With the arrival of 2020, Minneapolis becomes the first major U.S. city to implement a ban on single-family zoning in every neighborhood. For decades, single-family zoning had locked up nearly three-quarters of the city’s urban land in low-density housing and had contributed directly to lasting racial inequities. The historic and controversial policy shift—which comes with the formal adoption of the Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan and follows years of research, planning, and political maneuvering—will allow duplexes and triplexes citywide. It has been hailed as a significant and replicable step toward more effective and equitable use of urban land, and has inspired or helped inform similar shifts across the country.

From an economic and planning perspective, undoing single-family zoning is “a momentous idea,” says William Fischel, emeritus economics professor at Dartmouth College, a zoning board member in Hanover, New Hampshire, and author of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy book Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land Use Regulation (Fischel 2015). “I heartily approve of what Minneapolis is doing.”

The movement toward exclusively single-family neighborhoods in the United States began in the 1910s and 1920s, says Fischel. “Advocates of zoning were unabashedly in favor of the single-family house” for many reasons, including public health; such structures were seen as improvements to crowded and unsanitary urban neighborhoods. The turning point that made single-family zoning so desirable across the nation came in the 1970s, when inflation made housing a very attractive equation for building personal wealth, he says. Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, with the rising value of homes, people found that they could stop development in their single-family neighborhoods through zoning. “That’s been a clear goal all over the country, to protect single-family-zoned housing,” mostly from incursions of industry or denser and more affordable housing, says Fischel.

Single-family zoning is a barrier to home ownership for those who can’t afford to purchase a home, effectively locking up certain neighbor­hoods. During the Minneapolis 2040 process, its champions—including a progressive mayor and city council, along with the city’s Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) department—presented the comprehensive plan as part of the solution to addressing the enduring effects of policies that intentionally and systematically discriminated against communities of color. The resulting disparities, the plan says, were “rooted in overt and institutionalized racism that has shaped the opportunities available to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents.” As the plan notes, Minneapolis has both the nation’s lowest home ownership rate among black households and the widest unemployment gap between black and white residents.

“Equity drove this in a big way,” says Caren Dewar, executive director of the Minneapolis-based Urban Land Institute (ULI) Minnesota, whose members include large multifamily and affordable housing developers, urban planners, architects, and others. “It was a bold move, and it was hard. City council members ran on a very progressive platform, supported by a group of savvy and engaged advocates who supported overcoming racist history and providing more housing.”

As Minneapolis begins its history-making policy implementation, other cities and states have begun to implement shifts that encourage density, equity, and affordability, from allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in parts of Washington, DC, to passing statewide legislation in Oregon that legalizes certain types of multifamily properties in cities of 10,000 or more. Others are watching to determine how dismantling single-family zoning will not only provide more places to live, but also change the physical, economic, and social landscape of cities.

Housing Woes in a Growing City

Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis added more than 37,000 residents and 12,000 homes, increasing its population 11 percent to 425,000, according to estimates from the Metropolitan Council (Met Council), the policy and planning agency for the Twin Cities metropolitan region. This growth is part of a rebound from the decades of decline that had occurred since the city’s population peaked at nearly 522,000 in 1950—changes related to the loss of industry, “white flight,” and the construction of new suburbs. The Minneapolis metro region’s population is expected to grow as much as 10 percent per decade, to 3.7 million by 2040, according to the Met Council. To meet existing and future housing demand, the region needs to add more than 14,000 homes each year for the next two decades.

Now boasting one of the lowest vacancy rates in the U.S., 19 Fortune 500 companies, and steady economic and population growth, the Minneapolis-St. Paul area is ranked first in the Midwest for real estate investments, especially in rental properties (PwC 2019). But it also ranks first in a more dubious arena: Minneapolis has the nation’s lowest black home ownership rate, according to a 2018 analysis of 128 U.S. cities conducted by the APM Research Lab, a sister company of Minnesota Public Radio News. The study showed more than 70 percent of white households in these cities, but only 40 percent of black households, owned their home. In Minneapolis, the gap was more pro­nounced: 78 percent of white households, and only 19.8 percent of black households, were homeowners (APM 2019).

Minneapolis is also grappling with an affordable housing crisis amplified by a lack of housing options, particularly smaller residences suitable for first-time buyers and those looking to downsize. These “missing middle” properties include duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, and small apartment buildings. Such multifamily buildings were a valued part of the city’s urban fabric until the 1940s, when single-family zoning began to take hold. Many were grandfathered into the single-family zones, which now encom­pass 70 percent of the city’s 54 square miles.

In the past decade, rising home prices and the lack of housing types have boosted the percentage of renters from 49 percent to a 52 percent majority. The cost of single-family homes has been rising steadily in recent years, and the median home price hit $290,000 in June 2019, a 7.2 percent increase over June 2018, according to the Minneapolis Area Realtors, while homes in the wealthier single-family neighborhoods can sell for several million dollars. Median rent was $1,695 in the first quarter of 2019, up 3.6 percent over the previous year, compared to the U.S. median monthly rent of $1,530 (Clark 2019). Financial pressure on renters has been com­pounded by decreasing wages: since 2000, the median income of Minneapolis renters has declined 14 percent as median rent increased 11 percent. The plan notes that the city’s economic gaps by race are significant: black households earn a median income of $20,871, less than a third of the $65,000 earned by white households, and 45 percent live below the poverty line. These disparities are at least in part the outcome of exclusionary zoning, research suggests.

Mapping Prejudice

In 2016, an interdisciplinary team of community activists, students, and scholars from the University of Minnesota began a project called Mapping Prejudice. The goal of the project was to make structural racism visible by identifying and mapping the property contracts that made many neighborhoods racially exclusive during the 20th century. Although this practice was not limited to Minneapolis (see sidebar), their effort was the first comprehensive visualization of racial covenants for an American city.

