Smart Communities

Singapore the “Garden City”

Located in Southeast Asia, Singapore is a highly urbanized modern city-state and island country with a population of approximately 5,469,700 (2014 Department of Statistics Singapore). Singapore is rated as one of the world’s greatest cities (CNN travel) for many reasons, including unique but cheap food, greatest living politician, best health care infrastructures, invention of NeWater etc. Among all of Singapore’s attractions, the most extraordinary one is Singapore’s connection and integration of nature into the city’s dense concrete jungle and the city’s sustainable lifestyle.

The Asian Green City Index, a research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, records measures and rates the environmental performance of 22 Asian cities. According to the Asian Green City Index, Singapore is the Index leader with a well above average ranking overall. The city has a performance of above average in 6 out of the 8 categories, including energy and CO₂, transport, air quality, land use and buildings, sanitation, and environmental governance. Singapore is well above average in 2 out of the 8 categories, including water and waste. Being the 4^th richest city (among the 22 cities analyzed during the survey) with a GDP per person of $36,500, Singapore has access to abundant resources, can afford major investments in its transportation system, cutting edge water recycling plants and waste to energy facilities.

The government’s role in city planning is highly important and is key to success. Unlike other cities, the government system in Singapore isn’t split between competing levels of administration. Singapore has a highly trained civil service with a high degree of transparency (Singapore was fourth place in Transparency International’s corruption Perception Index). This unique government system along with the capacity to approach their cities as single entities improves the ability for Singapore and government officials to address environmental issues. Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew implemented the vision of Singapore as a garden city in 1968. In 1992, the Singapore Green Plan was first issued as Singapore’s first formal environmental blueprint in order to ensure that Singapore achieves sustainable economic development through sound environmental management. In 1999, review of first green plan took place and new ideas were formulated and integrated in to Singapore Green Plan 2012 that was launched in August 2002. Many goals within the plan have already been met but new international and domestic changes require constant update to current plan and goals. In 2008, the government established Singapore’s Center for Livable Cities where expertise from the public and private sectors come together and produces events, research and reports on sustainable urban development and environmental management.

With few freshwater sources and tension with neighbor Malaysia, Singapore is pushed to be independent and sufficient when it comes to water supply. Currently there are several strategies that Singapore uses to increase availability of freshwater supply; the most innovative of them all is the purification of wastewater “NEWater”. Wastewater is collected and flows through two types of filtration (micro-filtration and reverse osmosis) to remove any suspended particles, salts, metals and most pathogens. After filtration, water undergoes ultraviolet light treatment to remove and kill off any remaining microbes. Currently, NEWater is used mainly by non-domestic users. The government started by pumping only small amounts of NEWater into the reservoir system that links directly to drinking supply. Overtime, residents are became more acceptance to NEWater allowing NEWater to supply 30% of drinking consumption in Singapore in 2010.

Green buildings and land use policies are highlights in Singapore. The city has well-established policies to contain urban sprawl and protect green spaces from negative consequences caused by development. Currently, Singapore has 66 square meters of green space per person. Policies are also in place to promote eco-efficiency in new buildings, green standards for public buildings and create incentives to motivate households and businesses to save energy. By 2030, the goal is for 80% of all buildings to meet Singapore’s minimum “Green Mark Certified” energy efficiency standards. In order to achieve this, standards are mandatory for new buildings and the city provide cash incentive scheme to encourage existing buildings to upgrade and adopt the new standards. By 2020, the government also aims to increase park space from 3,300 hectares to 4,200 hectares while adding more ecolinks i.e. eco-corridors between parks to allow wildlife to move freely from one park to the other. 

In 2007, Singapore had 100km of eco connections and the government aims to raise this figure to 360km by 2020. In 2009, the Singapore Green Building Council was officially launched on October 28^th in order to advocate green building design, practices and technologies and drive environmental sustainability in the building and construction industry (SGBC). Unique green designs can be observed all around Singapore, a few examples are Fusionopolis, 313@somerset, hotel Parkroyal and Nanyang Technological University. 

Overall, Singapore is outstanding and successful at containing sprawl and progressing towards sustainability. New research and new policies need to be implemented to keep up with globalization and climate change.

