. Even when the percentage required slides higher what’s the real gain? In this instance the difference between what the developer wants to put forward and the city wants in affordable housing is just 13 units. If an increase in density drives a higher percentage of affordable housing we end up with the current state of housing in downtown Stamford.
1. Fewer projects moving forward keeping more units from entering the market and creating any real competition in pricing.
2. The projects that do move forward are almost always exclusively high end luxury with token affordable units and nothing in the middle.
Excessive affordable housing requirements is hurting everyone in any kind of middle income bracket by keeping downtown housing stock low allowing landlords to keep rents artificially high due to lack of competition and only encouraging construction of housing at a very high point of entry. If more residential housing downtown was built, older or more out of the way buildings would not be able to compete with newer, perhaps more centrally located buildings and begin to naturally form a housing stock affordable at a number of income levels.
The best approach the city can possibly take is to encourage quality buildings designed to last that enhances the character and vibrancy of their neighborhood. Haggling over 10 or so affordable housing units today sets back housing issues for the city for decades. The proposed Summer St building might service one income level today – but an entirely different one 20 years from now. I’m not advocating eliminating the affordable housing requirement, just recognize it as the nice, albeit limp gesture it is and not let it close the market to new housing for anyone other than the “have nots” and the “have alots”.
2 comments :
The area you talk of is not so nice at this time and your discussion of "Have" and "have nots" might need a bit a clarification.
The clarification is that a good number of municipal workers meet the qualifications for the affordable housing as defined and that is scary on many fronts.
First do city workers make that little?
If they do what does that say about this great pay they are getting off our tax dollars.
Second, If it is the standard for affordable housing allows people making a reasonable buck to get, are we talking about "have nots"?
And if this is true, where do the truly working poor live?
All questions for your question! Maybe there is a problem, let's just find out where it really is.
Damn it, JT, you made me think with this post (and I hate to do that!). I have always been a fan of the city's affordable housing requirement, even though developers usually find ways to circumvent it. Now, however, thanks to your keen observation that allowing a freer rein would help create competition and, by extension, more affordable housing, I'm starting to rethink its effectiveness.
It's a well-intentioned program, especially because in our area, no conceivable amount of competition would be able bring prices down to where minimum-wage or unskilled workers could afford them.
Like you, I'd like to see more projects with a wider price range, so why is it that, like you said, "The projects that do move forward are almost always exclusively high end luxury with token affordable units and nothing in the middle"? Is it because land and construction costs are so high that developers have to set their target prices at the luxury level just to turn a profit?
Post a Comment