The team’s intent was to work with resi­dents, activists, and policy makers to under­stand how contemporary inequities were rooted in historic injustices. Using GIS and with help from volunteers, the team has been reviewing more than 1.4 million digital scans of warranty deeds in Hennepin County from 1900 through 1960, and has uncovered more than 20,000 covenants for private homes that specifically excluded people on the basis of race or ethnici­ty. These findings demonstrate that structural barriers stopped many people of color from buying property and building wealth for most of the last century.

When the city’s first racially restrictive deed was written in 1910, Minneapolis was not particularly segregated, but covenants “changed the landscape of the city,” notes the Mapping Prejudice website. For example, a 1919 adver­tisement in the Minneapolis Tribune offered “restricted” housing sites overlooking one of the city’s lakes that could not be sold, mortgaged, or leased to anyone of African, Asian, or Jewish descent. The Mapping Prejudice research revealed that most deeds were crafted mainly to exclude blacks, who were pushed into small areas of North Minneapolis as racially restrictive deeds increased—even as the number of black households also grew.

In the 1930s, federal housing administrators endorsed these documents, requiring them for projects that used federally backed financing. Lenders followed suit, accepting the rationale that covenants provided the essential insur­ance of stable investments in residential property. Banks routinely “redlined” or denied loans for properties in racially mixed neighbor­hoods, and increasing sections of the city became entirely white, laying the groundwork for patterns of residential segregation that still exist today. Though the laws would change—the U.S. Supreme Court made covenants unenforceable in 1948, the Minnesota Legisla­ture prohibited their use in 1953, and the U.S. Congress banned racial restrictions as part of the Fair Housing Act of 1968—the effects of covenants and predatory lending practices would endure in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

Partnering with the Mapping Prejudice team, city planners compared zoning maps and demographic data with redlined areas and found they had nearly identical boundaries. They documented that even after redlining was abolished, people of color had been excluded from most of the single-family neighborhoods in the city, and thus had been prevented from owning homes, accumulating wealth, and having access to the better jobs, transit, educational opportunities, parks and open space, and other benefits available to residents of more affluent white neighborhoods.

The areas that were covenanted are largely white and among the wealthier parts of the city today, while the areas engineered to be largely black remain that way and are among the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Where shifts are occurring—in some areas of North Minneapolis, for example—they follow patterns of gentrifica­tion, as white residents priced out of other areas “discover” mostly black neighborhoods with lower-priced housing.

The Mapping Prejudice project proved that “Minneapolis had a direct link from racially biased zoning to single-family zoning,” says Heather Worthington, CPED’s long-range planning director. When it came time to design the comprehensive plan, “the linkage between the racially biased housing and lending practices and covenants was really the important policy underlayment, as these informed the develop­ment of single-family zoning,” Worthington says. “That was the first reason we had to address the city’s single-family zones.” The second: “We heard from Minneapolis residents that, as they aged, they couldn’t access other types of housing, as so much of it was single-family, one-size-fits-all kind of housing. They wanted more choice, and places to downsize. We had a huge racial disparity and [we also had] a large segment of the population that said, ‘We want more options.’”

Residential Segregation and Exclusionary Zoning

Minneapolis was the first large city in the country to enact a fair housing ordinance, and Minnesota was one of the first states to pass a civil rights law outlawing housing discrimination, says Myron Orfield, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and director of the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity (Orfield 2017). But residential segregation endures in this city and in communities across the country—the result of “a century of social engineering on the part of federal, state, and local governments that enacted policies to keep African Americans separate and subordinate,” notes Richard Rothstein in The Color of Law (Rothstein 2017).

While the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, ability, and familial status, it does not prohibit class-based, or economic, discrimina­tion—a legal loophole that permits continued discrimination against communities of color, which tend to be lower-income due to historical barring from home ownership and educational opportunities (DeNinno 2019). Housing segregated by income level is increasing due to exclusionary zoning policies that municipalities or individual neighborhoods use to reduce affordable housing options through restric­tions against apartments, townhomes, and other forms of multifamily housing, and such policies are still legal under current federal law, writes Richard Kahlenberg, senior fellow at the Century Foundation, in The New York Times: “Rising class segregation by residence is partly related to rising income inequality, but it is also the result of an expansion of exclusionary zoning.” In extremely wealthy neighborhoods with very large lot requirements, he notes, “policies can effectively exclude virtually all families not in the top one percent by income and wealth” (Kahlenberg 2017).

Kahlenberg argues for a new economic fair housing act to curtail government zoning policies that discriminate based on economic status. Such a law could ban exclusionary zoning at the local level or impose a penalty on municipalities that maintain discriminatory zoning, either by withholding infra­structure funds or by limiting the tax deduction homeowners can take for mortgage interest.

Laying the Groundwork for Change

In April 2017, a previous city council unanimous­ly adopted 2040 comprehensive plan goals that addressed key areas including racial disparities, housing and transit, and climate resilience. Later that year, the election of an especially progressive city council slate brought new mandates to Minneapolis. Elected to a second term and as president of the council was Lisa Bender, a cycling advocate and urban planner with a master’s degree in city and regional planning from the University of California, Berkeley, who had introduced a successful ADU ordinance in 2014. Andrea Jenkins, the first black, transgender woman to hold public office in the country, won a seat on the council after campaigning on a platform that included raising the minimum wage and increasing affordable housing supplies. She is now vice president of the council. Jacob Frey, a civil rights attorney and community activist, was elected mayor, and also ran on a platform of expanding housing.