Guest Contributor: Linda Chen

References

Department of Statistics Singapore - <Population Trends 2014> - http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/publications/publications_and_papers/population_and_population_structure/population2014.pdf

 

CNN International <12 reasons why Singapore is the greenest city on Earth> - http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/none/12-reasons-why-singapore-greenest-city-914640

 

CNN <50 reasons why Singapore is No.1> - http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/none/worlds-greatest-city-50-reasons-why-singapore-no-1-399897

 

Asian Green City Index <Assessing the environmental performance of Asia’s major cities> - http://www.thecrystal.org/assets/download/Asian-Green-City-Index.pdf

 

Singapore Green Plan - <Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources> http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/The%20Singapore%20Green%20Plan%202012.pdf

 

Singapore Green Building Council - http://www.sgbc.sg/about-us/about-sgbc/introduction/

 

Fusionopolis - http://inhabitat.com/fusionopolis-singapore’s-new-green-skyscraper/

 

Singapore takes the lead in green building in Asia - http://e360.yale.edu/feature/singapore_takes_the_lead_in_green_building_in_asia/2720/

 

Nanyang Technological University - http://greensource.construction.com/projects/2009/05_Nanyang-Technological-University.asp

 

 

 

Figure 1 Fusionopolis

100km of eco connections and the government aims to raise this figure to 360 km by 2020. In 2009, the Singapore Green Building Council was officially launched on October 28^th in order to advocate green building design, practices and technologies and drive environmental sustainability in the building and construction industry (SGBC). Unique green designs can be observed all around Singapore, a few examples are Fusionopolis, 313@somerset, hotel Parkroyal and Nanyang Technological University. 

            Overall, Singapore is outstanding and successful at containing sprawl and progressing towards sustainability. New research and new policies need to be implemented to keep up with globalization and climate change.

 

References

Department of Statistics Singapore - <Population Trends 2014> - http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/publications/publications_and_papers/population_and_population_structure/population2014.pdf

 

CNN International <12 reasons why Singapore is the greenest city on Earth> - http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/none/12-reasons-why-singapore-greenest-city-914640

 

CNN <50 reasons why Singapore is No.1> - http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/none/worlds-greatest-city-50-reasons-why-singapore-no-1-399897

 

Asian Green City Index <Assessing the environmental performance of Asia’s major cities> - http://www.thecrystal.org/assets/download/Asian-Green-City-Index.pdf

 

Singapore Green Plan - <Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources> http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/The%20Singapore%20Green%20Plan%202012.pdf

 

Singapore Green Building Council - http://www.sgbc.sg/about-us/about-sgbc/introduction/

 

Fusionopolis - http://inhabitat.com/fusionopolis-singapore’s-new-green-skyscraper/

 

Singapore takes the lead in green building in Asia - http://e360.yale.edu/feature/singapore_takes_the_lead_in_green_building_in_asia/2720/

 

Nanyang Technological University - http://greensource.construction.com/projects/2009/05_Nanyang-Technological-University.asp

 

 

 

Universal Smart Homes

Universal smart homes rely heavily on the concept of design to be livable for people of all ages and abilities. At their basis, these homes are meant to provide a healthy indoor environment in which residents and emergency servicemen alike can easily access all of the indoor spaces. As we advance into a more modern era, several types of technologies have emerged that can improve the effectiveness of universal home design. In his book, Universal Designed “Smart” Homes: for the 21^st Century, Charles Schwab states that the purpose of a universal smart home is to “enhance Independent Living, while conserving and protecting our natural resources well into the 21^st Century and beyond”. This concept is represented through four aspects of a home: mobility, utility, efficiency, and health. Technology, when installed mindfully and cohesively with other design aspects, can maximize the success of each aspect.

 A key element of successful universal design is that the smart features are well integrated into the overall design. In terms of mobility, this means minimizing the use of wheelchair ramps, metal handrails, and high-friction flooring materials. Flooring made of non-slip, glare-free materials with high contrast edging and ‘ramp-free’ walkways with a 1:20 grade, eliminate the need for the aforementioned eyesores. In combination with practical mechanical lift systems for traveling between floors, technologies like Golden Technologies’ power chairs help improve residents’ mobility throughout their homes.

