By 2050, the planet will be 70 percent urban, as we add some two billion residents to the world’s cities. As we consider the history and future of these areas, our biggest challenge may be redeveloping land that is already used or occupied. Maintaining, managing, and growing a city where buildings and people already are rooted is much harder than creating one from scratch. Where and how we accommodate new populations will set the stage for human habitation for the rest of this millennium. In this century of the city, we must find ways to build the cities we need.

Future urban growth will not take place in megacities. All indications suggest that popula­tion growth is plateauing in the 30 or so places with more than 10 million residents. The fastest-growing cities are the ones with current populations between 100,000 and one million. These cities do not and will not have the capacity to manage growth. How will they pay for the infrastructure—highways, bridges, gas lines, and the like—to double or treble their size? Will they be choked with unplanned development, adding to the one billion people already living without public services?

Beyond the logistical and financial challenges, a separate concern relates to the identity of cities. How much do we care about the relation­ship between people and their places? Are we prepared to protect the integrity of cities and the people who live in them by preserving their “character”? Will we have the luxury of forgoing expedience for individuality? If we accept that most of the world’s cities do not have the resources to plan and manage their own future growth, then we concede the design and form of future cities to market forces. This portends a future of urban sameness, a dystopia straight from Le Corbusier: all cities looking like forests of “towers in the park,” expedient and soulless.

If recent and historic efforts to redevelop urban neighborhoods are any indication, urban residents might not be so quick to accept expedient solutions. In Dharavi, a Mumbai neighborhood made famous in the movie Slumdog Millionaire, 700,000 people live on less than one square mile of land. In 2006, an advocacy group decided to “improve” the living conditions of thousands of people who lived in the slum by building high-rises and trying to persuade people to move. Despite offering indoor plumbing, secure roofs, and the like, this group was stunned to have few takers. They were mystified that no one wanted to leave for modern accommodations. But they hadn’t done their homework: Dharavi produces an estimated 25 percent of the gross domestic product of Mumbai. The residents didn’t just live there, they worked there. They weren’t willing to trade their livelihoods and shelter for better shelter, no matter how much better.

Plans are still afoot to develop Dharavi, which sits on the most valuable real estate in Mumbai. It will be difficult for its poor residents to protect themselves from the inexorable power of the market. But if we were committed to defending the rights and interests of the residents, could we imagine a future centered not on high-rises, but on more creative land use providing shelter and promoting livelihoods? What would that take? Where can we look for good examples of respon­sive redevelopment?

In the United States, our history is not replete with successful examples of urban redevelopment. Early attempts at slum clearance through the construction of public housing are eerily similar to the efforts in Mumbai. Ironically, building public housing was not a housing strategy. Congress passed it as a livelihood strategy, designed to reemploy idle construction labor during the Great Depression.

In the postwar era, the federal government devolved redevelopment to local authorities through Urban Renewal. A famous case involved the redevelopment of Boston’s West End in the mid-1950s. Using (or misusing) eminent domain, the city obtained hundreds of homes that were owned by middle-class white families, citing their poor condition and the need for “higher and better use.” Neighborhood residents tried to stop the process through local organizing, protest, and the courts. They failed. The neighborhood was replaced by market-driven development. By 1964, more than 18,000 historic buildings in the United States were lost to urban renewal, says the Trust for Historic Preservation.

Informed by the Boston experience and the demolition of New York’s original Penn Station, an “improvement” against which she had protested, activist and author Jane Jacobs organized others to prevent the wholesale destruction of the urban fabric of New York City when developer Robert Moses proposed a crosstown highway through Greenwich Village. Jacobs ushered in a multipronged approach to oppose abusive, top-down, centralized planning. Organized resistance was the first prong; coalition-building was the second; but it was land use policy that created the framework for hundreds of others to defend their cities.

Jacobs’ coalitions enlisted New York house­wives and powerful allies such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Lady Bird Johnson, who not only found the human toll of urban renewal intolerable, but also mourned the loss of culture and history. Mobilizing others can help us protect urban history and culture. Including powerful allies helps even more. But to scale up one’s efforts requires more powerful tools—policies that prevent what one wants to prevent and promote what one wants to promote. It requires carrots and sticks.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, was the stick, requiring review of historic structures before demolishing them to redevelop neighborhoods. The Historic Tax Credit, enacted in 1978, provided the carrot. Because it might be costlier to redevelop historic buildings and adapt them for new uses, the tax credit sweetened the pot—paying for the public good that was preserved in the historic structures and making redevelopment financially feasible. Thirty-five states have followed suit with their own historic tax credit programs to supplement federal funding. Thus began the rebound of American cities. More than $120 billion was invested in adaptive reuse of buildings from 1981 to 2015, says the Trust for Historic Preservation.

What are the challenges of urban redevelop­ment today? One is the persistence of “highest and best use” planning. In a talk I gave last year in Guangzhou, China, planners could not conceive of why Jacobs’ prevention of a highway across lower Manhattan was considered a success. They argued that achieving highest and best use was the planner’s job. Keeping old buildings and neighborhoods intact was not. Top-down planning predicated on narrow objectives is almost guaranteed to reproduce the results of urban renewal, at the expense of culture and history.

Urban communities everywhere are at risk of displacement from a second, bigger challenge and a faceless new villain: global capital capturing real estate in cities across the globe, making them less livable and less affordable. In spite of the global financial crisis of 2008, urban real estate is considered a safe harbor for capital, especially in places with stable curren­cies like the United States. In the 12-month period ending in March 2017, foreign investors purchased 284,455 U.S. homes, spending more than $150 billion, according to CNBC. According to Statistica, 52 percent of foreign real estate purchases are in the suburbs, while 27 percent are in central cities. In some cities, more than 20 percent of all real estate investment comes from outside the country. Global investment includes domestic capital as well, and it flows not only to U.S. destinations, but also to growing cities around the world. This capital distorts housing markets and makes urban areas, from California to China, unaffordable for the people who live there. It also distorts supply markets, dictating what will be built based on the tastes of part-time residents and speculators.

What can be done? What would Jacobs do? I am sure she would mobilize local residents to reclaim power over land control and teach about the consequences of treating housing as a tradable commodity. Part of mobilizing is to get more stakeholders to the table. She would no doubt use new tools to engage citizens in urban planning, like the tools that helped build the Detroit Future City plan. By using everything from online games to data visualizations, Detroit planners secured input from more than 100,000 residents.

To scale this effort, she would need new land policy tools, sticks and carrots, to motivate developers to build the cities residents need, not the real estate investors want. Sticks might include surcharges on outside investment, like those recently enacted in Vancouver and Toronto. They might include significantly higher property tax rates combined with very high homestead exemptions to increase holding costs for properties owned by nonresidents. Buildings might be protected from speculation using devices like community land trusts. Carrots might include approval for additional develop­ment through density bonuses for developments that preserve urban character, offering residents the opportunity to live and work in closer proximity. And the carrots should also include subsidies to motivate developers to build the right developments—those that preserve the character of the city by supporting residents and their livelihoods.

As a society, we have made, and continue to make, lots of mistakes. But those of us who want to help create more sustainable and equitable cities must do two things: find more effective ways to engage and mobilize people and find the policies to work at scale. This is a time to ask, “What would Jane Jacobs do?” While she did not get it all just right every time, she did compel us to find creative ways to make cities work while preserving their culture and history. Cities that were more welcoming, that could provide both shelter and work. Cities that facilitated social interaction, not just commerce. That is a tall agenda, but it’s one that we should aspire to achieve. It is critical if we are going to survive beyond this century of the city.

George W. McCarthy is the President and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photograph: In Dharavi, a one-square-mile neighborhood in Mumbai, India, that’s home to 700,000 people, tensions have existed between externally designed “improvements” and the actual needs of residents. Credit: Flickr/Adam Cohn

Positioned near the epicenter of California’s housing crisis, Oakland is slightly more affordable than San Francisco and Silicon Valley, but the East Bay city is experiencing rapid gentrification and the displacement of longtime residents. Amid skyrocketing rents and an influx of high-income workers, local organizations are testing new approaches to revitalize neighborhoods and serve low-income residents without spurring more displacement. The East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC) is on the frontlines of this effort. Since 1975, EBALDC has developed and preserved more than 2,200 affordable homes and now serves more than 6,000 people annually through both property management and community engagement services.