The zoning changes Bender, Jenkins, Frey, and others promoted through Minneapolis 2040 faced fierce opposition; “Don’t Bulldoze Our Neighborhoods” lawn signs appeared around town, mostly in whiter, wealthier neighborhoods. Many in Minneapolis say the eventual success of the plan was attributed to a concerted effort to engage in community outreach by city officials and various local Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) activist groups.

The community engagement process underpinning Minneapolis 2040 spanned more than two years and 200 meetings, garnering over 18,000 public comments. The breadth and depth of the community outreach was unprecedented for the city, says Worthington, including commu­nity workshops and dialogues, artist-supported events, and online engagement. Planners were very intentional in seeking out communities that were typically underrepresented in planning efforts, such as renters, people of color, the disability community, and seniors, she says. “We tried to meet people where they were, have more visual presentations, and use innovative tactics. We went to many festivals and programs and jumped on buses and light rail to talk to people.” They also worked to achieve a much greater level of transparency than previous planning efforts.

Part of the process was educating residents by partnering with the Mapping Prejudice team, who presented findings and participated in discussions. “Minneapolis has a lot of what I call ‘progressive dissonance’—people who describe themselves as liberal and progressive but don’t understand the bias going back 100 years,” Worthington says.

For the first few months of the planning process, planners were often booed at meetings and received abusive emails. By the final months, she says, people wanted to learn more. It became “we’re all in this together and need to work together” to solve housing and equity issues, she says, rather than a Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) concern about preserving neighborhood character.

Duplexes and Triplexes

To be clear, the new zoning in Minneapolis does not prohibit construction of single-family homes. It simply says that no neighborhoods in the city can have only single-family homes. New duplexes and triplexes must be built within the existing building envelope, and up to two units can be added within that footprint to owner-occupied homes. Indeed, one doesn’t have to look far to find examples of how duplexes and triplexes could work in single-family neighborhoods.

“Our city originally developed along streetcar lines, so we have many neighborhoods that have a rich diversity of housing types and land uses, including duplexes, triplexes, and smaller multifamily buildings,” Bender has said (Grabar 2018). “So we were able to keep pointing back at those neighborhoods and say, ‘This is a pretty incremental change.’”

By inserting ADUs, duplexes and triplexes, and other housing types, “we’re undoing things that have been done for a long time,” said Bender in an interview for Land Matters, the Lincoln Institute podcast (Flint 2019). The comprehensive plan process raised questions such as, how do we redefine what is the status quo, what isn’t working for people today, who gets to live here, and what are people’s aspirations for this city, she says. “We’re at a crossroads in terms of people being able to live in our city and in terms of climate change, and we have to make some good moves” and meaningful investments.

Addressing concerns that more duplexes and triplexes will change neighborhood character and overtax the city’s infrastructure, supporters of the plan point to the fact that the city had an additional 100,000 residents decades ago—mostly more people in each home—and has plenty of street, transit, and other infrastructure capacity, says CPED Director David Frank.

An early draft of the comprehensive plan allowed for fourplexes on single-family lots. But organized opposition and a staff analysis, including architect-designed models, convinced planners to limit the density. To provide perspec­tive, Worthington notes, a typical city lot is 40 feet wide by 120 feet deep, and the maximum home size is 3,000 square feet. “Three units gets us more density on the lot but is a lot more livable” than trying to fit four in the same footprint. Three-unit developments can also use residential financing, whereas a four-unit configuration triggers commercial financing and building regulations. A triplex also doesn’t require ADA accommodations and is easier to lay out, she adds. Duplexes and triplexes “will be a relatively small change in terms of impact on neighborhoods, but can be a big opportunity for people who historically have had limited access to neighborhoods that have the best transit, grocery stores, parks, and other amenities.”

Will the new zoning cause developers to demolish single-family homes en masse and redevelop adjacent lots into multifamily build­ings, as opponents have warned? Worthington responds that the economics of tearing down an existing home and building a duplex or triplex are unlikely to pencil out for larger-scale developers; a homeowner with equity who can afford to build an ADU or convert part of the home to make a duplex, she says, “is probably a better prospect.”

Worthington also points to other potential players, including two land trusts in the area that buy property and help fund affordable housing development. Eddie Landenberger, vice president and senior project manager for the Twin Cities Land Bank—a local nonprofit organization that in the past decade has helped leverage land purchases for over 1,500 single-family and multifamily homes, including many that have been rehabbed in North Minneapolis—says interest in taking advantage of the new zoning regulations is on the rise.

“We don’t have clarity yet on how many duplexes and triplexes could be built in the next year or 10 years, but we do have more single-family and smaller developers now seeing duplex and triplex as an incremental step into building multifamily buildings,” says Landenberger. The land bank has been doing deals through the city’s Missing Middle program, which provides gap financing and grants as part of the city’s multi­pronged approach to developing more affordable housing (see sidebar).

“The zoning change provides more opportuni­ties for a landlord to have a couple units, and we’re starting to see smaller developers jumping into these projects,” says Landenberger. “The new zoning is already helping us with our work, as we’re now seeing entitlement processes referring to these future zoning changes.”

Minneapolis Affordable Housing Efforts

In the city of Minneapolis, 50 percent of renters and 74 percent of low-income renters are cost-burdened, according to Minneapolis 2040. Since 2000, the city has produced or preserved 8,900 housing units considered affordable for residents earning 50 percent of the area median income (AMI), which is $100,000 for a family of four in 2019. But the city also lost approximately 15,000 homes that were afforda­ble to households at this economic level; the homes generally still exist, but they are cost-prohibitive to own or rent.

