Concerned Santa Clara

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:

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.

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 »

Part four of my response to Fairfield Residential’s attempt to hide behind the Urban Land Institute’s report on higher-density development. [see Part 1] or [see Part 2] or [see Part 3]

Claim 6: Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community.

ULI’s Opinion: Attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained higher-density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities.

Actually, attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained developments attract good residents and tenants regardless of the density, but only if they fit into the existing community.  The fit determines the critique, not the other way around.  There are plenty of beautiful-looking real estate disasters; ask any real-estate agent.  Attractive and clean may get you a first look, but the neighborhood closes the deal.  Again, ask any real-estate agent.

An Example ULI gives: Post Riverside in Atlanta, Georgia.

“Atlanta is often called the poster child for suburban sprawl. However, it is also the home of Post Riverside, a revolutionary new mixed-use pedestrian-oriented community developed by [a developer] and located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River between Atlanta’s bustling Buckhead and Vinings communities. As is the trend nationally, 65 percent of all vehicle trips in Atlanta are to run errands, not to commute to work. With offices, shops, and restaurants within walking distance of the apartments, Post Riverside residents depend on autos much less than their neighbors in lower-density areas. In addition, the community is connected to Atlanta’s MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system. This award-winning 85-acre mixed-use development includes 25,000 square feet of retail space, 225,000 square feet of office space, and 535 apartments, all designed around a gracious town square. For many people, this amenity-rich, low-maintenance lifestyle better suits their needs than a traditional single-family home in a low-density neighborhood.”

The common theme of access to municipal public transit and mixed-use development continues.  Fairfield Residential has to understand that what makes a neighborhood attractive goes beyond colors and roof styles: it is affected greatly by convenience, access, and residential planning.  In this project, they have 85 acres and only 535 apartments along with over 250,000 square feet (about 6 acres) of retail and commercial office space.  Even if you make the assumption that half of the remaining space is dedicated to the town square, the density never goes above 15 units per acre.  Offices, shops, and restaurants within walking distance, connection to Atlanta’s MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system complete the deal.

Another Example ULI gives: The Plaza at the Arboretum in Santa Monica, California.

“This award-winning mixed-use project in Santa Monica, California .. achieves a density of 97.5 dwelling units per acre. The attractive seven-story building includes 10,000 square feet of retail space and 350 apartment units ranging from 612 to 1,555 square feet. The architecture firm .. used strong geometric forms to create a playful architectural character that fits nicely in the avant-garde Hollywood studio section of Santa Monica. The development includes a swimming pool, spa, fitness center, and clubhouse.”

Finally, a development that sounds in scope like something Fairfield Residential is proposing.  But with 10,000 square feet of retail space.  And in between Olympic Blvd and Colorado Blvd in Santa Monica, near the 10 freeway and the Santa Monica pier, walking distance to hundreds of shops and restaurants, including the 3rd Street Promenade and Santa Monica Place.  I’ve never been to the development itself, but looking at the maps, I know the area very well having lived nearby for over 20 years and having walked the length of Olympic, well past the complex.  All of the apartments are pretty high-density, so the Plaza could fit right in; it probably isn’t even the densest development in the area.  But Fairfield Residential will have a hard time convincing our residents that their project will come close to the convenience, walkable neighborhood, and upscale environment the Santa Monica beach community provides.  Residents who want that lifestyle can live that lifestyle.  As for me and many of the residents that I have talked with, we left that behind to come to Santa Clara.

Claim 7: No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development.

ULI’s Opinion: Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher-density housing, even in suburban locations.

Our population is more diverse, but we will always have families with children.  Now how the neighborhood is designed will affect the kind of people the neighborhood will attract.  If “people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s” who are “seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle” want to “live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience”, let them go to Rivermark or other planned communities.  Santa Clara Planning Department and Fairfield Residential: don’t try to sell our neighborhoods out to your plans and schemes by shoving business decisions down our throats.  Put the vibrant life-stylers where they want to be, but listen to the residents who already live in this charming neighborhood near 900 Kiely Blvd.  If you want steak, go to a steakhouse, but leave the vegetarian restaurants as they are.

An Example ULI gives: King Farm in Rockville, Maryland.