Romi Hall is the director of neighborhood collaborations at EBALDC. In this role, she manages EBALDC’s work as a convener of the San Pablo Area Revitalization Collaborative (SPARC). SPARC was formed in 2014 to improve the health and wellbeing of residents in a historically African-American neighborhood and to help prevent displacement by securing parcels of land for affordable housing, resident-desired economic development, or community facilities. Over the last five years, the collaborative’s work has centered on a five-block area of the San Pablo Avenue Corridor (SPC), which stretches from Downtown Oakland to the city of San Pablo. One of EBALDC’s signature projects, the California Hotel, is located on this stretch; since 2011, the formerly vacant hotel has been redeveloped to house 137 below-market-rate units as well as on-site resident services and ground-level businesses including a new restaurant space, a music education nonprofit displaced from its former location, and the recording studio of an Oakland-based Grammy winner.

Hall is one of 14 mid-career professionals in the second cohort of the Fulcrum Fellowship, a leadership development program run by the Lincoln Institute’s Center for Community Investment. She recently sat down with Communications and Publications Editor Emma Zehner.

Emma Zehner: What strategic challenge will you tackle during your fellowship?

Romi Hall: I want to continue to work with our collaborative partners to ensure that residents are able to live in or return to culturally vibrant, healthy, and affordable neighborhoods. I am focused on supporting more “development concierge” work—identifying key opportunities and projects for affordable housing or resident-desired community facilities, and matching them with nonprofit developers. Along with this concierge work, I would like to work with collaborative partners to translate the on-the-ground project and community-based work into advocacy campaign and policy work. The last part is sustaining the collaborative backbone role of coordinating efforts to address the many dimensions of community revitalization, from housing to health to education to employment.

EZ: How is EBALDC working to ensure that revitalization of the San Pablo Avenue Corridor won’t fuel displacement?

RH: The work started around five years ago when we were still recovering from the recession. Nobody really knew that big swaths of Oakland had been purchased by investors. Over that time, we have seen the neighborhoods where we are deeply invested very rapidly and quickly shift. We are in crisis mode now.

Organizations like ours are working rapidly to better apply an anti-displacement lens to our strategies to ensure that our community revitalization successes don’t come at a cost to current residents. We still have more to do to continue to figure this out. One of the key approaches has been to buy up as much land as we can, to either preserve or produce affordable housing and support economic and cultural development. Our partners and EBALDC are also implementing resident engagement, placemaking activities, and leadership work. Collectively with our SPARC collaborative partners, we are on target to have 400 new units of affordable housing and a new grocery store, which will open in May 2019.

EZ: What is the role of zoning and land-use planning in shaping the future of the neighborhood?

RH: One of the things that is interesting about zoning and land use within the SPARC neighborhood is that there is a specific plan for the entire area (West Oakland), but it is not too detailed for the San Pablo Corridor area. This provides some flexibility in terms of what is possible and how to move on work that residents want to see in their neighborhood. I think we have some opportunities to think about how to utilize zoning or other land-use approaches to keep the neighborhood affordable despite positive changes. In the neighborhoods surrounding the San Pablo Avenue Corridor, the zoning is largely for lower-density, residential uses such as single-family homes, duplexes, and fourplexes. This can slow some of the growth, as the large market-rate developments that are happening in other parts of Oakland are limited. The larger-scale developments can only occur on San Pablo Avenue, but this is where the SPARC partners have purchased many of the properties, thus helping to secure the affordability of the neighborhood and to support thinking about different zoning and land-use approaches.

EZ: EBALDC takes a “healthy neighborhoods approach” to its work. What does this mean in practice?

RH: A lot of the community development field is heavily focused on economic development and affordable housing, but it doesn’t necessarily work with a more holistic, comprehensive lens. We adopted this approach after research from our county public health department showed a life expectancy difference of almost 16 years between neighborhoods. The difference isn’t because of race, but because of the social determinants of health. [This] led us to adopt our healthy neighborhoods approach and to understand that we cannot have such a comprehensive approach and rely on ourselves to achieve our vision. We now look to identify measurable health goals in our new developments; create vibrant, cultural corridors tied to place; and support residents with a small amount of funds to implement their own projects to address issues in their neighborhoods. Our new approach also meant that we needed to partner differently, and, through this work, we started our Neighborhood Collaborations department to work on convening strong, place-based collaboratives.

You could create a healthy neighborhood by pushing people out, but what if people could afford to live in a place and see themselves represented [there]? And they are healthy in that place—not because they are pushed out, but because they are here, they see themselves here, and they are contributing to, if not owning, the change? We are honing in on the neighborhoods that have some of the most inequitable outcomes, working within those places with the intention of keeping people in their homes, and helping to build up community the way they want, so that change doesn’t mean you leave, but it means you get to stay.

EZ: What challenges have you faced in your intense focus on cross-sector collaboration in the SPARC corridor?

RH: The thing about the collaboration is that it takes a while to build trust. Everyone has a role, but it takes a long time to understand everyone’s different roles and how to align the roles, the partners, and the people to make change happen. One of the questions I think a lot about is how can you push on those different roles and make them more flexible to meet the needs of communities? And how do you support partners—particularly resident groups, organizations, and institutional leaders—not just to participate as individuals, but to think about how they can leverage their organization, their community’s voice, and their place in the system to do the work? Once you have trust there, it is a game-changer in terms of how the partners talk together and collaborate. For example, one social service agency noticed a property that was causing them a lot of heartache. They said, what if we buy that building? They did. And they don’t normally do development. But since they were part of a collaboration, they leaned into something new with full support from the collaborative. You don’t get that very often, and I think trust and belief in the work was key to making this happen.

EZ: EBALDC is increasingly focused on the intersection of public health and community development and the provision of on-site supportive services for residents. What does the recent Kaiser Permanente Housing for Health Fund commitment to fund affordable housing mean for EBALDC’s work in the Oakland area?

RH: It is incredible to see Kaiser and other healthcare and insurance companies looking at investing in affordable housing and realizing the role that affordable housing and community developers play in creating a healthy ecosystem. The stars were aligned in terms of where Kaiser wanted to invest, and it was a special opportunity for us to be the first investment and have our mission align with a big healthcare partner. Kaiser is also looking to attract other larger corporations to invest in the housing fund they created to secure more affordable housing, thus securing the Bay Area’s future.

EZ: What is next for the SPARC Collaborative? Are there plans to buy additional parcels of land in this neighborhood?

RH: The group will focus on achieving its five-year action plan results. They have a little over a year to meet their goals. As part of this process, the partners will start planning for SPARC 2.0. Our strategy continues to include acquiring key parcels and underutilized land to produce or preserve affordable housing and to create community facilities, and using this as a buffer against displacement. The city has some public land, so we are working on that. There are other hotel properties that we are looking at. The group has started to purchase multi-unit buildings at risk of being converted to market-rate housing to preserve affordability—somewhat of a [community] land trust model. We are also asking, are there ways to create more home ownership opportunities?

EZ: A 2016 KQED article about SPARC said, “If this experiment works, it may represent one of the few models of how an Oakland neighborhood was able to grow from the ground up.” Do you see a possibility to scale this approach in other Oakland neighborhoods over time?

RH: Well, first I’d say we didn’t grow the neighborhood from the ground up. The neighborhood already had a history, a community, a story, a culture, a set of buildings, [and] people; it was a place already. The journalist wrote this. What is most important is that we continue to tap into hearing from residents, representing their voices, building political capital and will, and making sure as practitioners, organizations, and institutions that we listen and act. Each day, each year, the SPARC collaborative partners are getting better at this. So I’d say back to the journalist now, nearly three years later, that we are still tooling the model but having more success and experimenting less.

Five years into this work of convening neighborhood collaboratives, we are thinking about our ecosystem here in Oakland and reflecting on the power [that arises] when aligned, passionate partners come together and are supported to make change happen. We’ve seen crazy dreams start to become reality. We hope in the future to share more of our work and lessons learned so that other neighborhoods will also join us in creating healthy, safe, and vibrant neighborhoods where they are. To the extent that we are able to support other neighborhoods, great. And this certainly doesn’t mean EBALDC itself needs to take the lead or be the convener of this work. We can support, champion, and rally. Our goal is to support and build our ecosystem to spread health equity and opportunity, not as an anomaly but as a way of being.

