Science: Make Cities Less Car-Dependent | Dangers of Inclusionary Housing

Here's a recent City Observatory post in favor of density, and with numbers from the failure of inclusionary zoning in Seattle.

From City Observatory, April 26, 2024.

Scientific American has a bold editorial eschewing the usual "technical fix" ideas for solving climate change and arguing that a linchpin of climate policy has to be making cities more livable, walkable, and bikeable.??

This opinion piece nicely connects transportation and land use, calling for fundamental changes in how we travel and building communities that enable less car dependence.

We could eliminate free parking. We could set up congestion pricing in dense city centers, as?New York City plans to do, and use the proceeds to fund public transit alternatives. And we can add more bike lanes and open streets, which are cheaper to put in place and provide immediate benefits.

In much of the U.S., it is still illegal to build anything denser than?single-family homes, and housing often has?minimum parking requirements?that take up valuable real estate. If we encourage cities to build duplexes, triplexes and apartment buildings, especially near transit hubs, fewer people will need cars.

Car dependence is deeply rooted in policies and institutions and so pervasive that it blinds many of us to the opportunities to rethink the way we live rather than tweak technology to avoid deeper and more lasting change.

A warning about the effects of "inclusionary" housing requirements, Seattle edition.?Seattle is considering a significant revision of its comprehensive plan, and Sightline's Dan Bertolet has some keen analysis and sage advice, focusing mostly on how to expand housing supply:? getting rid of parking requirements, allowing more apartments in more places, and promoting "middle housing" are all keys.? And when it comes to middle housing, Bertolet has an important warning:? don't burden small-scale, price-sensitive housing with inclusionary requirements.

Seattle has imposed a "Mandatory Housing Affordability" (MHA) requirement on new multi-family housing in many city neighborhoods for several years.? In effect, MHA functions as a tax on new apartment construction (either by requiring below-market rents on some units or an alternative cash payment to the city).? The negative effect on new construction is clearly shown from data about Seattle's MHA program:

Bertolet concludes:

imposing MHA with Seattle’s future middle housing upzones would undermine the intent of the upzoning in the first place. It would suppress middle housing construction, depriving residents of less expensive housing choices and prolonging the city’s dire housing shortage that harms those with the least, the most. Seattle policymakers can maximize?all the benefits of middle housing?with one simple move:?don’t impose MHA on it.

Serendipity And Proximity.?Writing in "The Deleted Scenes," Addison Del Mastro keenly observes the deep monetary and personal costs of exurban living.? When things are so spread out, every destination can be had only at a considerable cost in terms of time and travel expenses, which requires planning and circumscribing what one can do.? As he writes:

There is simply no way to capture that whimsy and serendipity of?hey, I got home a little late, let’s go out to dinner tonight!?without a certain amount of density to support a sufficient number of enterprises. Density is proximity. Proximity is serendipity. Distance is loneliness and isolation. We want?all?of these things at once—a choice of restaurants and shopping, wide empty roads, free easy parking right in front of every destination, large houses with private yards—but we simply can’t have all those things.And while density may not?guarantee?them, they are not possible without it.

The density of desirable destinations, opportunities to do things, meet people, and have abundant choices are the hallmarks of great cities.? It's an insight overlooked in the quest to find cheaper housing in the "drive til you qualify" exurbs.