“This 430-acre community is characterized by the historic architecture of the region but offers an assortment of modern conveniences as well. .. King Farm is located in Rockville, Maryland, five miles from the Washington, D.C., beltway, 15 miles from downtown D.C., and walking distance from the Shady Grove Metro station. The neighborhood was designed for pedestrians, but the King Farm shuttle makes getting around even easier. The shuttle runs a complimentary route between the King Farm Village Center, the Metro station, and the Irvington Center, a 90-acre commercial complex next to the Metro. In addition, two types of public bus service are available at King Farm. At the Village Center, 120,000 square feet of retail space is within walking distance from both residential and commercial development. The center also includes 47 loft apartments and a one-acre village green. Watkins Pond and Baileys Common are King Farm’s two residential villages. They offer single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, and luxury apartments intertwined with natural areas. The center of Watkins Pond is a 12-acre city park with tennis and basketball courts, a soccer and softball field, two playgrounds, several picnic areas, benches, and paths.”

More of the same.  Walkable community, access to public transit, open areas for residents, much fewer houses.

Another Example ULI gives: Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga, California.

“The city of Rancho Cucamonga, located roughly 60 miles east of Los Angeles in California’s Inland Empire, has a rich agricultural history and, more recently, a history of low-density sprawl with no real city center. This situation is changing, however, with the opening of the first phases of a huge new mixed-use development known as Victoria Gardens. The development .. will create a vibrant higher-density downtown where none previously existed. Rapidly growing Rancho Cucamonga has been traditionally underserved by restaurants and entertainment options. The long-awaited addition of a ‘place’ in the city has been well received by residents. The 147-acre development will eventually contain 1.3 million square feet of commercial and community space, including retail, entertainment, office, and civic uses with a cultural center and a library. Twenty acres of housing on site will allow people to live within walking distance of all the amenities of Rancho Cucamonga’s new downtown.”

1.3 million square feet equals about 30 acres of commercial and community space versus 20 acres of housing on 147 acres of land.  They are building a community, not just adding people.

Claim 8: Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households.

ULI’s Opinion: People of all income groups choose higher-density housing.

In Silicon Valley, people choose what they can afford.  In densely populated cities, people try to afford what they can get.  People in New York, Hong Kong, and London would laugh at ULI’s histrionics.

An Example ULI gives: Rollins Square in Boston, Massachussetts.

“Rollins Square, a mixed-use development in Boston’s South End, is a truly mixed-income community that provides housing for a wide spectrum of people in all income brackets. Twenty percent of the overall units are reserved for people whose income is 30 to 60 percent of the Boston area median income (AMI), 40 percent are for-sale condominiums reserved for working households with incomes 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, and the remaining 40 percent are market-rate units selling for up to $750,000. The residences occupy two city blocks and integrate seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. The varying heights and diverse exterior materials give the appearance that the development was constructed over time. ..”

More of the same.

Another Example ULI gives: I’On in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

“I’On is a 244-acre master-planned community along the deep-water marshes of Hobcraw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Just six miles east of Charleston, the community features 700 single-family homes, community facilities, and a small-scale commercial area. [They are] developing six residential neighborhoods connected by narrow streets, pedestrian corridors, and community spaces. .. The architecture is inspired by classic Lowcountry style with large balconies, deep front porches, and tall windows on even taller homes. Homes now sell for $685,000 to $1.7 million. Community facilities include I’On Square, I’On Club, the Creek Club, and the Mount Pleasant Amphitheater. Residents also enjoy easy access to the Cooper and Wando rivers, the Charleston harbor, and the Atlantic Ocean. One neighborhood boat ramp and four community docks are available for crabbing and fishing. Two miles of walking trails are available for residents; a five-acre pond, the Rookery, is a protected nesting site for wading birds. In addition, the public and private schools in Mount Pleasant are some of the best in the area.”

Even more of the same.

No Comments »

Part three of my response to Fairfield Residential’s attempt to hide behind the Urban Land Institute’s report on higher-density development. [see Part 1] or [see Part 2]

Claim 4: Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates.

ULI’s Opinion: The crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different from those at lower-density developments.