Emma Zehner is Communications and Publications Editor at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

Photograph Credit: East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation 

Last fall, Las Vegas completed a yearlong pilot of the nation’s first public self-driving shuttle. Over the course of the experiment, more than 32,000 people hopped aboard a blue electric minibus bearing the slogans, “The future is here” and “Look ma no driver.” Designed and built by French start-up Navya and operated by Keolis North America, the eight-passenger shuttle took riders on a 0.6-mile loop through the downtown area. A human operator rode along, poised to override vehicle functions in an emergency using a converted Xbox controller.

Las Vegas partnered with the regional transit agency and AAA to run the pilot, which was deemed a success. Now accelerating its commitment to autonomous vehicles (AVs), the city is planning for a second shuttle route and a “robotaxi” service by Keolis and Navya. And in December, the city and transit agency won a $5.3 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation for a project called GoMed. Slated to begin in late 2019, GoMed will provide four autonomous electric shuttles on a four-mile route between downtown and the Las Vegas Medical District. That district includes four hospitals and the University of Nevada at Las Vegas School of Medicine campus, which serves 200,000 patients annually and will employ 6,000 people by 2020. GoMed will also feature pedestrian safety devices and 23 smart transit shelters with Wi-Fi, information on shuttle arrival times and occupancy, and wayfinding kiosks.

When it comes to AVs, Las Vegas appears to be all in—but planning for the impacts of rapidly emerging technology can be complicated. In a Big City Planning Directors Institute session on AVs hosted last fall by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the American Planning Association (APA), and the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), Las Vegas Planning Director Robert Summerfield acknowledged that it is challenging to regulate new mobilities and incorporate them into the urban fabric. This is especially true now, he says, when leaders in Las Vegas are juggling a citywide master planning process, form-based code regulations, thoroughfare standards, transit system changes, and downtown capital projects—all of which could need adjustments as new mobility options become more popular.

It’s an era of contrasts: Public transit is enjoying a surge in metro areas, with expanding light-rail systems in Denver, Los Angeles, and other places, and demand for walkable and bikeable urban spaces is at an all-time high. At the same time, ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft (which are also known as transportation network companies, or TNCs) have actually increased traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). So how do AVs fit into the picture, and what will they mean for cities? How are planning, transportation, and public works departments adjusting to this rapidly changing mobility landscape, and how can they ensure that the built environment will accommodate changes that haven’t yet happened?

At the Planning Directors Institute, Andres Sevtsuk, assistant professor of urban planning and director of the City Form Lab at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), illustrated the “totally transformative” nature of AVs with an example from the past: When the Model T was introduced, he said, no one could have predicted that we would have 41,000 miles of interstate highways across the United States decades later. It’s just as difficult to predict the impact of AVs.

With so much buzz and uncertainty, the art appears to lie, at this point, not in finessing the AV future, but in managing the next few years of transition. Cars notoriously reshaped our cities in the twentieth century—the question is how AVs will reshape them in the twenty-first.

Transformative Technology

“We know from our work with big city planning directors across the country that autonomous vehicles are seen as a disruptive technology that will require preparing for a range of impacts—both positive and negative—related to transportation systems and travel modes, land use and urban design, and access for low-income and underserved communities,” says Armando Carbonell, chair of Planning and Urban Form at the Lincoln Institute. Carbonell notes that these topics will be featured in a panel at APA’s 2019 National Planning Conference in San Francisco, with speakers including Los Angeles Planning Director Vince Bertoni and New York City Planning Director Anita Laremont, as well as experts from the fall Planning Directors Institute.

Many other organizations are thinking through the impacts of AVs, including Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Aspen Institute, which issued a joint report on the topic. “Automation is changing the automobile, mostly in ways that will help cities,” notes the report (Bloomberg 2017). “Cities have long struggled with the car’s demands for space. But AVs can be designed for many more forms and functions, creating new opportunities to right-size vehicles for urban use.” While most AV pilots in the last decade focused on high-speed highways, “the AV’s future is in cities, where its biggest market demographics are concentrated,” the report notes.

This shift seems to align with the values of urban-dwellers, especially younger generations; in a recent consumer survey by Arity, a data start-up launched by Allstate, 59 percent of respondents between 22 and 37 years old say they’d rather spend time doing more productive tasks than driving, 51 percent don’t think owning a car is worth the investment, and 45 percent regularly use ride-hailing services (Arity 2018).

“AVs are coming just as our demographics and economy are very pro-urban for the next 20 years,” says David Dixon, Urban Places Planning and Urban Design Leader at the global design and engineering firm Stantec, who also presented at the Planning Directors Institute. “Change will come much faster in urban centers than in suburbs or rural areas because of a critical mass that allows for shared vehicles.”

That change is beginning to occur. After a decade of research and development, tech companies and car manufacturers (also known as OEMs, or original equipment manufacturers) are readying self-driving vehicles for market at a remarkable pace, with fully autonomous vehicles scheduled to roll out this year in pilot programs across the United States. Small self-driving shuttle buses like the one in Las Vegas have appeared in pilot programs on city streets across the U.S., including Providence, Rhode Island, and Columbus, Ohio, and single-occupant AVs have been tested in many cities from Boston to San Jose. Half of America’s largest cities are preparing for self-driving vehicles in their long-range transportation plans, according to a National League of Cities report on autonomous vehicle pilots, which noted that at least 28 states were introducing legislation to support such AV pilots (Perkins 2018).

More comprehensive testing programs are also underway in cities including Austin and Phoenix. The Austin Transportation Department is testing technology at five intersections that will allow the city’s traffic system to communicate with self-driving cars. Installed over the streets on traffic-light equipment, the technology can inform AVs about when the light is about to turn, if a driver has run a red light, or if pedestrians are present.

The Phoenix metro area also has evolved as an AV-testing hub for tech companies and OEMs thanks to its road infrastructure, weather, cross-border supply chain, favorable business climate, and access to tech talent. The Phoenix metro area boasts 15 companies that are innovating and testing driverless vehicles and related technology, according to the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, which says the AV industry will bring Arizona 2,000-plus jobs and $700 million in capital investment by 2020.

Waymo, launched by Google, has tested vehicles in autonomous mode for over 10 million miles on public roads in 25 cities across the U.S., in various conditions from sunny California to snowy Michigan and on the high-speed roads around Phoenix. A test group of 400 “early rider” volunteers have been riding Waymo’s Chrysler Pacifica minivans, modified and equipped with safety drivers, for more than a year in the Phoenix suburbs of Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, and Tempe. (In 2018, Tempe was the site of the first pedestrian fatality caused by an AV. Uber, which had been testing the vehicle, temporarily suspended its AV operations.)

In October 2018, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced the creation of a public-private enterprise to pave the way for self-driving vehicles. The state has pledged $1.5 million for the project, the Institute for Automated Mobility, a consortium including Intel, researchers from Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University, and state transportation, safety, and commerce agencies. The institute will prepare for the expansion of AV technology in Arizona and nationwide, with a focus on liability, regulatory, and safety implications.

At least three dozen companies besides Intel, Uber, and Waymo are involved in developing or testing AVs, including Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar, Lyft, Tesla, Volkswagen, and Volvo. While no fully autonomous vehicles are available to consumers yet, the current cost of a personal AV “hardware and software package” would add $70,000 to $200,000 to the base price of a vehicle, according to various estimates; those figures are expected to come down dramatically, to closer to $5,000 to $15,000, as the technology evolves and is adopted more widely.

Planning for the Unplannable

What will this mean for cities? That’s a source of much debate. The “utopian” perspective holds that AVs will usher in a seamless, door-to-door, new-mobility system. Their potential benefits include increased roadway safety—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 94 percent of serious crashes are due to driver error—as well as potential impacts on urban planning and mobility:

• Roadway efficiency. Because of their tracking features and the elimination of driver error, AVs could improve transportation efficiency by enabling vehicles to travel closer together. This could allow road diets—modifications that lead to narrower or fewer lanes—which would free up roadway strips for fast transit, alternative modes like protected bike lanes, or green infrastructure.
• Improved traffic flow. With sensing technology and artificial intelligence fed by route data, AVs could reduce congestion and improve traffic flow through intersections, reducing travel time.
• Decreased travel costs. AVs could supplant ride-hailing services and decrease the cost of travel by eliminating the need for and cost of private vehicles and drivers. Depending on local policies, they could also be deployed for greater transportation equity in cities, to serve underserved populations including those who are elderly, disabled, poor, or live far from public transit (see sidebar).
• Sustainability. If all AVs were electric, and powered by renewable sources, they could help cities shift away from fossil fuels, reducing urban pollution and carbon footprints.