 

Technology can also improve residents’ ability to utilize all of the spaces and surfaces in their home. Strategically placed lights with rocker-type light switches make the process of entering a dark room much simpler. Sinks, shelves, closet rods, and drawers that can be adjusted from commonly specified heights to accessible heights as well as front-loaded, side-swing appliances (washing machines, ovens, etc.) contribute significantly to the universal home design goal of making homes ‘livable for people of all ages and abilities’. While advanced technologies that carry out tasks for residents are still in development, several robots exist today that can do things from cleaning the floors to mowing the lawn.

 Elderly and disabled populations have lower median incomes than the average. This means that these people have less disposable income in general, and would benefit specifically from being able to save money on their utilities. There are four channels through which homes can be made more efficient and utility costs can be cut. The first, Energy Star, is a national rating system for appliances. An Energy Star certified home can expect to save about 20% annually on utility bills. Secondly, homes can be made physically more energy efficient by installing an in-floor radiant heating system or by using organizations like LEAP to stop air leaks. The third channel, utilizes alternative forms of energy production such as solar and geothermal. Lastly, residents can save money on their utilities by taking steps to conserve water using technologies like water pedals, automatic water shut offs/sensors, faucet & shower head aerators, low-flow toilets, and point-of-use water heaters.

 Unfortunately, the most vulnerable populations are the ones who have the most trouble accessing the health care that they need in a reasonable amount of time. Technology can be used to not only provide this population with the help it needs quickly, but can also help prevent accidents in the first place. In-home telehealth and remote monitoring technologies are becoming increasingly more widely used. In the case of emergencies, in conjunction with security systems, voice-activated computer systems can be installed that are directly connected to the police, fire, and EMS. By pairing light indicators with garbage disposal, smoke detectors, and carbon monoxide detectors, accidents are less likely to occur. Additionally, new home construction should include a passive radon emissions pipe as well as materials, like paints, sealants, and adhesives, with low VOCs.

While smart home designs are hugely beneficial, technologies, from movable shelves to a robotic vacuum cleaner, are making the goal of a livable home for people of all ages and abilities more attainable. Though costly, technology is constantly improving and becoming more cost effective. By aiding a population’s ability to age-in-place and live independently with disabilities, families can save several thousand dollars on live-in nurses, nursing homes, and hospital visits. These technologies result in increased individual freedoms, which make the up-front costs worth the long term investment

Guest Contributor: Tara Osborne

Utilizing Modular Prefabrication to Solve the Affordable Housing Crisis

The United States faces a formidable national housing crisis. Since the Great Recession beginning in 2008, more and more people are moving away from home ownership and into rental economies. This increased demand, coupled with stagnant middle and lower class wages, has led to an immense shortage of affordable housing units for those households. The National Low Income Housing Coalition’s “Out of Reach 2014” publication claims that “for every 100 extremely low income renter households, there are just 31 affordable and available units.” This number is staggering. It places an immense importance on the development of new affordable housing units over the next fifty years, especially in large cities like New York and San Francisco, where the problem is even worse. In attempting to meet this massive need for affordable housing, new strategies will need to be explored, because the “business as usual” model is clearly broken.

One possible solution to this crisis could lie in the utilization of prefabricated, modular living units. Structures utilizing such a design were first proposed during the Japan-led Metabolist movement of the 1960s. Notable projects such as the Nakagin Capsule Tower aggregated large numbers of small inhabitable pods around a central vertical core containing utilities, amenities, and means of circulation. While this Metabolist architecture may seem a bit too out there for most Americans’ tastes, the U.S.  did see the proliferation of prefabricated architecture in the last half of the twentieth century: the mobile “trailer” home. A long time choice for low-income rural households, the traditional mobile home manages to stay so affordable by utilizing off site prefabrication that takes advantage of economies of scale. While it seems unlikely that any designer could ever support a push for more of these mobile homes, their success does give hope to new ideas of prefabricated housing.

