Google Ads help pay the expense of maintaining this site
Click Here for the Neighborhood Transformation Website
Fair Use Disclaimer
Neighborhood Transformation is a nonprofit,
noncommercial website that, at times, may contain copyrighted material
that have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. It makes such material available in its efforts to advance the
understanding of poverty and low income distressed neighborhoods in
hopes of helping to find solutions for those problems. It believes that
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Persons wishing to
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of their own that
go beyond 'fair use' must first obtain permission from the copyright
Mercury News - Aug. 10, 2002
WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO AFFORDABILITY?
Housing here costs too much. The problem is what to do about it. ``Smart growth''
is the experts' solution. Stop building huge new subdivisions, they say. Fill in
downtowns with apartments and condos. Create city neighborhoods that encourage people
to walk or take mass transit. But it's not that easy -- especially in a land of
coveted single-family houses, vintage Mustangs and countless miles of freeway that
invite continuing sprawl.
The Mercury News asked people involved in the housing issue to make their best case
for change. A politician argues that denser housing actually gives people the kind
of neighborhoods they want. A planner offers a blueprint for how cities can redevelop
aging office sites and shopping strips to include new housing. A builder says it's
time for Californians to drop their no-growth rhetoric and take care of their state's
growing population (note: the links on the newspaper's website for the comments
of the environmentalist and the assessor were not functioning).
THE POLITICIAN: CINDY CHAVEZ
WELL-PLANNED URBAN AREAS SPUR VITALITY
In nearly four years of representing downtown San Jose, I have talked to thousands
of residents. Without hesitation, nearly all tell me they want to live in walkable
neighborhoods with diverse shops, local markets and unique cafes. They want to greet
their neighbors on the streets and have family outings at local parks. In short,
they want to live in healthy urban neighborhoods.
Revitalizing some of our neighborhoods requires increasing density. There are valid
reasons, however, why many residents fear higher density housing around them. Every
day we see the mistakes of the past: poorly located and designed apartment buildings
that are unattractive and closed off from the street, making neighborhoods more
crowded and more anonymous.
To this I say, unless one understands history, one is bound to repeat it. We are
looking to avoid the mistakes of the past. The only way cities like San Jose are
going to build enough housing is to build vibrant neighborhoods instead of encouraging
suburban sprawl. It's a matter of how intelligently that is done.
Increasing density can make communities more vital. Those shops and markets and
cafes that everyone wants need customers.
Well-planned, denser housing -- whether townhouses, lofts, condominiums or apartment
buildings -- makes better use of scarce expensive land. It allows builders to provide
affordable housing for sale or rent, and more expensive market-rate homes. It allows
land to be put aside for parks or other recreation areas. And it supports the unique
small businesses that serve a community.
A fine example of how a little increased density has helped revitalize a neighborhood,
diversifying both its use and population, is The Alameda near Julian Street, just
up from the Compaq Center at San Jose. Near majestic single-family houses, a high-density
project of more than 250 units replaced old industrial uses. The new three- to four-story
development includes gathering spaces such as coffee shops. Nearby, new restaurants
have opened as well as other neighborhood businesses such as dry cleaners and video
Public transit is easily accessible, and even though the development is bounded
by a busy street, walking to shops, restaurants or civic gathering places undisturbed
by cars is a breeze. This is a lesson in how inviting more people to live, work
and play in a neighborhood can help it thrive.
Increasing density alone, however, will not make our neighborhoods more livable.
Our neighborhood revival must target appropriate areas and include thoughtful design
standards. We should shy away from single-use projects that are just housing, just
retail or just office.
A revitalization project should have a neighborhood center that is an easy and safe
walk from all dwellings in the neighborhood. Buildings should be designed to make
the street feel safe and inviting, by having front doors, porches and windows facing
the street, rather than a streetscape of garage doors.
Downtown residents are calling for an even greater sense of community with safe
neighborhoods, good schools and a friendly populace. I am certain that physical
solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither
can economic vitality, community stability and environmental health be sustained
without a coherent and supportive physical framework.
Let's invite more neighbors into our neighborhoods.
THE PLANNER: STEVE PIASECKI
Silicon Valley's disproportionate number of jobs to housing has inflated the value
of housing, lengthened commutes and fouled our air. Some cities are trying to address
the imbalance by allowing housing to be built in office parks or in mixed-use developments
along major streets or in downtowns. But many still don't allow housing in some
zones, or restrict the number of office and commercial sites where housing can be
built. As a result, we are not making sufficient progress.