On the “dystopian” downside, critics says, tightly spaced and continuously cruising AVs could have negative consequences for bicyclists and pedestrians. If they didn’t have to sit behind the wheel, more commuters might opt for a longer commute to a larger house and yard, expanding sprawl, creating more low-density development, increasing municipalities’ costs for providing public services, and inflating land and housing costs in the outer reaches. If AVs were predominantly privately owned passenger vehicles rather than shared shuttles, they would increase congestion. Negative environmental impacts could be compounded by vehicles that were not renewably powered and by the high level of toxicity in manufacturing and disposal of electric batteries. Privately owned AVs could widen the divide between the transportation haves and have-nots.

Utopian, dystopian, or somewhere in between, one thing is certain: The AV future will require adjustments in the way urban planners think. “Because of the significant anticipated impacts of AVs on public infrastructure, land use, and public finance, it is vital that planners actively prepare now for their widespread arrival on city streets,” says Carbonell.

As to how to do that, “most preparation for autonomous vehicles involves good-sense common planning principles,” says David Rouse, research director for the APA. “Cities should start with visioning and goal setting and look at development codes, street regulations, public investment, capital improvements,” and other areas to guide planning. A key question, he suggests, is how do AVs serve those futures?

“The danger now is that the private sector and car manufacturers will drive how this rolls out,” says Rouse. Cities will need help from new types of collaborations and public-private partnerships, he says. “OEMs also need to be brought to the table with cities and the public sector as we figure out how to introduce this technology.”

Rouse suggests planners create a site plan review checklist for AVs and consider ideas contained in Planning for Autonomous Mobility, a 2018 APA report that aims to provide direction for planners as they update their communities’ long-range plans (Crute 2018).

Nico Larco, an architecture professor and director of the Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon who presented at the Planning Directors Institute, says cities need to take control of how AVs are introduced and managed before they just appear on the streets, as happened with electric scooters.

Larco advises several steps to ensure control of new mobilities: First, identify and document city priorities. He pointed to Seattle’s New Mobility Playbook, which identifies outcomes, values, and priorities for equity, economic opportunity, and environmental sustainability (SDOT 2017).

Second, “figure out how best to leverage the new technologies to get to the outcomes you want,” he says. “High-density, mixed-use, built-on-transit are key pieces we need to focus on, and the new mobility gives us that ability. Make sure we frame it as, ‘These are the outcomes we want,’ and use new mobility to achieve that.”

Third, define how data will be collected, who owns it, and how it will be shared. “Data is critical to regulating and evaluating mobilities to see whether they are doing what they said they’d do, and the city is getting the outcomes it wants,” he says.

Parking Requirements

Parking is emerging as a critical issue as cities begin to look in-depth at the on-the-ground challenges of AVs. In 2018, Chandler, Arizona—one of the four Phoenix metro cities piloting Waymo shuttles—became the first U.S. city to change its zoning code in anticipation of AVs. The zoning amendments, which went into effect last June, allow for minimum parking requirements for new developments to be reduced by up to 40 percent in exchange for the inclusion of passenger loading zones for shared AVs. One passenger loading zone could achieve a 10 percent reduction in parking, with a cap at 40 percent, depending on the number of zones, land use, and building square footage. Planning staff had two primary objectives: to allow for more flexibility in parking minimums as demand for parking changes, and to promote the creation of loading zones for shared rather than single-passenger vehicles.

“In the future, if AV usage picks up, we see the need for parking to be reduced drastically, and we need to be flexible now,” says David de la Torre, Chandler planning manager and principal planner for the ordinance project. Reducing parking “presents a lot of opportunity for the city to redesign itself to be a better city for residents and businesses,” he says. De la Torre adds that the zoning change is garnering support: at least five developers of multifamily and commercial mixed-use projects are interested in creating TNC-AV passenger zones.

With an estimated 1 billion to 2 billion parking spaces across the U.S., most cities are significantly overparked, says Larco. Seattle, for example, has about 29 parking spaces per acre, more than five times its residential density of 5.7 households per acre, according to a study of parking in five cities by the Research Institute for Housing America (Scharnhorst 2018). Cities including San Francisco and Hartford, Connecticut, have eliminated minimum parking requirements citywide to help speed up development projects and reduce the number of cars on city streets, and other cities have relaxed parking minimums or removed them in transit corridors.  

When the nation shifts to AVs—and most experts agree that the question is indeed when, not if—cities will see “tremendous opportunities because we’ll need less parking,” says Larco. He estimates that, in contrast to cars, which sit idly parked 95 percent of the time, AV shuttles could be in service half-time, depending on their manufacturing and maintenance costs. Others say AV shuttles could run almost continuously except for brief recharging stops. When they’re not chauffeuring riders, AV fleets will still need a place to park at least temporarily—ideally on less expensive land near arterials or freeways with access to a substation to recharge.

AVs also could reduce the cost of urban development. The median cost of building parking in the U.S. is $20,450 per space, according to WGI, a nationwide transportation and civil engineering firm. But that can vary greatly, depending on site factors and regional construction costs. In Denver, underground parking can cost $40,000 per space and aboveground $25,000. In Seattle, structured parking can cost over $100,000 per space. These parking costs, which can amount to 20 percent of a project’s total development costs, could be used to build more affordable housing, public amenities, or to underwrite additional costs for building sustainable buildings. According to the Lincoln Institute’s Carbonell, “One of the greatest potential benefits of the shift away from personal cars could be the freeing up of urban land currently used for parking for redevelopment at greater densities, with more affordable housing and a more livable public realm.”

Goodbye to Garages?

Meanwhile, how do you decide whether to build that new municipal parking garage? Obtaining a parking construction bond now for 30 years could mean losing money. If you still need to build it, how should it differ from the parking garages of past decades?

Some cities and private developers are building parking garages with flexible design that allows for conversion to other uses later, like office space or housing. Global design firm Gensler is helping clients develop buildings with AV-compatible features like the three flexible garage floors in its 84.51° Centre, an eight-story mixed-use office building in Cincinnati. Gensler is designing Giambrocco, a mixed-use project in Denver’s River North (RiNo) district that includes a five-story office building on top of three floors of flexible garage space. Gensler and the Giambrocco developer, Tributary Real Estate, compared the cost of building a standard parking garage with slanted floor plates and ramp parking against a flex design with flat floor plates, 14-foot ceiling heights to accommodate office space, and external speed ramps that can be removed when the space is converted. They determined the flexible garage design would cost 25 percent more for the same 375 parking spaces, a $2.3 million difference on the $80 million project, mostly because of higher construction costs, says Brent Mather, principal and design director for Gensler’s Denver office. The developer determined that it made financial sense to build the flex plan, he says, because “ultimately when the demand for parking is reduced in 10 to 15 years, converting it to office space will provide bigger returns on investment.”

Cities have compelling reasons to build flexible municipal parking garages “because they’re long-term holders of the properties and have public money invested,” says Mather. For maximum adaptability in buildings, he advises, cities should develop only above-ground flexible parking, as underground parking has limited reuse potential beyond concepts such as data centers, gyms, and drop-off areas for buildings serving thousands of people. Airports will have to determine what to do with their massive and revenue-rich parking areas and how to provide more efficient drop-off and pick-up areas, he says, “as part of this paradigm shift.”

“We’re at peak parking in the next year or two,” says Dixon. “Any project that is being planned and permitted today should demonstrate it can increase density for the kinds of projects that will be at the forefront of the AV shift—new urban districts and large mixed-use developments. Any parking we build or that exists today should be able to support 50 to 100 percent more development in 10 years. That’s an unprecedented opportunity to double our density in urban cores.”

Dixon and other AV advocates advise that urban planners and municipalities should look at every possible alternative to building structured parking and consider surface parking only as a placeholder for a site. They also suggest requiring district parking for large development areas and shared parking for mixed-use residential development to reduce by a third the number of parking spaces needed by residents and office/retail spaces.

Rethinking Roads

“The million-dollar question is, ‘What’s the minimum we have to do to redesign streets?’” says Larco. “None of us are building for this new technology, and most of us want to make as few changes as possible.”