The city’s 2019 budget addressed the four pillars of Minneapolis’ affordable housing agenda— production of new affordable housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, protection of renter rights, and increases in affordable home ownership opportunities—with an historic $40 million, more than three times the city’s previous record. State and federal funds bring that total to $50 million. This investment includes the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which was increased by $14 million in 2019 to $21.6 million. The fund provides gap financing to preserve and produce affordable rental housing for households earning less than 50 percent of AMI, with a priority for units affordable to households earning less than 30 percent of AMI.

The city also allocated $500,000 for the new Missing Middle Housing Pilot Program, which aims to develop affordable residential housing projects with between three and 20 rental or ownership units on vacant land along transit corridors. Minimum criteria for rental projects include 20 percent affordable units for households at or below 50 percent of AMI, maintained for a minimum of 30 years. Program financing for ownership projects requires at least 10 percent of units to be affordable to households at or below 80 percent of AMI. The city will finance up to $95,000 for each eligible affordable unit.

In addition to the Missing Middle pilot program, multiple interrelated efforts are underway to add more diverse and affordable housing options and a more equitable distribution of housing.

• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): One of the city’s goals in passing an ADU ordinance in 2014 was to provide age-in-place housing options. Planners developed design and regulatory standards for units to retain the character and context of the city’s low-density residential areas. The city eased development costs by waiving the two largest fees tied to adding a dwelling unit, a sewer availability charge and a parkland dedication fee, which together save homeowners about $4,000. The city had issued 137 permits for ADUs as of January 2019.
• Inclusionary Housing: City council approved an interim inclusionary housing ordinance in December 2018 and voted to increase affordability require­ments and impact fees for new upzoned development. A permanent inclusionary housing policy and ordinance proposal has been under consideration for 2020, pending city council approval. The proposed policy being considered would give developers of new rental housing with more than 20 units several options for providing affordable units on-site. These options range from requiring 4 percent of units to be affordable to those earning 30 percent of AMI to requiring 20 percent of units to be affordable at 50 percent AMI. The latter option includes tax increment financing assistance from the city. Developers could also build affordable units elsewhere or pay in-lieu. Ownership projects must have at least 10 percent of units priced as affordable for households earning 80 percent of AMI.
• Affordable Housing Preservation: The city’s 2019 budget includes $3.4 million to preserve and stabilize naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Launched in 2018, the 4d Program—named for the state tax classification for such properties—helps apartment building owners obtain property tax reductions of up to 40 percent if they commit to keeping 20 percent or more of their units affordable. In 2018, over 750 units with affordable rents were preserved with a 10-year affordability commitment.
• Minneapolis Homes: Funded at $5 million in 2019, this program offers loans for down payment assistance and has enabled the purchase of hundreds of city-owned vacant lots and houses, including many in North Minneapolis. Under the program, the city assisted with 74 homes in 2018, and 57 were purchased by a person of color or indigenous person.

Measuring Progress

According to fair housing laws, the city can’t restrict home sales to any particular groups or individuals, but the city is searching for the regulatory lever it can use to help people move into formerly single-family neighborhoods, says Worthington. “You can do things as a private citizen, like build an ADU and rent it to a person eligible for subsidized housing,” she says. “There’s a strong thread of that kind of commu­nity activism that runs through the city.”

The comprehensive plan is “part of an ecosystem of changes in policy at the city level on regulating land use, how we incentivize housing, how we invest in areas of the city that have been disinvested in over time.” She says Minneapolis is not pinning hopes just on duplexes and triplexes, which are likely to be built gradually over time and won’t provide the volume of housing needed. Upzoning along transit corridors with newly allowed four- to 10-story mixed-use buildings, another key component of the plan, is likely to spur more homes. She says the city is working with partners to identify a set of metrics to measure progress toward affordable housing, land use, and equity goals.

Still, uncertainty lingers, among opponents of the plan and supporters alike. One lakeside single-family neighborhood near a future light-rail station is applying for a never-used local conservation district designation in an effort to forestall development there. And advocates including City Council Vice President Jenkins say effective implementation will be key.

“I have some concerns around who will be able to take advantage of these opportunities,” says Jenkins, who is participating in a 10-city Policy Link initiative to develop strategies related to displacement. She says Minneapolis has helped low-income residents buy single-family homes and has built large affordable housing complexes, but she’d like to see the city expand the homeownership program and technical assistance program “to build a pipeline for home ownership, to allow black residents to become small developers, live in owner-occupied duplexes and triplexes, stabilize their communi­ties, and build wealth for their families.

“The new Missing Middle pilot program has a lot of potential,” says Jenkins. “That missing middle is where we can have the most success for low-income communities of color, particularly for black people.” She says the city owns hundreds of vacant lots, and “we have to be smart, creative, and intentional about these opportunities. The majority who have benefitted so far have not been people of color.” She says the city needs to “lean into” more targeted outreach and support for community develop­ment groups and mortgage education and training, and ensure that the ongoing discussion around these issues includes all communities.

Testing Incremental Change

As eliminating single-family zoning becomes more common, or at least more commonly considered, are we witnessing the end of an era? Only time will tell, says zoning expert Fischel. “Minneapolis is a very progressive city,” he says, and its zoning changes could be a special case that might not see widespread adoption across the nation. A city with a majority of renter households might have an easier time building public support for eliminating single-family zoning than a majority homeowner city. Introduc­ing Minneapolis-inspired policy changes to cities where homeowners are a distinct majority could be one test of wider applicability. Another test could be whether such a change would be overturned by a less-progressive city council in the future.

Fischel’s recommendations for urban planners and public officials in other cities parallel what Minneapolis has just done: educate the public about exclusionary zoning and emphasize the benefits of compact urban development and density. Avoid the “NIMBYs are evil and YIMBYs are good” argument, he suggests, and explain that higher density is good for social and economic diversity and for climate resilience. “Invert the ‘make no little plans’ concept to ‘make lots of little plans,’” says Fischel. “Undo single-family zoning in one city or one neighborhood at a time and see if it works. Try incrementalism.”