 A 2014 report by McKinsey & Company titled “Tackling the world’s affordable housing challenge” points to reducing construction and development costs as one of four main strategies crucial to solving this issue. Off site prefabrication has been proven to be much cheaper than conventional construction in many scenarios, especially in urban environments. A second of their points lies in improved maintenance and operations for housing. By utilizing a modular design, repairs become easy. All units are identical, and one could even go so far as to completely replace an entire unit in the event of a kitchen fire or similar event. Beyond the cost and time saving benefits of offsite prefabrication, utilizing a modular design allows for structures to adapt to changing needs and quickly adapt if demand rises suddenly. A recent project by Garrison Architects in partnership with the New York City Office of Emergency Management developed prefab housing pods that could be utilized for emergency housing in the event of another Hurricane Sandy scale disaster. Finally, the establishment of large housing factories has the potential to revitalize a struggling population in many large coastal cities. With large spending cuts in recent years, the U.S. Navy has dramatically cut back on its shipbuilding operations. These effects have been felt most strongly in the working class families whose members were employed at shipyards. While not identical, fabricating building units does share many similarities with shipbuilding, in both the techniques used and the necessity for large, centralized construction facilities. Prefab building construction could potentially create thousands of new jobs for those whose skillsets or tendencies don’t match well with other fields like conventional construction.

Many are already seeing the benefits of these types of structures, with several under construction in New York City. Adopting this new housing model will be neither quick nor easy, but could yield great results. The utilization of modular, prefab housing has the potential to drastically change the American housing market, potentially solving many of the issues of the current affordable housing crisis. 

Guest Contributor: Dillon Harding

Approximately 1 in 4 of the 2.4 million Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, substance abuse or both. (http://projects.perkinswill.com/files/PosttraumaticUnderstanding_2014.pdf)  This means that within the group of most recent veterans 600,000 have been diagnosed with PTSD and/or substance abuse.  While it is certainly important that resources exist for veterans health and quality of living, the impact of these programs is inhibited when the physical space ignores the implications of military training and experience.  Those working with veterans have heard of veterans avoiding specific buildings “even if it meant skipping important appointments, because they found the spaces unnerving.” (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-05/news/ct-met-ptsd-design-20130705_1_ptsd-clinic-post-traumatic-stress-disorder) 

 

 These spaces should be humanizing.  Privacy and respect should be embodied throughout spaces intended for veteran use whether it be designing for the scale of the body, providing individual bathrooms or using materials that are familiar rather than cold and foreign.  War is incredibly dehumanizing, making any opportunity to eliminate intimidating or uncomfortable spaces essential.  These spaces should also give as sense of empowerment whenever able which can easily manifest in flexible spaces.  The ability to make small decisions in a space can have a much larger impact on sense of control.  By being able to open a window, move a chair or adjust lighting veterans are able to reduce anxiety and increase their sense of authority over their lives.

 

 Other small moves in design can decrease unnecessary stress and triggers by reducing the cognitive load of occupying space. (http://blog.perkinswill.com/posttraumatic-understanding/)  A door that is unclear in the direction it swings or a handle that is difficult to use can be a small source of stress that inhibits comfort and is a negative distraction from the pursuit of health.  Insulation and sound-reducing windows can also play a strong role in sound reduction from busy streets that can be triggers for those with PTSD.  Other easy to overlook elements such as natural light, allowing pets in live-in programs, providing smoking space and proximity to nature have a huge impact on stress reduction. 

 

 

 

The urban battlefield and military training present the most radical implications in the articulation of space designed for veterans.  One part avoiding obvious triggers, one part attention to lines of sight and visibility, the shared habits and experiences of those with military experience points towards training handbooks as a design resource.  The most recent war veterans are more likely to experience a traumatic or particularly stressful event in a city, and because of this an environment that shares a sensory element with the streets of Baghdad for example (see image above) is likely to be a trigger for veterans using or moving through the space.  In military training you learn the importance of establishing a dominant position with a given space, habits which can inform a veteran’s method of encountering space.  This includes 1) facing towards openings in space 2) back towards secured area such as a corner with no windows 3) minimizing “fields of fire” or areas where you are exposed or gunfire could originate 4) high vantage point to reduce threat from above. (http://projects.perkinswill.com/files/PosttraumaticUnderstanding_2014.pdf )  

 

 

 

Designers should stride to provide privacy and security while retaining opportunities for swift exit and eliminating the feeling of being trapped. 

 

Many of these design moves are inexpensive and a matter of thoughtfulness in design, material choice and sourcing.  Spatial decisions informed by stress reduction and military experience have a long-term impact on the effectiveness of programs and resources that target the health and well-being of veterans. 