AVs will require rethinking roadway and street design for elements such as separation of lanes by speed, lane width, and prioritization, locating pick-up/drop off zones, and paying more attention to how buildings meet sidewalks and streets. During the transition to a fully automated AV fleet, narrower lanes could be designated and striped like HOV lanes are now. But as AVs are adopted more widely, roadways might be designed with narrower lanes, which would leave more public-realm space for active streetscapes, pedestrian and bike infrastructure, open space, and green infrastructure.

Harvard GSD’s Future of Streets project, led by Andres Sevtsuk, created 24 scenarios for how cities might adapt streets to emerging transportation technology—ride-hailing, as well as electric and autonomous vehicles—in ways that ideally would maximize multimodal, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable outcomes. The research project is partnering with the Los Angeles and Boston planning and transportation departments. At key intersections in each city, Sevtsuk explained at the Planning Directors Institute last fall, his team assessed the current scenario, then outlined “heaven” and “hell” alternatives.

At LA’s busy downtown Vermont/Santa Monica intersection, site of a Red Line rail station, the team’s “heaven” scenario for shared electric AVs included improved public transport systems, shared AV pick-up and drop-off zones, continuous bike lanes, active retail facades, and street trees and landscaping. The potential “hell” scenario for the same intersection included an AV-exclusive freeway prone to being blocked by disabled vehicles, an elevated highway for private AVs, drive-indoors restaurants, and railings and barriers that prevented pedestrian crossings. More than two-thirds of the AV scenarios created as part of the project’s research pointed to more congestion, says Sevtsuk.

Sevtsuk advises cities to begin making urban design and infrastructure changes that can help manage TNCs and the transition to AVs, beginning with passenger pickup and drop-off areas. “Hong Kong and Singapore, very dense cities, have highly regulated pick up/drop off zones on every city block,” he says, adding that the lack of such zones in U.S. cities is causing major traffic and public safety issues. The Future of Streets project is also exploring the use of HOV lanes for multi-passenger AVs, as well as for bus rapid transit, as an incentive for using shared mobility, promoting the idea that “if you share your rides, you’ll get through cities much faster,” says Sevtsuk.

In some cities, these changes are starting to appear. Las Vegas is working on a change to its zoning code to allow for downtown ride-share lots that would eventually also serve as AV passenger zones, says Summerfield. Local companies Lyft and Zappos partnered on creating a downtown art park and pick-up/drop-off area on a privately owned parking lot. The city approved the pilot last year as a special-event project, a one-off to prove the concept could work. The city then entitled the project through the normal process as a plaza/parking facility, and is trying to replicate it with other private landowners and city properties as a public amenity that can help reduce traffic congestion.

Preparing for Change

The shifts caused by AVs will affect municipal budgets. In fiscal year 2016, the 25 largest U.S cities netted nearly $5 billion from parking-related activities, camera and traffic citations, gas taxes, towing, and vehicle registration and licensing fees (Governing 2017). But gas tax revenues will shrink if AVs are electric. There could be fewer vehicle registration fees as car ownership dwindles. Parking tickets could become a thing of the past. The list goes on.

“The change will be stepped, and not gradual,” says Larco. He advises cities to consider VMT fees, congestion pricing, and new municipal revenue generators, such as taxes or fees for empty seats, charging stations, use of curb access, fleet parking, GPS, data, advertisements, and mobile business and retail, as well as tax credits for vehicles full of passengers.

So far, cities have approached companies like Uber and Lyft with mostly “stick” dissuaders of fees and taxes for their impacts, notes Sevtsuk. Some U.S. cities are considering a congestion toll, such as those levied in European cities like Stockholm. But congestion charges are hard to implement, he says, and have to be approved at the state level. He says a combination of carrots and sticks, with more progressive ways to welcome new technology on the streets, is more likely to gain public approval.

As the AV industry gains speed, cities also will have to factor in many other considerations—ranging from the location of electric charging stations to the redesign of traffic signals, from redevelopment opportunities to workforce impacts—and they don’t have much time to do it.

By some estimations, 2030 will be the tipping point for tech companies and OEMs to produce AVs exclusively and for the public to adopt AVs on a massive scale, with the potential for a completely autonomous fleet by 2050. Some states are already preparing for an AV future: The Colorado Department of Transportation is planning for communications between vehicles and the highway along the I-70 corridor that traverses the state from east to west through the Rocky Mountains.  

But AVs also might not dominate the landscape as soon as some tech companies and OEMs hope. In the United States, 50 percent of respondents to a survey conducted by Deloitte did not believe AVs will be safe, and 56 percent were not interested in ridesharing services. Nearly two-thirds of respondents were concerned about biometric data being captured via a connected vehicle and shared with external parties (Deloitte 2019).

Regardless of how quickly AVs will be adopted, says Larco, “they will have impacts on all sorts of things in cities, and we need to prepare.” He advises urban planners, municipal officials, economic development directors, environment and equity advocates, and others to be proactive about making policy and infrastructure changes. Cities historically have had trouble with change, he says, and the pace of change is much faster now. When it comes to evolving mobility options, he adds, cities will need to “be nimble in their approach, create responsive regulations, and change the culture of risk with stakeholders and constituents by letting them know, ‘We’re going to try things out.’”

New Mobility Options and Equity

In cities and suburbs alike, many people who are elderly or disabled, who live too far from public transit stations, or who can’t afford transit fare are left without convenient mobility options. How do cities equitably share the benefits of new mobility options for all their residents?

Some cities are making it a priority. In Washington, DC, Ford is piloting a citywide AV project in both wealthy and low-income neighborhoods. The city’s Interagency AV Working Group, composed of transportation, disability rights, environmental, and public safety officials, is focused on ensuring AVs will benefit all eight wards of the city. Last October, Ford Autonomous Vehicles announced a job training program in conjunction with the AV project, in partnership with the DC Infrastructure Academy and Argo AI, an artificial intelligence company.

In other cities, AVs are playing a role in on-demand transit programs. In what may be the first-of-its-kind partnership between an AV tech company and a public transit system outside of a controlled environment, Waymo and the Phoenix area’s Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (Valley Metro) have been using Waymo’s self-driving vehicles as robotaxis to help fill some mobility gaps across the metro area.

“Think of it as the start of mobility on demand or mobility as a service,” says Scott Smith, CEO of Valley Metro, which provides regional bus service and a 26-mile light-rail system slated to expand to 66 miles by 2034. Bloomberg reports the first wave of paying Waymo customers likely will draw from the early rider program for trips such as first and last-mile transportation to transit stations, but the partnership also holds promise for addressing transportation inequities.

In California, a $12 million pilot program launched last fall by the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Regional Transit has expanded low-cost rides in electric shuttles to connect people in the lower-income neighborhoods of disinvested South Sacramento with jobs and services as part of a larger effort to provide greater social and economic equity around transit. The shuttles cost less than ride-hailing services, and rides are free for groups of five or more. So far the electric vehicles are not AVs, but in a city that prides itself on being, in the words of Mayor Darrell Steinberg, “a center of innovation in new transportation technologies,” that could soon change.

Kathleen McCormick, principal of Fountainhead Communications, LLC, lives and works in Boulder, Colorado, and writes frequently about sustainable, healthy, and resilient communities.

Photograph: A driverless shuttle at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where researchers are studying consumer acceptance of autonomous vehicles. Credit: Levi Hutmacher, University of Michigan. 

References

Arity. 2018. “Be Patient, a Change Is Gonna Come.” November 8. https://www.arity.com/move/patient-change-gonna-come/.

Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Aspen Institute. 2017. “Taming the Autonomous Vehicle: A Primer for Cities.” Long Island City, NY: Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Aspen Institute (March). https://www.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/2/2017/05/TamingtheAutonomousVehicleSpreadsPDF.pdf.

Bragg, Dave and Stephen Pazzano. 2017. “The Transportation Revolution: The Impact of Ride-Hailing and Driverless Vehicles on Real Estate.” Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute and Green Street Advisors (October). http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/gstqa-us-west/uploads/2017/10/19153037/ULI-Green-Street-Fall-17-Presentation.pdf.

City of Austin and Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board. 2017. “Smart Mobility Roadmap.” Austin, TX: City of Austin and METRO (October). http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Smart_Mobility_Roadmap_-_Final.pdf.

Crute, Jeremy, William Riggs, AICP, Timothy Chapin, and Lindsay Stevens, AICP. 2018. “Planning for Autonomous Mobility.” Chicago, IL: American Planning Association (September). https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9157605/.