References

APM (APM Research Lab). 2019. “Divided Decade: How the Housing Market Has Changed Over the Past Decade.” Data visualization. February 12. https://www.apmresearchlab.org/housingcost.

Clark, Joshua. 2019. “HotPads Q1 2019 Rent Report: Rents Are on the Rise to Start 2019.” HotPads (blog). March 29. https://hotpads.com/blog/q1-2019-rent-report/.

CPED (City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development). 2019. Minneapolis 2040. Minneapo­lis, MN: CPED. https://minneapolis2040.com/media/1488/pdf_minneapolis2040.pdf.

DeNinno, Amy. 2019. “The Role of Zoning Regulations in the Perpetuation of Racial Inequality and Poverty: A Case Study of Oakland, California.” ArcGIS StoryMap. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e3f7c6fd337046ff978221e5dd370e20.

Fischel, William A. 2015. Zoning Rules! The Economics of Land Use Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/books/zoning-rules.

Flint, Anthony. 2019. “Episode 5: How One Midwestern City Is Trying to Stay Affordable.” Interview with Lisa Bender. Land Matters. Podcast audio. September 30. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/land-matters-podcast-2.

Grabar, Henry. 2018. “Minneapolis Confronts Its History of Housing Segregation.” Slate, December 7. https://slate.com/ business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html.

Kahlenberg, Richard. 2017. “The Walls We Won’t Tear Down.” The New York Times, August 6. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/opinion/sunday/zoning-laws-segregation-income.html.

Orfield, Myron, and Will Stancil. 2017. “Why Are the Twin Cities So Segregated?” Mitchell Hamline Law Review 43 (1). https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol43/iss1/1/.

PwC. 2019. “Emerging Trends in Real Estate: The Global Outlook for 2019.” https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/asset-management/emerging-trends-real-estate/global-outlook-2019.html.

Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corp/W. W. Norton.

University of Minnesota Libraries. “Mapping Prejudice.” https://www.mappingprejudice.org/.

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

Photographs (in order of appearance): 

In conjunction with the comprehensive planning process that resulted in a citywide ban on single-family zoning in Minneapolis, architecture students at the local Dunwoody College of Technology collaborated with city officials to study historical housing patterns and future needs. They also designed concepts for multifamily structures that could blend in with current neighborhoods, including “Cyclist-Centered Triplex” by Laura Stene. Credit: Designing for Minneapolis 2040, courtesy of Dunwoody College of Technology.

An interdisciplinary team based at the University of Minnesota is studying the connections between contemporary inequities and historic injustices. The researchers have  found archival materials including this 1919 advertisement from the Minneapolis Tribune, which restricts real estate purchases based on ethnicity. Credit: Mapping Prejudice.

A principios de 2019, la ciudad de Cornelius, Oregón, celebró la inauguración de un nuevo desarrollo de uso mixto llamado Cornelius Place. El edificio, ubicado en la calle principal de la ciudad, alberga una biblioteca pública de 1.260 metros cuadrados, en reemplazo de una que había en el Ayuntamiento y era cuatro veces más pequeña. También incluye un café, un patio en el que se desarrollarán conciertos y un mercado de productores rurales, y un gimnasio y centro de recreación de YMCA de 270 metros cuadrados. “Nuestra ciudad no tenía un centro comunitario, ni para personas mayores o jóvenes. Así, la biblioteca es mucho más que un repositorio de libros: también es un espacio comunitario de usos múltiples”, dijo Karen Hill, directora de la biblioteca, quien guió el proyecto.

Cornelius Place ofrece algo más a la comunidad: arriba de la biblioteca hay 45 departamentos, planificados como viviendas asequibles para personas mayores con ingresos de hasta el 60 por ciento de la mediana de la zona (AMI, por sus siglas en inglés). Once departamentos forman parte del programa Section 8, por lo que son aun más asequibles: los habitantes no deben destinar más del 30 por ciento de sus ingresos al alquiler.

Cornelius es una ciudad metropolitana de Portland con 12.400 habitantes, y espera crecer más de un tercio en los próximos cinco años. Según indicó Ryan Wells, director de desarrollo comunitario, Cornelius Place es el primer edificio de tres pisos y de uso mixto, y el primer edificio referente de un plan de ordenamiento territorial para construir un centro de la ciudad en el que se pueda caminar. Al combinar una nueva biblioteca pública con viviendas asequibles para mayores, ambos proyectos se pudieron concretar. “Cuando se mezclan esos usos, se comparten los costos de construcción”, dice Wells. “No podríamos haber construido la biblioteca por sí sola”.

A pesar de las predicciones de que morirían en la era digital, las bibliotecas públicas de muchas comunidades de los Estados Unidos en realidad están más ocupadas y son más valoradas que nunca. Se consideran cada vez más como centros comunitarios: en las 16.568 bibliotecas públicas del país, los visitantes pueden pasear entre los pasillos, concentrarse en portátiles, mejorar sus aptitudes laborales, estudiar inglés, probar equipos “de elaboración”, comunicarse con trabajadores sociales que trabajan allí y más. Pero muchas bibliotecas luchan por suplir esta demanda en instalaciones pequeñas, desactualizadas y que necesitan reparaciones, o que incluso necesitan reformas importantes para ofrecer las áreas colaborativas, los espacios de trabajo flexibles y la tecnología de punta que los visitantes esperan cada vez más.