Cities can significantly increase the supply of housing by adopting ``housing everywhere''
policies that allow housing on sites traditionally set aside for non-residential
Silicon Valley has many older commercial, office and industrial properties that
were built in the 1960s and 1970s with acres of parking lots. When owners seek to
redevelop these, cities need land-use policies that encourage or require housing
to be included.
The goal is to balance housing and the number of employees in a new development.
Developers ideally should provide two residential units for every 1,000 square feet
of commercial and office space.
Building housing in office parks and mixed-use developments will benefit the valley
by producing safer neighborhoods (residents will provide ``eyes and ears'' security),
shorter commutes and greater support for public transit, along with much-needed
Yet these innovative developments are the exception in the valley. Many communities
do not allow or encourage them.
Cupertino changed its general plan land-use policies in 1993 to allow housing to
be built in the Vallco industrial park and along major streets such as Stevens Creek
and De Anza boulevards.
Since then, Cupertino has approved more than 500 housing units in Vallco; 400 units
along Stevens Creek Boulevard; and 140 units on De Anza Boulevard at Homestead.
Driving along Stevens Creek Boulevard, you can see three mixed-use commercial and
residential projects under construction: the Verona Apartments at the City Center,
the Cupertino Community Services project at Vista Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard,
and Tra Vigne, on an old strip-mall site at Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek.
You can also view these projects online (www.cupertino.org) at the city's Web site,
by clicking on ``Development Activity in Cupertino.''
Residents of Silicon Valley, working with their elected officials, possess the power
to reverse the jobs/housing equation by advocating cohesive, balanced communities
where people who work here can also live here.
To balance new jobs with new housing in these developments, cities must be willing
to forgo some tax revenue they would gain from purely commercial complexes.
Residents must abandon the traditional ``not in my backyard'' reaction to these
developments and instead actively participate in making sure that each development
carefully fits into their neighborhood.
To succeed, each site must blend with existing neighborhoods in a complementary
manner that creates a sense of place that is attractive to the new residents and
the adjoining neighbors.
Who knows -- if we start now, some day we may balance jobs and housing in Silicon
Valley and perhaps our children will be able to afford to live here.
THE BUILDER: ROBERT FREED
RESTRICTIONS ON PROJECTS MUST BE EASED
The production of new housing is a good thing. However, proposals to build new housing
in the Bay Area are often viewed negatively, even though an extreme housing shortage
and increased demand are driving prices out of reach for most families.
Looking back over the past 20 years in the home-building industry, I see that much
has changed -- some things for the better, but many to the detriment of our communities.
Somewhere along the line, the small minority who support ``no growth'' initiatives
became the loudest voice. Activists and politicians jumped on the bandwagon to stop
development, but few have provided viable solutions on how to meet the growing demand
This ``no growth'' stance, and the many accompanying restrictions created to stifle
building, has significantly contributed to the housing crisis in which we find ourselves.
Also, the supply/demand imbalance of housing has created the opportunity for cities
and other agencies to impose additional financial demands on new housing, further
driving up the cost of homes to consumers.
It's time to stop the rhetoric and get down to the business of providing homes for
our population. The viability of our economic engine and diversity of our communities
depends on affordable and market-rate housing. Strategic alliances must be created
among builders, planners, special-interest groups and neighborhoods to make sure
this happens in a responsible way.
For example, state and local governments need to address the fiscal barriers that
encourage local jurisdictions to seek retail interests over housing for reasons
of sales tax generation.
And housing proposals must be relieved of the disproportionate level of fee and
infrastructure obligations that impede the process. Excessive environmental reviews,
oversensitivity to ``not in my backyard'' interests and ineffective dispute resolution
for construction defects also must be brought under control.
Such relief, with an increase in supply, will result in lower production costs on
homes and greater efficiency in bringing affordable projects to market.
Cities also must allow builders to provide housing near job centers and existing
infrastructure, rather than forcing development to the fringe suburbs, which contributes
to sprawl. Sprawl adversely affects the quality of life of those who must deal with
longer commutes and less personal and family time because their city will not approve
housing developments within city limits.
The building industry must work with cities to bring solutions to the table. Alliances
must be formed to balance regulatory restrictions with the necessary need for new
housing. And anti-growth advocates who argue they are preserving our way of life
in the Bay Area must be held accountable to finding solutions rather than contributing
to the housing crisis, so that everyone has a chance to participate in the American