 

 

 

Tiny Homes, Big Potential for Alleviating Homelessness

One of many barriers to ending homelessness in the United States is a lack of affordable housing options. A handful of progressive communities around the country are solving this problem by changing the parameters of a typical house—by several hundred square feet. “Tiny home villages” are comprised of structures that are 200 square feet or less, inhabited by formerly homeless residents who share a communal space with bathrooms, kitchens, and laundry. In an apt comparison, Tim Murphynotes that a tiny home village is “a multi-roof version of the old-fashioned urban SRO (single-room occupancy) hotel” (see Home Petite Home).

The first model of this living arrangement is Dignity Village, which was established by a group of unhoused people in 2000 outside of Portland, Oregon (see Rethinking Shelter and Tiny House Communities). The group attained status as a non-profit and continues to lease two acres of property from the City of Portland at a low cost. Dignity Village houses about 60 residents in 50 self-built structures, each without electricity and plumbing. Each resident pays $25 per month for operational costs of the communal spaces, which also include a computer room, gardening beds, and a check-in desk for security.

The village is located next to a leaf-composting facility six miles away from the Portland downtown, with little proximity to residential areas, meaning that the village’s establishment did not encounter opposition from potential NIMBY naysayers. Dignity residents who wish to commute to the city for services and jobs must spend roughly 45 minutes on a public bus or bicycle, or arrange car-sharing with one of the few automobile owners. In addition to payment of the operating costs, residents must abide by several rules (including no consumption of alcohol or drugs on the premises) and engage in ten hours of service to the community per week, and initial acceptance into the community is governed by a one-month trial period.

Dignity Village is overseen by a self-governing system of annually elected residents in positions such as CEO and security coordinator. However, resident Mitch Grubic believes that an external, permanent board is necessary since “you need a village where everyone looks at each other as a peer, not as rulers,” and annual rotation leads to inconsistencies in fundraising and planning (see Home Petite Home). Another challenge for Dignity is that it was intended to serve as a temporary living situation, but some residents have remained for years. As part of Portland’s extended contract with the Village in 2012, a two year time limit was imposed for residents (see Portland’s Dignity Village: Thirteen Years Later). According to a focus group from the Partnership for Strong Communities, some residents of transitional living programs view limitations as a stressful chance for their lives to fall back into housing instability (see Barriers to Ending Homelessness: From Those Experiencing It). Thus, longer-term Dignity Village Residents anxiously wait to see if the limitation will be enforced.

As organizations in other cities such as Austin, TX, Eugene, OR, and Madison, WI begin developing their own tiny house villages, several important questions must be addressed. Where is zoning flexible enough for a village? Should there be restrictions on the people allowed to live there (non-felons and non-addicts, for example) and the length of time they are allowed to stay? What sorts of services should be provided (social workers and mental health services) and what sort of governance should manage the community? Thoughtful answers to these questions will provide one aspect of the multi-faceted approach to ending homelessness in our nation. 

Guest Blogger: Sunny Soward

Tiny and Micro Houses--Guest Blog by Meredith Blake

The Art of Finding Hidden Spaces: Smaller Ways to Live

 

The idea of owning a big house has never crossed my mind. Truth is, I hate big houses. It is not just the overbearing mortgages that I detest, but how I feel in large homes. I never felt 100% comfortable in large homes and I think it is largely because there is just too much empty space. So as a young child, I always dreamt of owning a small, cozy house that provided a place of refuge, one that I could call home. My desire to own smaller house grew when I began to learn more about tiny homes that are space efficient. However, this blog post is not about tiny homes but on micro-apartments in high density areas that can potentially be an affordable housing option to the public.

Sarah Susanka’s Not So Big House emphasizes that the feeling of “Home” has almost nothing to do with size but how efficiently space is used. Space is not just limited to how big or small the apartments are but how the community uses their communal space. Therefore, I wanted to take a deeper look into micro- apartments in high density areas, such as Tokyo, Japan and see how creative design can challenge the traditional use of space so that every available space counts for something. The two examples below best highlights how challenging the traditional perspectives on space can create valuable property assets.  