Sin embargo, cuando se intenta reconstruir las bibliotecas públicas, suelen aparecer problemas financieros. En muchas ciudades, el valor del suelo y los costos de construcción están aumentando, y dichos proyectos son cada vez más caros y con frecuencia necesitan gravámenes especiales o campañas de captación de fondos. Por su parte, las ciudades que buscan soluciones nuevas para la crisis de viviendas asequibles se están fijando en algunos bienes inmuebles deseables: el espacio aéreo sobre esas bibliotecas públicas, que suelen estar en edificios bajos. Al unir fuerzas, resulta posible invertir dólares públicos en proyectos que atienden a la comunidad de varias maneras, y también aprovechar fondos adicionales para ellos.

“En general, la evolución de las bibliotecas públicas en las ciudades de los Estados Unidos siguió la evolución de las necesidades de la comunidad, y en cada vez más ciudades, hoy eso significa combinar bibliotecas nuevas con viviendas asequibles”, dice Loida Garcia-Febo, consultora de bibliotecas y presidenta de la Asociación de Bibliotecas de los Estados Unidos entre 2018 y 2019. “Casi todas las bibliotecas hallan su valor en cómo integran y responden a la comunidad, y es evidente que, en mercados inmobiliarios estrechos, las bibliotecas pueden aprovechar sus activos físicos para aumentar el valor que ofrecen a la comunidad”.

Vivir en la biblioteca

Combinar bibliotecas con departamentos es “parte de una tendencia que se aleja de la zonificación con un solo uso y vuelve a los usos mixtos”, dice Robin Hacke, directora ejecutiva del Centro de Inversión Comunitaria del Instituto Lincoln, que ayuda a comunidades en desventaja a utilizar inversiones para cubrir las prioridades económicas, sociales y ambientales. Hacke agregó que la tendencia también refleja que se reconoce la importancia de las bibliotecas como “tercer lugar de compromiso cívico y cohesión social”.

Uno de los primeros ejemplos del país de un espacio compartido entre biblioteca y viviendas asequibles tuvo lugar en San Francisco en el año 2006. Como parte del redesarrollo de Mission Bay, de 20 hectáreas, la ciudad se asoció con Catellus Development Corporation y Mercy Housing, una organización sin fines de lucro que desarrolla viviendas asequibles, para agregar una biblioteca filial de 700 metros cuadrados como referente cívico. El edificio que alberga la biblioteca incluye un salón de reuniones comunitarias, un centro de salud de día para adultos, una cafetería y Mission Creek Senior Housing, con 140 departamentos para personas mayores de bajos ingresos.

A pesar de presentar buenos resultados, por ahora el proyecto es único en la ciudad. Al menos un funcionario público pidió al bibliotecario interino de la ciudad que explore si se podrían combinar futuras renovaciones a bibliotecas con viviendas asequibles. “Estamos en una crisis de asequibilidad y necesitamos maximizar los terrenos públicos existentes para viviendas 100 por ciento asequibles”, escribió Sandra Lee Fewer, miembro de la Junta de Supervisores de la ciudad, en una respuesta por correo electrónico a Next City (Brey 2018). “Si no intentamos agregar viviendas asequibles sobre recursos públicos recién renovados, como las bibliotecas, estaríamos dejando pasar una oportunidad”.

Si bien San Francisco demoró en replicar el modelo de Mission Bay, otras ciudades adoptaron la idea; entre ellas, Chicago. Bajo la gestión del alcalde Rahm Emanuel, entre 2011 y 2019, la ciudad invirtió más de US$ 300 millones para renovar o construir 30 bibliotecas públicas en la red de 80 bibliotecas de la ciudad, que atiende a 10 millones de visitantes al año. La iniciativa “Branching Out: Building Libraries, Building Communities” (“Crear filiales: construir bibliotecas, construir comunidades”) se centró en invertir en bibliotecas como referentes comunitarios con arquitectura cívica y programación de alta calidad. Desde 2011, se construyeron seis bibliotecas nuevas, y se realizaron reformas importantes en 14 filiales. Para fines de 2019, se terminarán de construir cinco bibliotecas más y se renovarán cuatro existentes.

Tres de las nuevas comparten la ubicación con viviendas, en ejemplos de arquitectura moderna de talla mundial. En 2016, la ciudad anunció una asociación entre la Biblioteca Pública de Chicago (CPL, por su sigla en inglés) y la Autoridad de Viviendas de Chicago (CHA) que reduciría costos, aumentaría las visitas a las bibliotecas e invertiría en edificios atractivos y sustentables que ofrecerían los tipos de servicios que la ciudad necesita. Una competencia dirigida por la ciudad atrajo presentaciones de 32 firmas de arquitectura, y se seleccionaron tres firmas premiadas con sede en Chicago para diseñar los proyectos:

• La Biblioteca Filial y Departamentos Independence, de seis pisos y con un costo de US$ 33,4 millones, en Irving Park, Northwest Side, diseñada por John Ronan Architects y desarrollada por Evergreen Real Estate Group, posee una biblioteca de dos pisos que presenta un estudio de música y un taller de elaboración, debajo 44 departamentos subsidiados para personas mayores. 
• La Biblioteca Pública y Departamentos Asequibles de Northtown, de US$ 34 millones, en West Ridge, una estructura curvilínea de cuatro pisos diseñada por Perkins and Will, también fue desarrollada por Evergreen Real Estate Group. La flamante biblioteca, de 1.500 metros cuadrados, cuenta con un jardín y una terraza compartida con los inquilinos. Los pisos superiores incluyen 44 departamentos para personas mayores: 30 viviendas públicas de la CHA y 14 departamentos asequibles. 
• La Biblioteca Filial Little Italy y Departamentos de Taylor Street, de siete pisos y US$ 41 millones de inversión, cerca de Near West Side, diseñada por Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) y desarrollada por Related Midwest, incluye una biblioteca de planta abierta que ocupa un piso, y seis pisos más con 73 departamentos arriba. De estos, 37 son viviendas públicas de la CHA, 29 son viviendas asequibles y siete, departamentos a precio de mercado.