Deloitte. 2019. “Global Automotive Consumer Study: Advanced Vehicle Technologies and Multimodal Transportation.” https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/automotive-trends-millennials-consumer-study.html#.

Governing. 2017. “Special Report: How Autonomous Vehicles Could Constrain City Budgets.” Washington, D.C.: Governing (July). https://www.governing.com/gov-data/gov-how-autonomous-vehicles-could-effect-city-budgets.html#data.

Harvard University Graduate School of Design. “Future of Streets.” https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/project/future-of-streets/

Perkins, Lucy, Nicole Dupuis, and Brooks Rainwater. 2018. “Autonomous Vehicle Pilots Across America.” Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities. https://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/AV%20MAG%20Web.pdf.

Scharnhorst, Eric and Research Institute for Housing America. 2018. “Quantified Parking: Comprehensive Parking Inventories for Five U.S. Cities.” Washington, D.C.: Mortgage Bankers Association (May). https://www.mba.org/Documents/18806_Research_RIHA_Parking_Report%20(1).pdf.

SDOT (Seattle Department of Transportation). 2017. “New Mobility Playbook.” Seattle, WA. September. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/NewMobilityProgram/NewMobility_Playbook_9.2017.pdf.

Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities. https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/.

University of Oregon. “Urbanism Next Center.” https://urbanismnext.uoregon.edu/

In the few years since the Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) movement splashed on the scene in cities across the United States, the YIMBY mantra has been persistent: Clear away the regulatory barriers and let developers build more housing. The laws of supply and demand will take over, their argument goes, and ultimately prices will go down. But the backlash against the YIMBY movement has been strong, as community activists have warned that increased development actually makes things worse. They worry, with some evidence, that the zoning changes YIMBYs are advocating for only accelerate gentrification and displacement—disproportionally harming low-income families and communities of color.

Those concerns were enough to derail YIMBY-sponsored legislation in California last year that would have fast-tracked multifamily housing production around transit stations. Coalitions of low-income families and social justice advocates, in increasingly harsh terms, denounced the pro-growth approach and proclaimed that in some transitioning neighborhoods, it might be better to halt new building altogether.

The controversy roiled further as critics of the YIMBY movement asserted that it skews too young and white to effectively understand or address the housing-related realities faced by residents of neighborhoods in transition.  Meanwhile, research has cast doubts on the very premise that the market can solve the affordability challenge.

In the midst of this messy situation, a potential compromise has begun to emerge thanks to forward-looking policy makers: Increasingly, cities are formalizing the requirement that new residential development include a percentage of affordable homes, the policy known as inclusionary housing. The principles of land value capture form the foundation of such mandates for affordability, which allow the public to recover some of the increased property value enjoyed by landowners as the result of government actions like rezoning.

“[Upzoning] generates a lot of value. There’s widespread agreement on that,” said Rick Jacobus, principal at Street Level Advisors in Oakland, California, who wrote Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities for the Lincoln Institute (Jacobus 2015). With affordability requirements, he says, communities “can recover that value and put it to work for the public, and benefit the people who would not otherwise be the beneficiaries of real estate development—and indeed have suffered from it in the past.”

This reframing of the urban development paradigm—the notion that when government clears the way for more building, the public can expect something in return—has become the basis for fledgling coalitions from Seattle to Minneapolis and beyond. Some in the YIMBY movement still view inclusionary housing requirements as another barrier that gets in the way of increased housing supply. But others say this new way of looking at the relationship among builders, government, and neighborhoods may be the key to breaking the deadlock—and that it could be one more step toward building cities that are livable for all.

Born of Backlash

In high-cost cities from Seattle to Boston, the housing affordability crisis is extending its reach to the point where even middle- and higher-income people are getting priced out. As a result, political energy is spreading beyond longstanding advocates for affordable housing to include new stakeholders, many of whom are focused on zoning and other regulatory barriers to development. These are the people who have organized under the banner of Yes in My Backyard, or YIMBY. It’s a counterforce to those who oppose development in their neighborhoods—a mindset, if not quite an organized movement, long known as Not in My Backyard, or NIMBY.

The YIMBY movement has roots in Europe and Canada, and arguably first gained momentum in the United States in San Francisco, as millennials and those in the burgeoning tech industry became frustrated with the lack of new housing supply. The YIMBYs received national attention last year with a bill—written by a California YIMBY group and backed by Silicon Valley money—that would have required cities to allow denser development near transit, regardless of local zoning.

Though now facing pushback, the YIMBY movement was itself born of backlash. Ever since cities across the country started making a comeback in the 1980s, infill redevelopment in established urban neighborhoods has been stymied by outdated zoning and codes, Byzantine regulations, onerous requirements such as extensive off-street parking, and so-called exclusionary zoning that favors large lots and discourages multifamily housing. YIMBYism arose in large part out of frustration with neighborhoods saying no to new housing supply.

Established residents of every political persuasion have often been stubbornly resistant to change in their midst, embracing the regulatory barriers—all the hoops developers had to jump through—as much-needed protection. “They’re worried about their views, traffic, parking, and a new demographic coming into their community,” said Mary Lydon, a housing consultant in San Diego, where Mayor Kevin Faulconer recently announced he wants to be the first YIMBY mayor. At the mere proposal of increased density along transit corridors, she said, people “become unglued.”

Economists and land policy scholars have thoroughly documented the NIMBY dynamic. William Fischel at Dartmouth College, author of The Homevoter Hypothesis (Fischel 2001) and Zoning Rules! (Fischel 2015) showed that concern about individual property values was driving much of the resistance to further growth. In Triumph of the City and numerous papers, Harvard University professor Edward Glaeser illustrates how land use regulations, exclusionary zoning, and even historic preservation are hobbling urban economies because there isn’t enough housing available for workers (Glaeser 2011).

Research on four booming cities in Texas—Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin—indicates that Austin’s housing got more expensive more quickly than in the other metro areas.  The distinguishing factor was that Austin, by comparison, had more extensive regulations and permitting requirements that either discouraged density or led to long construction delays (Shannon 2015).

Add more housing, the YIMBY advocates claimed, and the demand for that product will get absorbed, leading prices to drop—a basic rule of economics. Even new luxury housing could have a salutary effect, they argued, in a process known as “filtering”: wealthier residents moving into a new penthouse downtown free up the aging townhouse in outlying neighborhoods, which in turn liberates a triple-decker down the street that will command lower rents.

The mantra to build, build, build has also been buttressed by an environmental argument: that cities have an obligation to cluster height and density at transit stations, to cut down on carbon emissions. The combination of climate change and the affordability crisis amounts to a national emergency, said Dan Bertolet, senior researcher at the Sightline Institute in Seattle, a research organization promoting environment and equity in the Pacific Northwest.

“We need to focus on the big picture: cities like Seattle need to add as much housing as [they can] as fast as possible. People seem to get hung up somehow on the fairness of that … that landowners and developers are bathing in gold coins,” he said. The wave of tech jobs in such cities should be seen as a “gift,” he said, that will ultimately boost the entire city.

“Developers build, supply increases, prices start to roll off—they are right now in Seattle, rents are down—and then developers stop because they can’t make money anymore. City governments should lower all the regulatory costs and all the things they can control, so developers will keep going, and lower the baseline rent as much as possible, before they stop,” Bertolet said.

“People say building all this supply won’t solve the [affordability] problem, and that’s true,” he said, noting that low-income families will still need subsidies and forms of public housing. “But if you build as much as you can, you make the leftover subsidy problem smaller. Who wouldn’t want to do that? We all know public housing is hugely expensive to build.”

The California Experiment

For all its apparent logic, the YIMBY movement was dealt a serious setback last year, when the California legislation fast-tracking density at transit stations, SB827 by San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener, died in committee. Traditional housing affordability advocates concerned about gentrification and displacement formally parted ways with the cause for increasing supply. YIMBY advocates were accused of not understanding real estate realities on the ground, particularly in communities of color.

The basic problem was that the legislation did nothing to counteract historical patterns of racialized displacement and dispossession by real estate investment capital, University of Southern California urban studies professor Lisa Schweitzer wrote on her blog during the fractious debate. The growing perception was that the California measure gave the green light to developers without addressing equity concerns. The San Francisco Planning Department noted drily that SB827 would provide “huge additional value to property owners throughout the state, without concurrent value capture.” On the Crenshaw Subway Coalition’s website, Damien Goodmon was more forthright, describing the legislation as “a declaration of war on South LA.”