Apartment 1 in Tokyo, Japan

Apartment 1 is located in the heart of Tokyo and is a 5 unit apartment (25 sqm each) that are layered on top of each other on a 48 sqm property. The primary challenge for Kumiko Inui, the architect, was to use space as efficiently as possible while giving each unit a unique design. She accomplishes this by minimizing the area for the stairs and the hallways and alternating the position of the core by moving the stairs. Although this apartment is very small compared to the average size apartments in Japan (72 sqm), the floor to ceiling windows that allows natural light and great view of the city makes up for the lack of physical space.

 

This project makes us reevaluate the value of small plots of lands within cities that are often overlooked when planning for new development. Detailed photos can be viewed here.

Maid’s Room Renovation Project in Paris, France

Designers at Kitoko Studio turned a rundown, old-fashioned “maid’s room” into an 8 sqm apartment that is  highly compact and functional. Maid rooms, as they lost their original purpose over time, transitioned into becoming attics or extra storage area. However as housing prices within cities continue to skyrocket, these neglected or forgotten spaces are becoming additional property assets.

The design can be best described as a ”Swiss Army” concept, because the apartment holds multiple tools such as sliding drawers and shelves, tables and chairs, and hidden twin size bed and storage areas. What I find impressive in this design is that even in an 8 sqm area, the apartment has a tiny kitchen with a refrigerator, sink, removable stovetop, and microwave. Behind a hidden door, there is a bathroom that contains a toilet, shower, and bathroom sink.

Detailed photos of this simple apartment can be viewed here.

 I do not think that apartments in high density areas need to be this compact, but I just wanted to give  examples of an apartment that cleverly uses unexpected, tiny space available to create a home that is charming and livable.

 Guest Blogger

Sujin Hong

A Step toward Denser Housing in NYC

“If you can afford to live here, then everything else becomes possible.”

-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, State of the City 2015 

 New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has set an ambitious $41.4-billion goal of creating 200,000 affordable housing units within ten years. To start his second year in office, he outlined a three-point proposal that changes current zoning laws, allows for taller structures, and removes parking requirements for affordable and senior housing developments. The main beneficiaries of these changes would be the residents of new affordable units placed within a half-mile of mass transit stops, an area that covers most of the city. The proposal also allows current affordable senior housing developments to modify their parking situation and incorporate new uses for the land.

In the face of rising prices and a senior-aged population expected to increase 40% by 2040, affordable senior housing projects are an important focus of de Blasio’s attempt to help long-time residents stay in their neighborhoods. Current restrictions on building uses are being reconsidered, as the needs of aging residents change. A prime example is the prohibition on maintaining assisted living facilities and nursing homes in the same building, but de Blasio’s plan would change this, likely making mixed-use buildings more common. The added height allowances would also help create more interesting and functional buildings that reflect the brownstone developments of the past, not the boxy, low-ceilinged apartments that originate from a 1987 zoning law. While not changing the floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, the new proposals will enable developers to reach the maximum FAR possible, which can’t always occur under current regulations.

 Minimum parking requirements also effectively restrict developments from being as dense as possible and can help contribute to the high price of real estate in a place like New York. Renowned UCLA professor Donald Shoup and his supporters (termed “Shoupistas”) strongly argue for the repeal of minimum parking requirements claiming they ultimately do more harm than good. The creation of infill development on small lots or the adaptive reuse of older buildings is hindered by the zoning requirements for parking spaces that simply can’t fit. He believes part of the problem comes from the fact that parking is often free and that public officials create excessive parking requirements, effectively encouraging reliance on automobiles. Removing these restrictions in a heavily transit-oriented environment that includes large swaths of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, makes sense and can provide valuable benefits.

 A spokesman for the mayor is optimistic saying, “This will ultimately fix a lot of problems that have held back affordable housing and made it more costly to build.” If all goes according to plan, the public land-use review process will be completed by fall 2015, and these changes could add hundreds of additional units to the market, making a small but needed step toward denser developments in the supply of affordable and senior housing.

