The Los Angeles CityWatch’s recent article, Planning Ahead: Do Developers Wear Black Hats? seeks to uncover the reasons for developers’ frequently negative reputations. Residents’ views of developers often involve tiny horns and pitchforks because the former are concerned with the preservation of the existing community, and they don’t like to see change coming in the form of new development, regardless of whether or not the development is actually part of larger city planning.

But, as author Jon Perica points out, developers are often merely serving the request of another body, be it a mandate from city council to affect a change upon an evolving city, or an outdated zoning code. A developer may be required to create projects that are “consistent” with the existing zoning code, meaning, for example, that more single-family homes are built in low-density zones because those are the only allowable buildings.

However, the real problems stem from the fact that communities do not remain “consistent” but must constantly be adapted to fit with their changing economic and social needs. Developers most often get their black reputations from doing projects that are not consistent with the Community Plan, but Community Plans, in many cases, are significantly outdated. An outdated Community Plan can no longer be depended upon to match the market demands, so developments with variations on the Plan are often submitted and approved. But once some exceptions are, of neccessity, made, the door is open for developments that may be inappropriate for the changing face of the neighborhood.

The article also deliniates the qualities that characterize a sensitive developer. Good developers will:

• meet with the Neighborhood or Community Council far in advance to recieve comments, feedback, and community-oriented suggestions;
• view themselves as a member of the community, with responsibilities for creating new projects that harmonize with the existing framework;
• meet as many of the city planning regulations as possible, and present the fewest Zoning Code violations;
• consider the importance of aesthetics and “quality” features, such as design blend, landscaping, and security measures;
• share information about the planning process with the community, including ways in which residents can involve themselves or contact the developer;
• faithfully implement all the City regulations and conditions on an approved project, and oversee its early use to make certain that it functions as an asset and retains cleanliness.

Perhaps above all, Perica emphasizes the fact that developers will gain a repuation, for good or ill, that will eventually become common knowledge. Consequently, each project must be approached with the same sensitivity and consideration. “A good developer commits her or his reputation on every project they do,” Perica explains, “and the more they follow these guidelines for appropriate quality development, the better their development projects are and the better they will be perceived in the community.”

Housing Choice and Affordability is the American Planning Association’s new ’supertopic’ slated to receive greater consideration over the next couple of years. In an effort to make this ’supertopic’ an issue for planners everywhere, the APA has developed a list of the top ten ways in which planners can support affordable housing. These precepts will help them encourage greater housing choice within their community.

10 Things Planners Can Do to Support Housing Choice and Affordability

1. Demonstrate how the entire community will benefit from affordable housing.

2. Conduct a housing needs assessment and use the results to craft a housing plan that responds to your community’s unique needs.

3. Help preserve existing housing stock. Encourage your community to maintain affordable housing units and replace units lost to redevelopment.

4. Implement development practices, plans, and regulations that result in innovative and diverse housing choices such as cluster housing, single room occupancy developments, mixed-income housing and accessory dwelling units.

5. Encourage universal design by enforcing federal and state accessibility requirements and adopting visitability codes for all single and multi-family residential construction.

6. Tell your elected leaders that you support the establishment of a National Housing Trust Fund to produce, rehabilitate, and preserve housing units.

7. Incorporate energy efficiency goals and green building standards in guidelines that impact the design and construction all residential development, including affordable housing.

8. Support the reauthorization of federal housing resources such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Housing Choice Vouchers, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs.

9. Share examples of affordable housing projects that are high-quality, attractive, and maintain community character.

10. Learn more about the impact of housing on schools, employment, and transportation in order to craft comprehensive policies the respond to interconnectedness of planning.

Though the rise of the suburbs in the last half of the 20th century is rooted in various cultural shifts, the creation of middle-class suburban communities may have as much to do with the building practice of new development as with the issue of personal choice. In the nation’s largest cities, new housing developments are most frequently luxury apartments for the very wealthy; meanwhile, the social concern with providing enough affordable housing has increased pressure to create homes for low-income families. What’s left out of the cities? Middle-income housing.

Karrie Jacobs of Metropolis Magazine became aware of how this problem in her native New York. “Middle-income neighborhoods are disappearing from cities,” she writes, “and in New York they’re being squeezed to the very edge.”

The issue first grabbed her attention several months ago at a panel discussing a new development of townhouses in downtown Brooklyn—not, historically, a ritzy neighborhood. But the new homes are marketed at over $2 million. The plans included a 217-apartment complex to serve artists and low-income individuals, but nothing for those who fall somewhere in between.

Even more unsettling, when Jacobs queried the panel about housing for middle-income families, another developer pointed out that in New York’s real estate market, the $2-plus million homes actually represent the middle. In June, a study by the Brookings Institution showed that in 1970, middle-income neighborhoods accounted for 58% of the urban cityscape, versus 41% today. The fact that families of a given income will tend to live surrounded by families of a similar income is hardly news, but it is worthy of attention; the Brookings Institution argues that the existence of integrated middle-class neighborhoods is crucial to a community’s sense of upward mobility.

The findings of the report are echoed in specific examples. Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, built for veterans after WWII, have long been middle-class islands in the sea of Manhattan, but Metropolitan Life is vying to sell them off. The future seems clear: a new developer will most likely replace the 11,250 middle-income apartments with luxury condominiums, and no one, most likely, will replace the middle-income housing that is lost.

In an effort to do some investigation, Jacobs visited the Brooklyn Navy Yard, now occupied by a company called Capsys, who specializes in the construction of prefabricated houses. The houses are intended for a new community being established at the far edge of East New York. The neighborhood, known at one time for its high murder rate, will now become a development of middle-income homes called Spring Creek.

The new houses attracted her eye because the architect, Alexander Gorlin, presented his plans at the same panel that featured the $2 million townhouses in Brooklyn. Gorlin’s designs have focused on giving the townhouses “a more sophisticated look,” and have been viewed as an upgrade for the neighborhood. The houses, mostly two-story, 1,600-square-foot three-bedroom homes, will be sold by lottery, as the 637 available houses have already received roughly 12,000 requests. Though the median household income in New York City was $39,937 (versus $43,318 nationwide), the maximum income to be considered for the new housing development is 85,080 for a two-person household and $99,000 for a three-person household. At $204,000 with a $46,000 subsidy from the city, the new houses represent a possibility for middle-income families, if still slightly above average.

“I consider it a moderate-income development, between low and middle,” explained Ronald Waters, Nehemia Development Corporation’s general manager and director, the company responsible for the mixed-use affordable housing initiative. “It’s for people climbing out of the low-income level.” Precisely the kind of housing that the Brookings Institution said society—not just the middle-class—needs.

Read excellent descriptions and knowledgeable analysis of Alexander Gorlin’s new Spring Creek houses at both Architecture News (Well-Known Architect Breaks Ground on Phase One for Affordable Housing Development) and Miss Representation (Housing for the Rest of Us).