The political disintegration in California augured much more acrimony to come. A flier in Oakland called for “autonomous action/creative intervention/sabotage” against a scheduled gathering of the “pro-gentrification YIMBY party” descending on the community “to plot our total destruction.” In the fall of last year, when YIMBY organizers chose the Roxbury section of Boston—a neighborhood facing intense gentrification pressure and rising prices—as the site for their national conference, called YIMBYtown, a coalition of local social justice groups organized a protest under the banner Homes for All. Bearing spools of caution tape imprinted with the words “No Displacement Zone,” they interrupted the closing plenary, which featured a speaker from the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

“We believe the people closest to the pain are people who have the answers,” said Armani White, a Roxbury resident working with a group called Reclaim Roxbury.

Hallah Elbeleidy, policy analyst of Urban Programs at the Lincoln Institute, helped organize the YIMBYtown conference as a volunteer and focused on offering a program that featured critical and different viewpoints. The protest led to some soul-searching within local YIMBY and YIMBY-aligned organizations, she said, but didn’t necessarily lead to meaningful change. “Those they declare to want as neighbors aren’t represented in their organizations in a meaningful way, nor in the neighborhoods in which they reside,” says Elbeleidy. “While there are some uncontrollable factors at play, YIMBY advocates must examine and respond to how far from these individuals they really are, and not just spatially.”

Reflecting on the experience of being the subject of protests and the discomfort these very necessary conversations can bring, Elbeleidy penned an essay titled “Getting Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable” in Planning magazine (Elbeleidy 2019). In the piece, which was published in January, she urges greater collaboration among housing advocates: “We cannot accept a siloed approach to a problem fundamentally relevant to every individual.”

Examining the Premise

One of the most potent arguments in the backlash against the YIMBY movement is that its basic premise is all wrong. “We’re challenging YIMBYs to stop promoting the myth that the market can solve the affordability and displacement crisis,” said Lori Hurlebaus of Dorchester Not for Sale, during the Roxbury protest.

Well-established research shows that excessive regulations, exclusionary zoning, and NIMBYism can lead to higher prices. But there is little definitive evidence in the current literature that removing barriers and adopting upzoning brings prices down.

Some studies use econometric modeling and survey data that shore up the YIMBY argument. In The Long Term Dynamics of Affordable Rental Housing, researchers at the Hudson Institute and Econometrica Inc. found that from 1985 to 2013, nearly half of rentals affordable to low-income families existed previously as homes owned or rented by higher-income residents (Weicher 2017). Stuart Rosenthal at Syracuse University estimated that this filtering occurred over roughly the same time period at a steady rate of 2.5 percent per year (Rosenthal 2014).

If new housing isn’t built, wealthy newcomers have no choice but to bid on existing homes, driving up prices and derailing the filtering process, said New York University professor Roderick M. Hills, Jr. In this view, it would defy the laws of economic gravity to assert that building more supply somehow exacerbates affordability problems. “Attributing rent increases to new market-rate housing is like attributing rainstorms to umbrellas,” Hills wrote.

Other studies, however, suggest that what’s actually happening on the ground is far more complicated. An extensive review by New York University’s Furman Center found that, “from both theory and empirical evidence . . . adding new homes moderates price increases and therefore makes housing more affordable to low- and moderate-income families.” But the study also quickly emphasized that “new market-rate housing is necessary but not sufficient, and that government intervention is critical to ensure that supply is added at prices affordable to a range of incomes” (Been 2018).

A 2018 Federal Reserve paper by Elliot Anenberg and Edward Kung confirmed that housing demand has low elasticity—meaning essentially that consumers continue to pay higher prices despite increases in supply—and that rents may be more determined by the amenities in desirable or transitioning neighborhoods (Anenberg 2018). The implication is that even if a city were able to ease some supply constraints to achieve a marginal increase in its housing stock, that city would not experience a meaningful reduction in rental burdens.

In some cases, neighborhoods that are targeted for zoning reforms allowing greater height and density see prices rise very quickly—before a single foundation is poured. That was the conclusion of an MIT study published in January 2019 in Urban Affairs Review, looking at land parcels and condominiums in catchment areas around transit stations in Chicago that had been rezoned for taller and denser buildings (Freemark 2019). An important caveat was that there was a lag in permitting and construction of new projects—so supply wasn’t actually increased. But because the city signaled that density would increase, the research concluded that the “short-term, local-level impacts of upzoning are higher property prices.”

Even if the massive introduction of supply eventually has a moderating effect, the urgency of the housing crisis is that there’s no tomorrow. “Unfortunately, those facing pressures from increasing prices don’t have the luxury of time—they can’t pay the difference and wait for a better deal down the line,” said Elbeleidy.

Cities Move Forward

While this battle plays out, policy makers and housing advocates are making adjustments on the ground. Many are tying upzoning to affordability requirements such as inclusionary housing, where new residential development must include a percentage of affordable homes—typically 10 to 15 percent as a baseline—or funding so that the same amount of affordable homes can be built elsewhere in the community. Many cities are changing this policy from voluntary to mandatory. In California, lawmakers have worked with critics to redraft the density bill with statewide affordability requirements, as well as other protections for renters. The legislation also delays implementation for five years in neighborhoods most threatened by displacement.

In Minneapolis, the scene of extensive policy innovations around housing, the city laid the groundwork for increasing supply by easing restrictions in the downtown area, legalizing accessory dwelling units, and banning single-family-only zoning, to encourage more multifamily development. All of that was swiftly followed by a minimum inclusionary requirement of 10 percent for any project that gets increased allowable size, measured as floor-area ratio.

“This city council isn’t going to upzone without that policy,” said council president Lisa Bender. Even if it’s not discussed on a daily basis, the concept of value capture provided a critical rationale for that reciprocity, she said. “We have made it easier to develop. We have given lots of benefits to developers—we’ve eliminated parking requirements, we have an amazing park system, streets, transit—all kinds of investments that are creating a private benefit. And affordable housing isn’t the only way we ask for some of that benefit back. We have a fee to help pay for the park system.” That message—that taxpayers are constantly providing things that increase value for private landowners and developers—is hugely important, she said.

While expectations have permanently shifted, the city is constantly monitoring projects to make sure developers don’t end up with undue burdens. One additional measure being studied is allowing the use of tax increment financing as a supplement to the inclusionary requirement—additional funding that could potentially double the number of affordable units from 10 to 20 percent.

“I think we’re at a point in Minneapolis where we have a pro-growth, pro-equity political coalition,” Bender said. “Increasing supply is a necessary part of housing stability, but we insist that growth should help close our race and equity gaps, which are among the worst in the country.”

Inclusionary housing requirements are either in place or on the way in other cities as well. Seattle’s Housing Affordability and Livability program, for example, essentially now establishes a formula: if certain parts of town are upzoned, or projects get to be denser, larger, and taller, the obligation to supply affordable housing increases concomitantly. A few other examples:

• In Honolulu, a new rail line will boost private land values along its route. As such, the affordability requirements in Hawaii are seen as neither a gift by developers nor an extra charge—but rather, the recovery of a portion of the taxpayer-funded infrastructure project that is creating large increases in value for the private sector. “The public has invested billions of dollars into rail. That is increasing the property values around rail stations, and allowing people to build higher and more densely. That is all worth a lot and we need to get back some of our public investment by building more affordable housing,” said Gavin Thornton, co-executive director of the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.
• In San Diego, the multipronged approach includes removing height restrictions and minimum parking requirements, an unlimited density bonus for any project that includes affordable housing, a 10 percent inclusionary standard, and by-right zoning approval for affordable housing and housing for the homeless. A plan to vastly increase allowable height and density along a new transit corridor is set to be accompanied by the provision of land near stations owned by the regional transit agency.
• Vancouver, B.C., is divided up into six districts that determine contributions by developers, known as Community Amenity Contributions and Development Cost Levies, based on the rezoning in each area. A measure to allow more duplexes, for example, triggers a calibrated affordability requirement. The system was designed to improve transparency, and it also has the effect of taking the mystery out of what developers can or can’t afford.

“There is understandable distrust of developers—those who have benefitted from the housing crisis. Well-designed land value capture policies serve to counter some of those fears,” said Vancouver City Councilor Christine Boyle. In what is increasingly becoming a common refrain, Boyle said she would prefer a citywide land value tax, which would fully match the realities of how landowners and developers are currently making profits. Boyle, a United Church minister, pitched the idea during her campaign, and gave it a catchy label: Windfall Power.