Guest Blogger--Daniel Newman

 

Sources

 Hutchins, R. (2015, February 20). City: Allow for taller buildings, reduce parking requirements. Capital. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

Jorgensen, J. (2015, February 3). Bill de Blasio Pitches His Affordable Housing Plan in State of the City Address. Observer. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

Kusisto, L. (2015, February 20). New York City Pushes New Design Approach For Affordable Housing Units. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

 New York City Planning. (2015, February 1). Housing New York: Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability. Retrieved February 24, 2015, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zoning-qa/presentation_0215.pdf

Shoup, D. (2005). The high cost of free parking. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

 Yglesias, M. (2015, February 21). Bill DeBlasio has a new plan that could put a dent in NYC's housing crisis. Vox. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

 

 

 

The Challenge of Affordable Rental Housing

Over half of all renters, or more than 21 million households, budgets are constrained by their housing expenses -- with more than 30% of income going towards housing according to a study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. National Low Income Housing Coalition reports there are only 30 affordable rental units available for every 100 extremely low-income renters, and just 57 affordable and available rental units for every 100 very low-income households. America’s cities are growing more and more unequal, exacerbating the problem.

 

What are the barriers to the production of more affordable housing? The biggest challenge in meeting America’s affordable housing needs in my view stems from a market failure / policy failure. In other words, the housing market on its own accord will not produce enough affordable housing to meet demand and public policies are not stepping up to address the shortfall.

 

The crux of the problem is the challenge in financing both the existing affordable housing stock and new construction. Why does the private sector not support affordable housing? Developers, banks, and real estate owners are necessarily concerned with profit. Affordable rents do not support the necessary debt developers must incur to create a new project, bankers are concerned about the riskiness of the loan, and owners are worried about lack of profits.

 

Besides these challenges, affordable housing projects / developers must also compete for suitable sites that for-profit developers are seeking. The result is land that often cannot be acquired or is too expensive.

 

Government has tried to address these challenges with limited success. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 established America’s public housing program. However, government’s role in housing has been under attack from business interests since.

 

When many people think about government involvement in housing, failed public housing projects such as Pruitt-Igoehousing project in St. Louis, which was destroyed just 15 years after its construction. Pruitt-Igoe and other projects like it are used as examples as why the government should not be involved in housing.

 

Public Housing projects like Pruitt-Igoe represent a design failure, but today decent affordable housing is a failure of sufficient resources. For example, according to HUD analysis the nearly 1.2 million public housing units in the United States require over $26 billion in capital repairs.

 

Instead of looking at ways to overcome past housing mistakes, critics of public support for housing as used policy failures as a way to disinvest in affordable housing. For example, urban historian Roger Biles’s book, The Fate of Cities, tells how the Nixon and Regan administrations ushered in an era of New Federalism, by underfunding and privatizing affordable housing resources in response to the race riots and urban crisis of the 1960s. The trend of underfunding America’s most needy urban neighborhoods continues today.

 

How does affordable housing get built and is there hope for the future? Because of the financing challenge and limited governmental resources, affordable housing projects typically forced to cobble together a variety of funding sources. For a glimpse at what a funding package usually looks like, see the table below.

 

Low Income Housing Tax Credits	$10 million
HOME Grant	$500,000
Community Block Grant	$100,000
Federal Home Loan Bank Grant	$100,000
Loan	$2 million

 

An alternative and more promising way of developing affordable housing is by incorporating mixed uses. This allows for developers, banks, and owners to achieve the necessary profit required in order for the development to make fiscal sense. Mixed uses allows for a variety of different income levels to support the project.

 

According to research by Vanderbilt professors mixed income-housing benefits the poor in a variety of ways. It improves both the safety and well being low-income residents. Likewise, it positions low-income residents for a path towards upward mobility and long-term employment when additional social services are provided in combination with mix-income housing.

 

The Urban Land Institute’s Terwilliger Center for Housing awards the nations best affordable housing project each year. This year, and for the past several years, winners have incorporated not only mixed-income footprints – but innovative design. In addition, recent winners have also successfully utilized private-public partnerships.

 

The state of affordable housing in America requires immediate attention. Both the private and public sector must find new ways to collaborate together. Since the Johnson administration, Federal housing policies have been mired in the dysfunction of Washington politics, which has prevented top down solutions from being successful. Instead, as Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley point out in their book, Metropolitan Revolution, the future of urban America is its mayors. Cities and regions must work together to implement effective solutions to the affordable housing crisis such as good design, public-private partnerships, and mixed-income / mixed-use developments. The Terwilliger Center awards and a number of other projects show it is possible!

Guest Blogger

Malcolm McGregor