ULI then goes on to cite studies in Irving, Texas and Anchorage, Alaska while ignoring statistics from San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose — the three “cities” in our area, all ranked in the top 50 U.S. cites by both size and crime rate — not to mention Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Houston and others. Anchorage shows up just outside of the top 50 in size; coincidentally enough, it is also just outside of the top 50 cities in terms of crime. Irving, Texas doesn’t show up in the top 100 for size, and is not even on the list for cities ranked by crime, which only goes to the 70s on the list I checked. Be positive, but be realistic and relevant as well.

An Example ULI gives: Westminster Place in St. Louis, Missouri.

“Although today Westminster Place is a thriving, safe community in midtown St. Louis, it was not always the case. The area, approximately 90 acres, was well known by the St. Louis police department for its high rate of violent crime, which led to the area’s becoming blighted. .. a St. Louis-based developer .. brought the community back through the addition of higher-density mixed-income housing comprising affordable and market-rate units. The master plan included for-sale and rental housing, garden apartments, townhouses, single-family homes, and even an assisted living facility for seniors. A new community pool, a bustling retail center, and a magnet school are included as well. The new plan slowed traffic through the community, added landscaping and street and parking lot lighting, and new ‘eyes on the street,’ making it more difficult for criminals to go unnoticed. The area blossomed into a place where people once again feel safe walking. The success of the community spurred the revitalization of surrounding areas.”

Again, they built a community, not just a business plan. If you read more about the history of the area, the project was not done by the developer alone, but had a city-wide and state-wide push behind it. Our neighborhood seems to be one that falls between cracks: enough crime to annoy and frighten residents, but not enough for the city to take decisive action. We certainly don’t want it to get worse. One way that we can try to ensure this is to bring in residents that have more “skin” in their community. While it is true that not all renters are oblivious to their surroundings, it is certainly more true when compared with home owners. The longer you know your neighbors, the better you can defend against crime and other unusual happenings. The better you know your neighbors, the stronger the community becomes. The more growth possibilities and control you have in where you live, the longer you tend to stay. I don’t think this is as true with single-bedroom, 600 square-foot units, which describe over 50% of Fairfield Residential’s apartment offerings.

Another Example ULI gives: East Village in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“East Village is a small urban revitalization project on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Before the project was built, the neglected 2.9-acre site contained several deteriorating rental homes, old commercial buildings, and abandoned surface parking lots. The neighborhood wanted to improve the area and the image of one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, Elliot Park. The developers of the project .. developed the new mixed-income housing and commercial community to encourage a sense of community and ownership. East Village now features community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses. Buildings surround the greenway that leads to Elliot Park, a city park with year-round activities and a community center. Brick, bay windows, and French balconies complement historic buildings in the area. In addition, all buildings have multiple entrances to encourage interaction among neighbors. An underground 350-space parking garage frees up space for landscaped areas. This once neglected area has won two awards for innovation and design and become an exceedingly successful vibrant and safe community.”

Again, this was a “revitalization project”, not just a high-density apartment proposal. They added community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses, not just higher-density units. The took old homes and made new ones. They took old commercial buildings and made new ones. They took abandoned parking lots and made a new one, and they put it underground to free up space for landscaping. They didn’t change the nature of the area, they revitalized it. Fairfield Residential is taking an institutional space which didn’t affect our library, park, grocery stores, and commutes as negatively and provided a benefit for local restaurants and shops, and is replacing it with more people. Fairfield Residential tells us to look at their pretty pictures and ignore the effects. ULI provides yet another great project example, but it does not in any way relate to Fairfield Residential’s.

Claim 5: Higher density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development.

ULI’s Opinion: Lower-density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land.

Again, ULI takes a possibility and generalizes it as a rule. What’s more amusing is their first “profile”:

An Example ULI gives: Prairie Crossing in Grayslake, Illinois.

“The developers of Prairie Crossing .. saved $1 million in infrastructure costs through environmentally sensitive design. The 677-acre conservation community is located in Grayslake, Illinois, 40 miles northwest of Chicago and one hour south of Milwaukee. The community features 350 acres of open space, including 160 acres of restored prairie, 158 acres of active farmland, 13 acres of wetlands, a 22-acre lake, a village green, and several neighborhood parks. Houses are sited to protect natural features such as hedgerows, native habitat, and wetlands. Designed with colors and architecture inspired by the landscape, every home has a view of open space and direct access to ten miles of on-site walking and biking trails. Wide sidewalks, deep front porches, and rear garages encourage neighbors to meet. The homes were built with U.S. Department of Energy-approved green building techniques. As a result, they are 50 percent more energy efficient than other homes in the Chicago area, and they sell for a 33 percent sales premium. Station Village is the last phase of Prairie Crossing. When complete, it will include residential, retail, and office space, all within walking distance of two commuter train stations. Residents can ride Metra’s North Line to Chicago’s Union Station or the Central Line to downtown Chicago and O’Hare Airport.”