A New Framework

Despite this embrace of inclusionary requirements, complaints persist that they are never enough—that if cities require 15 percent of new residential development, the number of affordable homes will never catch up to the number of market-rate homes.

“Everybody recognizes it’s not enough, and it should never be the only thing, but inclusionary housing is an important source of affordable housing,” said Jacobus of Street Level Advisors. There is no question, he said, that the details of implementation are reliably complicated, and that changing the required percentage of affordable homes can be at odds with making the policy predictable.

But once landowners, in particular, realize that inclusionary requirements will be part of the equation from the start, the policy becomes an accepted and standard component of the urban development process, he said. With that as a basic foundation, policy makers can turn to other measures and initiatives, in a bundling of actions for affordability—strengthened tenants protections, co-housing and shared equity housing, tax increment financing for affordable housing, and reforms to allow accessory dwelling units, tiny houses, and single-room occupancy or rooming houses, just to name a few.

Given the high price of urban land, which makes housing so expensive, many cities are supplementing inclusionary requirements with direct actions such as providing government-owned land for affordable housing. Sound Transit, the Seattle area’s regional transportation authority, has made it a policy to do just that, handing over parking lots and construction staging areas next to existing and new light rail stations.

A mix of carrots and sticks is increasingly part of the effort to push cities and towns to plan for adequate housing. Courts in New Jersey have for decades enforced the state’s “fair share” housing laws, stemming from the landmark Mount Laurel decisions. In Massachusetts, under Chapter 40-B, housing gets fast-tracked if municipalities fail to maintain at least 10 percent of their housing stock as affordable to those earning 80 percent of median area income.

And some politicians are getting tougher. Mayor Martin Walsh has endorsed a special tax on the penthouses and other luxury homes that are increasingly dominating the landscape in Boston. California Governor Gavin Newsom, formerly the mayor of San Francisco, coupled $2 billion in new funding for housing and homelessness initiatives with a proposal to punish communities that block home building by withholding other state funding.

Randy Shaw, a leader of the YIMBY cause and author of Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America (Shaw 2018), said he would take such tough measures a step further—by charging residents who block multifamily housing for the value they are accruing by maintaining the status quo.

“Homeowners increasing their own values are profiting by artificially restricting development,” said Shaw, who is director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, a pro-tenants group. “We act as if there’s no economic impact of anti-apartment policies. They increase the price for everybody else, and in terms of equity, it’s a staggering amount of money that homeowners are gaining.”

In contrast, linking upzoning to affordability requirements stands to be a more feasible and politically acceptable step, as a theoretical basis for the YIMBY movement. Changing the framework for urban development across the country can also smooth out highly charged neighborhood politics.

“I think the world is a better place for them being around,” said Jacobus of YIMBY advocates. “I just want them to be more concerned about what these communities are concerned about.”

Clashes like the protest of YIMBYtown in Roxbury are “totally avoidable,” he said. “Both sides are fighting an uphill battle, and there’s no good reason to be on opposite sides. It’s not going to be right to not build at all.”

If nothing else, YIMBYs might embrace affordability requirements as part of a better communications campaign. “It changes the way voters respond to a new development, even though everybody recognizes it’s not enough,” Jacobus said. “Lecturing people about supply and demand doesn’t work. What would it take to make people think they’re part of the solution? If we’re all going to row in the same direction, we have to all think there’s something in it for everyone.”

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photograph: Members of the YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) movement at a rally for failed California housing bill SB 827 in 2018. The bill has been redrafted to include statewide affordability requirements and other protections for renters. Credit: Jef Poskanzer/Flickr CC BY-NC 2.0 

References

Anenberg, Elliot, and Edward Kung. 2018. “Can More Housing Supply Solve the Affordability Crisis? Evidence from a Neighborhood Choice Model.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2018-035. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2018.035.

Been, Vicki, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan. 2018. “Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability.” Working paper. New York, NY: NYU Furman Center (November). http://furmancenter.org/research/publication/supply-skepticismnbsp-housing-supply-and-affordability.

Beyer, Scott. 2016. “Why Is Austin’s Housing More Expensive Than Other Texas Cities?” Forbes, August 31, 2016. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/31/why-is-austins-housing-more-expensive-than-other-texas-cities/#3b7f37ce6121.

Elbeleidy, Hallah. 2019. “Getting Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable.” Planning, January 2019. https://www.planning.org/login/?next=/planning/2019/jan/viewpoint/.

Fischel, William A. 2005. The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

–––. 2015. Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land Use Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Freemark, Yonah. “Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction.” Urban Affairs Review, prepublished January 29, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418824672.

Glaeser, Edward. 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Hills, Roderick M. 2018. “Why Do So Many Affordable-Housing Advocates Reject the Law of Supply and Demand?” The Washington Post, September 18, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/18/why-do-so-many-affordable-housing-advocates-reject-law-supply-demand/.

Jacobus, Rick. 2015. Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities. Policy focus report. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Rosenthal, Stuart A. 2014. “Are Private Markets and Filtering a Viable Source of Low-Income Housing? Estimates from a ‘Repeat Income’ Model.” American Economic Review 104, no. 2: 687-706. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42920713?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

San Francisco Planning Department. 2018. “Memo on SB 827.” February 5, 2018. http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/SB%20827.pdf.

Shannon, Megan Elizabeth. 2015. “Quantifying the Impacts of Regulatory Delay on Housing Affordability and Quality in Austin, Texas.” Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at Austin. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/32194.

Weicher, John C., Frederick J. Eggers, and Fouad Moumen. 2017. “The Long-Term Dynamics of Affordable Rental Housing.” Washington, DC: Hudson Institute (September 15). https://www.hudson.org/research/13339-the-long-term-dynamics-of-affordab….

Las Vegas residents receive $3 for every square foot of grass they replace with drought-tolerant landscaping. In Morro Bay, California, developers must retrofit existing housing stock to save twice the water demanded by new development. Chandler, Arizona, offers awards and incentives to developments that meet green building standards.

These are just a few of the programs profiled in a new manual released by Pace University’s Land Use Law Center and Western Resource Advocates (WRA), with support from the Lincoln Institute’s Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy. Intended for local land use planners facing water scarcity and related environmental challenges in the Intermountain West, the 300-page guide calls for the assimilation of water efficiency and conservation techniques into community development and land use planning. Integrating Water Efficiency into Land Use Planning in the Interior West: A Guidebook for Local Planners builds on years of research and community discussions and aims to build collaboration between land use planners and water planners, who have historically operated within their own silos.

“If you can really think about water throughout all parts of development, you can actually become much more efficient with your water resources and you often don’t even need new supplies,” explained John Berggren, water policy analyst at WRA.

For the past decade, as the Intermountain West has seen significant population growth, WRA and other local organizations have been working with municipal staff and elected officials to shift the region toward “water smart” development practices. In 2015, for example, Colorado published its first water plan, which includes a goal that 75 percent of the state’s municipalities will incorporate water-saving actions into land-use planning by 2025.

The new manual, written specifically for local land use planners, is the first comprehensive document of its kind, said Erin Rugland, research fellow at the Babbitt Center. “This manual is foundational in forming our efforts and advancing the state of practice and literature of water and land use integration,” Rugland said.

“You not only get the technical information like specific zoning codes, but you can also see examples from communities around the country to learn what they did, how they did it, and how it turned out,” Berggren added.

The focus of the guide’s chapters range from how to draft a water element for a comprehensive plan, to how to structure a sustainability plan to address water, to how to create water-efficient density by permitting accessory dwelling units. Within each chapter, subsections drill down to detailed instructions—for example, how to promote cluster development, or adopt requirements for water-saving measures such as stormwater capture that equal the water demands of new development. Throughout, guidelines are supplemented by case studies, including sample language that municipalities have used in their planning documents.

The Babbitt Center’s involvement with the new manual is an important launching point for the center’s growing work and presence in the Intermountain West. Established in 2017, the Babbitt Center is currently producing informational materials for the State of Colorado on integrating water into comprehensive plans and providing guidance on integrating land use within water efficiency plans filed by Colorado water providers. “In the next year, we will expand our review of comprehensive plans throughout Colorado River Basin communities to better gauge the state of practice in the region,” said Rugland.

Photograph Credit: Flickr/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency