Fairfield Residential gave us nicely printed copies of the Urban Land Institute’s propaganda on Higher-Density Development, but for what reason? With the hopes that the information contained therein would convince us to drop our objections to their project? And accept their beautifully architected designs? Because their high-density plan is comparable — if not better — than any of the profiles ULI provided?

After reading the document cover-to-cover a second time and looking up information provided in the notes and from other sources, it seems to make their proposal appear even worse. Consider the stats:

Project Name Fairfield Residential
Acreage 26 acres
# Units 806
Units/Acre 31
Retail Space 0
Commercial Offices 0
Public Community Center
/ Downtown access		 No
Promenade No
Light Rail Access No
Train Access No

It provides no amenities, makes existing problems worse, has density higher than that of surrounding areas, and clearly does not have residential support. There must be some way to enable Fairfield Residential to see this. Instead of proposing the same project over and over again with different colored paint, or different roofs, Fairfield Residential should discuss the other problems with their plan with the people who will have to live alongside it, not just the one, or so, individuals willing to advise in secretive meetings for personal gain. Hold public meetings and public forums. They haven’t learned the first rule of congress: don’t lose the support of people who like you, but spend time with the people who oppose you. Understand why they feel the way they feel, even you don’t agree.

We’re learning quite a bit from other projects: the plans, the responses, the process, the politics… and the alternatives. Looking at ULI’s profiled communities, it is clear: It’s About Quality of Life, Not Just Quality of Construction.

Table under construction

Critical questions for Fairfield Residential — and for the City of Santa Clara:

  • How can we redevelop existing neighborhoods and business districts to improve the quality of life?
  • How can we create more choices in housing, accommodating diverse lifestyles and all income levels?
  • How can we reduce traffic congestion yet stay connected?
  • How can we include citizens in planning their communities rather than limiting input to only those affected by the next project?
  • How can we fund schools, bridges, roads, and clean water while meeting short-term costs of increased security?

These are all questions directly from the ULI website. It’s funny how the people who use ULI’s arguments do not also take ULI’s advice. But do more than have boilerplate answers. Explain how they can apply, don’t just tell us that they do.

“Although a well-designed higher-density community offers residents a higher quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite.”

This statement could easily be written another way, except that they use the word “sprawl”, which already has intended negative connotations. How about this:

“Well-designed communities offer residents a higher quality environment, poorly planned projects do the opposite.”

Density is independent of that statement.

In every case, common themes:

  • vibrant, walkable communities
  • mixed-use development with retail, office, and apartments
  • easy access to public transit

It is not clear that the key to these themes is density. It sounds like density is the problem, and these help solve it.

I’ve got to hand it to the Urban Land Institute. If I ever become a real-estate developer or somehow revert to my days of being an up-and-coming youthful urbanite, I will know exactly who I want to talk to. As it is, I am just a teacher living in a small town — a Mission City, no less — whose height of fame may be in becoming kept by a sports team, from another city, that won’t even carry our name.

No Comments »