It is ludicrous that Fairfield Residential would even try to compare their project with the one described above. ULI probably meant this as an exemplar, but it seems in bad taste to use this in defense of a general statement — it makes their argument seem more like an outright trick. The theme of on-site amenities and easy access to transit does not go unnoticed.

Another Example ULI gives: The Preserve in Hoover, Alabama.

“USS Real Estate originally held a 550-acre tract of land in Hoover, Alabama, but sold 250 acres to the city, intending to create the Moss Rock Nature Preserve. The 680 single-family homes, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office space are concentrated on the remaining 311-acre site. Before development of the Preserve, Hoover was characterized by sprawling conventional development and lacked a town center. The Preserve’s future town center is planned to include 34 live/work units, 14 retail units, and two restaurants: at the heart of the community is the village green, an impressive eight-acre park with a town hall, a fitness center, a junior olympic swimming pool, and a kiddie pool. Residents have access to 15 acres of parks and seven miles of trails that connect to award-winning Hoover schools and the newly created Moss Rock preserve.”

Wow, I would love to live there. But it’s not 900 Kiely Blvd, and Fairfield Residential would have a hard time drawing parallels it could stand behind. It is again disappointing to see ULI’s example when they are trying to defend higher-density development. “Higher-density than what” is the obvious comment. 680 single-family homes, even with 100,000 square feet of retail and commercial office space, looks mighty small on 311 acres. The fact that over 40% of the originally available land was set aside for a nature preserve does speak volumes for the original owner USS Real Estate; if they provided medical services too, Kaiser Permanente would be out in more ways than one.

No Comments »

Part two of my response to Fairfield Residential’s attempt to hide behind the Urban Land Institute’s report on higher-density development. [see Part 1]

Claim 2: Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas.

ULI’s Opinion: No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher-density development can increase property values.

And some research would show that higher-density development can decrease property values. A possibility is not a fact, nor should it be for this type of claim. There is a whole world beyond “yes” and “no”. Instead, the answer should depend upon the situation.

An Example ULI gives: Haile Plantation in Gainesville, Florida.

“Haile Plantation is a Gainesville, Florida, icon. Although it is denser than surrounding communities, the values of homes in Haile Plantation are often higher than the values of houses in neighboring lower-density communities, because the traditional neighborhood design employed there makes Haile Plantation more desirable and valuable. Beginning with the master plan in 1979, Haile Plantation has been called one of the first new urbanist communities in the country. Developers .. in conjunction with the Haile Plantation Corporation developed the 1,700-acre site to include more than 2,700 units, ranging from single-family homes to townhouses and garden apartments. The sense of community has only grown with the expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices.”

1,700 acres with 2,700 units — that works out to about 1.6 units per acre. What was the original density? Perhaps it was not just the density that spurred public interest, but the “expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices.” That seems to be largely absent from Fairfield Residential’s proposal and thought processes. It seems largely improbable for the 900 Kiely Blvd area. To be fair, I would gladly agree to a 1.6 unit per acre project with a town center and other amenities. Triple the density to 5.4 units per acre — I think I could cope with the effect on my property value. But put the amenities in too. Even if you don’t give me access, Fairfield Residential.

Another Example ULI gives: Echelon at Lakeside in Plano, Texas.

“Echelon at Lakeside is the only multifamily development in an upscale, master-planned single-family suburban neighborhood of Lakeside on Preston in Plano, Texas a suburb of Dallas. Florida-based developers .. overcame initial community opposition from area residents through high-quality innovative design. The award-winning architecture blends seamlessly with the surrounding neighborhood’s traditional style. Larger-than-normal floor plans, individual entries, and attached garages combine to mirror the grand estates in the surrounding communities. Although street elevations make the buildings appear to be one single-family home, they actually house several multifamily units. Memphis-based architects .. used five building types and three building styles. All units include high-quality interior finishes; community amenities include a resort-style pool, fitness facility, clubroom, business and conference center, and full-time concierge.”

That must have been nice when it was new. Now that they have been around for a while, and changed their name to Heritage (perhaps after the developer sold it off to another company?), they garner a less-than 50% average recommendation rating with plenty of complaints . All things get older. It’s not how a development looks when it is new that we should consider, but how it will be in the long term. You can be attracted by looks, but after 20 years there had better be something more. And substantial. Fairfield Residential doesn’t seem to have anything positive other than the shape of their roofs and the undulations of their homefronts. Oh, and pretty colors. But pity that it doesn’t “blend seamlessly”.

Claim 3: Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development.

ULI’s Opinion: Higher-density development creates less traffic than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking.

This is true if and only if the public transit and walkable communities exist in the first place. [Update: I recently wrote a post about this as well.] I know few companies that would be within walking distance for the majority of the renters Fairfield Residential is trying to entice. Getting there by public transit isn’t much better. To those who doubt: try it. Do it for a week until you get used to it.

An Example ULI gives: Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas.

“The residents of Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas, are far less dependent on their cars, because they have a whole host of amenities at their doorstep. Dallas developer .. partnered with Denver-based .. Group to create the ten-acre pedestrian-oriented urban village, which includes 216 loft apartments, an eight-screen film center and café, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking, all directly linked to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light-rail system. Mockingbird Station provides direct platform access to DART trains, which offer residents an eight-minute commute to Dallas’s central business district and a single train connection to the Dallas Convention Center, Reunion Arena, and other downtown entertainment. The new village is also immediately adjacent to the campus of Southern Methodist University and within walking distance of the university’s new stadium and sports center. RTKL created architecture reminiscent of historic train stations but with a modern twist to the materials and detailing. Although only limited driving is necessary, a parking garage is provided but placed out of sight and underground. The myriad materials, architectural styles, and amenities create a vibrant transit-oriented community.”

The difference is that 900 Kiely is not a “vibrant transit-oriented community”, and Fairfield Residential’s proposal will in no way make it one. And before they tell you that they will, remember that they hold no power or authority — or even business desire — to make those kinds of promises. I will suspect that DART existed even before the Dallas project was planned. I will also suggest that a “ten-acre pedestrian-oriented urban village, which includes 216 loft apartments, an eight-screen film center and café, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking” sounds more like a community than Fairfield Residential’s “~550 high-density apartments, ~220 attached town homes, ~50 single-family homes, and nothing else” proposal. And Dallas did it with less density: 216 apartments on 10 acres is only 22 units per acre.

Another Example ULI gives: Southwest Station in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“The Southwest Metro Transit Commission is a small suburban bus system near Minneapolis that serves downtown Minneapolis and numerous other employment and recreation centers, including Minnesota Twins baseball games. The American Public Transportation Association calls it the ‘best small system in the country.’ In an effort to capitalize and expand on the success of the system, the commission has encouraged transit-oriented development at its bus stops. In Eden Prairie, Minnesota, the commission completed a bus depot and five-story parking garage on 22 acres of excess right-of-way. In 2001, it started selling land around the transit complex for retail and residential development. Restaurants, shops, and more than 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses soon followed. The new development generated revenue for the commission, new public transit riders, affordable convenient housing, and a suburban lifestyle with the amenities usually afforded only to city dwellers.”

Again, this development was built around the transportation. They added restaurants and shops on 22 acres, but only 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. It was providing city amenities for a suburban community. There really isn’t much more to add.

No Comments »

[Update: I had originally written this article with publishing it, but based on the FEIR for the Marina Playa project, Planning Commission notes from 23 April 2008, discussions with residents from both Santa Clara and Sunnyvale, and the City Council meeting on 6 May 2008, it is now available publicly. To make it easier for the blog, I will only post one or two “Myths and Facts” per day.]

Fairfield Residential has again raised the banner of the Urban Land Institute, giving us copies of the document that they displayed prominently on their propaganda posters back on 15 November 2007. So I read it. Again. I read it for the first time back in November. Unlike some, I do take the time to obtain, read, and consider suggested material.

The paper is titled Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact and was written ostensibly for the purpose of educating people about the benefits of higher-density, mixed-use communities: “New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl.” (page 5) The reality is that it is a one-sided monologue: “This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher-density development and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face.” (also page 5) Well put. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The disagreements come not from the purported benefits of higher-density developments, but the arguments and examples used to support those claims. The fact that Fairfield Residential is drawing parallels with their high-density apartment project without noting any of the differences is, again, insulting. Just because higher-density projects somewhere have been shown to be beneficial does not mean that your project will be beneficial, no more than I am Socrates.

The complaint of the residents is not high-density in and of itself, but the effects of an additional 800+ units, 2000+ people, and 1700+ cars in apartment complexes two to four times the height of the surrounding homes in a neighborhood that is already saturated. Unfortunately, our issues of the existing problems with commute traffic, library parking, senior center access, grocery store overcrowding, post office traffic, saturated park facilities, and increased crime have gone completely ignored. I almost wrote “largely ignored”, but, looking back at my notes, there are no concessions or actions from Fairfield Residential regarding any of those issues.

In fact, looking back at the plans they showed us in November 2007, the project looks almost identical from the density and massing point of view. The layout has changed a bit, and they have dropped from 812 to 806 units, but the project from a high level looks pretty much the same.

But back to the paper. I will not use the terms “Myth” and “Fact” as the paper does, because in all cases the terms can be switched if you pick the right examples. Because of the paper’s requirement for the “right” examples to prove its points, we can clearly put this in the realm of propaganda and not canon. I will instead use “Claim” and “ULI’s Opinion”.

Claim 1: Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and required more infrastructure support systems.

ULI’s Opinion: The nature of who lives in higher-density housing — fewer families with children — puts less demand on schools and other public services than low-density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it.

They go on to claim that the types of people higher-density development attracts are predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. I don’t know if that is exactly true of single-bedroom apartments in heart of Silicon Valley, but we are collecting more data. Fairfield is proposing that fewer people will have children that go to schools in an area that is literally surrounded by four schools within two city blocks? In an area where other communities, like the Enclave, tout schools as one of the major draws?

Example ULI gives: The Market Common in Clarendon, Virginia.

“Located within walking distance of the Orange Line of Washington’s extensive subway system, residents can leave their cars parked while they take public transit to work. They can also walk to a Whole Foods grocery store adjacent to the highly successful development. Prominent national retailers occupy the ground level of the building, and structured parking is provided. The compact development form of the Market Common promotes walking, biking, and using public transit over autos. The apartments are attractive to young professionals without children, lessening the impact on the county’s school system.”

This doesn’t sound like 900 Kiely Blvd in any way. In an area where I can hop on my local transit, an extensive subway system? If you look at the picture in the article, the neighborhood is more of a promenade, not just a high-density apartment complex where even the swimming pools get little sun. I don’t know that as a neighbor I would ever feel jealous of Fairfield Residential’s fantastic walkways and extensive, 7-acre open areas.

Another example ULI gives: Highlands’ Garden Village in Denver, Colorado.

“Built on the site of the Elitch Gardens amusement park in Denver, Highlands’ Garden Village is a walkable, transit-linked community and a financially viable model for environmentally responsible infill development. New York-based developer .. developed single-family homes, townhouses, seniors’ and multifamily apartments, co-housing, offices, and retail space on the site. At the center, a historic theater and carousel from the original amusement park are being transformed into a community performing arts center and a walking labyrinth. Berkeley, California-based [developer] designed a plan that put new homes on three sides of a square-shaped village and a commercial ‘main street’ on the fourth. Restaurants, studios, and shops line the street with live/work townhouses and offices above, giving residents the opportunity to live, work, and shop in the same community. The proximity of amenities, location near downtown, and convenience of public bus lines encourage people to walk and reduce travel costs.”

Again, how does this sound like Fairfield Residential’s proposal? It doesn’t even sound like an argument related to the Claim. And it isn’t. It is more marketing directed at pushing ULI’s viewpoint, and it has nothing to do with Fairfield Residential’s project. Schools are a major draw for our area. It seems unlikely that people will ignore that fact. Rather than try to shut down our schools in the long-term, we should be attracting families with children, and in the right numbers.

No Comments »