Además de los programas tradicionales de bibliotecas, como grupos de lectura para personas mayores, y programas educativos y culturales intergeneracionales, cada filial ofrece espacios de juego para aprendizaje temprano e instalaciones para que los adolescentes exploren el diseño digital, la música y la tecnología de grabación, con la ayuda de tutores experimentados. También ofrecen programas de alta tecnología, como impresión 3D, realidad virtual y robótica, además de apoyo especializado para desarrollar habilidades laborales y tutores tecnológicos.

En West Ridge e Irving Park, “estos proyectos permitieron a la CHA entregar nuevas unidades de viviendas y expandir las oportunidades de viviendas asequibles en dos comunidades donde la CHA antes no tenía mucha presencia”, dice Molly Sullivan, directora sénior de comunicaciones en la CHA. “Esto ayudó a suplir la demanda de viviendas asequibles para personas mayores en esas comunidades”. Sullivan dice que, además, el sistema de bibliotecas había estado buscando modos de acercar instalaciones modernas a esas comunidades, así que tenía sentido combinar las viviendas con las bibliotecas.

“La coubicación de bibliotecas y viviendas asequibles ofrece viviendas y centros de aprendizaje en los lugares donde se los necesita, y logra que las comunidades sean más resistentes y sostenibles”, dice Sullivan. “Sabemos que las viviendas son vitales para nuestros vecindarios, pero las comunidades sólidas y saludables también necesitan referentes que ofrezcan recursos para la educación permanente”.

Al hacer una crítica de los tres proyectos en The New York Times, el crítico de arquitectura Michael Kimmelman describió a las bibliotecas como “sencillamente, una buena planificación urbana”. Elogió a Emanuel por promover la idea de que “los edificios cívicos distinguidos en vecindarios desatendidos constituyeron su propia marca de equidad” (Kimmelman 2019).

En junio, Smart Growth America nombró a la biblioteca de Taylor Street el Proyecto del Año. “Cuando nos embarcamos en este proyecto y asociación únicos, sabíamos que estábamos construyendo más que un edificio nuevo”, dijo Eugene E. Jones, hijo, ex director ejecutivo de la Autoridad de Viviendas de Chicago, cuando se anunció el premio. “Estábamos creando un referente comunitario y un activo que tendrá un impacto duradero en los residentes y el vecindario” (CHA 2019).

Crece una filial en Brooklyn

Brooklyn también está aprovechando oportunidades para mejorar la infraestructura de bibliotecas con viviendas: usa filiales viejas como sedes de proyectos de redesarrollo que combinan bibliotecas nuevas con departamentos asequibles o, en un caso, una torre nueva con arquitectura elegante para condominios de lujo a precio de mercado.

La Biblioteca Pública de Brooklyn (BPL, por su sigla en inglés) es un sistema independiente de bibliotecas que atiende a los 2,5 millones de residentes del distrito. Es el quinto sistema de bibliotecas más grande de los Estados Unidos: 59 bibliotecas barriales y 7,9 millones de visitas al año. Puede parecer una capacidad inmensa, pero muchos de los edificios del sistema están atestados, deteriorados y no son aptos para usos modernos. En total, las bibliotecas de la Ciudad de Nueva York tienen necesidades de capital sin financiamiento por el valor de US$ 1.100 millones, de las cuales la mayoría son reparaciones; solo en Brooklyn se necesitan US$ 271 millones, según indica un informe de 2014 que llevó a cabo el Centro para un Futuro Urbano, una organización independiente sin fines de lucro dedicada a investigación y políticas (Giles 2014). El informe recomienda modos de reafirmar las bibliotecas como centros comunitarios, entre ellos incorporar viviendas asequibles.

“Vemos que las bibliotecas cumplen una función mucho más grande en Nueva York”, dice Eli Dvorkin, director editorial y de políticas del Centro. “Nunca hemos dependido de las bibliotecas como ahora”. Dice que las bibliotecas “son el único recurso al que acuden primero los inmigrantes, adolescentes y personas mayores. Son los centros comunitarios del s. XXI: construyen la infraestructura social de nuestras ciudades, pero no hemos invertido en su infraestructura”.

Eso está cambiando con proyectos como el redesarrollo de la Biblioteca Pública Sunset Park, de Brooklyn. La popular filial Sunset Park se construyó en la década del 70, pero era demasiado pequeña para suplir las necesidades de una comunidad cuya población creció en un 34 por ciento entre 1990 y 2014, el doble de la tasa de crecimiento de la ciudad. Los costos de vivienda también estaban aumentando: un informe estatal indicó que el aumento de la mediana de alquileres en la zona superó por mucho el aumento de la mediana de ingresos entre 2002 y 2014. En 2017, la ciudad emitió una solicitud de propuestas (RFP, por su sigla en inglés) y seleccionó a Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC), una organización sin fines de lucro con base en Brooklyn que se dedica a desarrollar viviendas asequibles y a la justicia social, como socio para reformar la biblioteca. FAC propuso una biblioteca de 2.000 metros cuadrados (el doble del tamaño original) con 49 unidades de viviendas permanentemente asequibles arriba.

La biblioteca, ubicada en las primeras dos plantas del edificio de ocho pisos, estará equipada con colecciones, tecnología y espacio flexible. Sobre ella, los departamentos se programaron para familias de ingresos bajos y medios, desde residentes sin ingresos que no tenían hogar, hasta quienes ganan entre el 30 y el 80 por ciento de la AMI. Los departamentos del edificio, cuya inauguración se espera para 2020, se alquilarán por mucho menos que los alquileres de mercado actuales en el vecindario.

“La Ciudad de Nueva York no está creando nuevos terrenos, pero la población crece, y los recursos exigen bibliotecas y también viviendas asequibles”, dice Michelle de la Uz, directora ejecutiva de FAC y comisionada de planificación en la Ciudad de Nueva York. Destacó que la ciudad posee una larga historia de combinar usos cívicos con otros desarrollos, pero esos proyectos no incluyeron viviendas 100 por ciento asequibles. “Queríamos crear el modelo para que se pudiera replicar y pudiéramos tener más de estas situaciones en las que todos ganan: las bibliotecas, las personas que necesitan viviendas asequibles y los contribuyentes”, y obtener el mayor beneficio posible de los terrenos públicos.

La filial Sunset Park es uno de varios híbridos entre biblioteca y viviendas en Nueva York. La Biblioteca Pública Inwood, de tres pisos y 2.400 metros cuadrados, ubicada en Upper Manhattan, que está en construcción, se encuentra debajo de un edificio de 14 pisos y uso mixto llamado Eliza, que posee 175 departamentos muy asequibles, salones de clase universales para pre jardín de infantes, un centro de atención de servicios sociales y comodidades, como un salón de juegos para niños, un gimnasio y un jardín en el techo.

De la Uz destaca que el sitio de Inwood fue rezonificado para admitir un aumento considerable en altura y densidad, mientras que “en Sunset Park, construimos de pleno derecho y no tuvimos que rezonificar: la altura estaba permitida”. Ella concuerda con una recomendación del Centro para un Futuro Urbano de que la rezonificación, si corresponde, puede permitir que muchos proyectos de este tipo sean posibles (ver nota de recuadro en página 33). “Hemos concretado muchos proyectos en asociación con el gobierno, y otorgar terrenos a tasas reducidas es la forma de lograr viviendas asequibles”, dice. “El proyecto debe tener cierta magnitud” para financiar el costo de la construcción, destaca, y rezonificar y reevaluar el suelo donde se encuentran las bibliotecas para admitir edificios más altos y mayor densidad “permitiría concretar muchas más unidades asequibles sobre bibliotecas, y mayores beneficios públicos”.

No siempre asequibles

No todos los proyectos de biblioteca y viviendas de la ciudad ofrecen viviendas asequibles, y algunos generaron controversias. La Biblioteca en 53rd Street, de 2.600 metros cuadrados, que se encuentra en Midtown Manhattan frente al Museo de Arte Moderno y abrió en 2016, es una base de tres plantas para el lujoso hotel y torre de departamentos Bacarat, de 50 pisos. Y con la reconstrucción de la filial Brooklyn Heights de la BPL, se demolió el edificio original de 1962 y se rediseñó el sitio como One Clinton, una torre de condominios de uso mixto y 38 pisos con una biblioteca nueva, un centro de enseñanza STEM y un espacio minorista en la planta baja. La torre, que se completará en 2020, posee 133 condominios a precio de mercado, cotizados en US$ 1 millón a US$ 6,4 millones.

La filial de Brooklyn Heights habría necesitado más de US$ 9 millones en renovaciones y actualizaciones. En cambio, Hudson Companies pagó US$ 52 millones por el sitio de la antigua filial. Ese dinero está financiando necesidades capitales de la BPL, como US$ 12 millones para equipar la nueva biblioteca One Clinton y US$ 10 millones para la filial Sunset Park.

Los críticos de One Clinton fueron sinceros sobre los riesgos de “privatizar” el suelo y la propiedad públicos, el plan de descartar la biblioteca, en vez de renovarla, y la ausencia de viviendas asequibles en el sitio del nuevo proyecto. Como parte del acuerdo, cerca de allí Hudson Companies está construyendo 114 unidades de departamentos permanentemente asequibles para obreros, sin costo para la ciudad. Dentro del programa de viviendas inclusivas obligatorias de la ciudad, está permitido desarrollar viviendas asequibles fuera del sitio, pero dentro del distrito comunitario. Los departamentos están destinados a familias que ganen entre el 60 y el 125 por ciento de la AMI, y la mitad está reservada para residentes locales.

Milwaukee también está combinando una mezcla de viviendas asequibles y a precio de mercado con bibliotecas. La Biblioteca Pública de Milwaukee (MPL) se asoció con desarrolladores para construir cuatro filiales nuevas de uso mixto que le costarán al sistema de bibliotecas US$ 18 millones en total. Esto incluye la Biblioteca Filial de Mitchell Street y Alexander Lofts, inaugurada en 2017 en el distrito comercial histórico de South Side. Mitchell Street posee 2.100 metros cuadrados en dos plantas, con un gran salón comunitario, un estudio de grabación, espacio de elaboración con cocina y un área de lectura con un hogar; hoy, es la biblioteca filial más grande de la ciudad. El proyecto, de US$ 21 millones (US$ 6 millones para la biblioteca y US$ 15 millones para las viviendas a precio de mercado) incluyó la restauración de un edificio histórico que solía albergar un gran almacén. El nuevo desarrollo posee 52 departamentos a precio de mercado y ocho casas adyacentes.

Las viviendas de estos tres proyectos varían entre asequibles y a precio de mercado. Según Sam McGovern-Rowen, gerente de proyecto de la MPL, esta decisión estuvo a cargo del desarrollador. “La junta de la biblioteca y la ciudad expresaron su preferencia por desarrollos de viviendas de uso mixto, pero no determinamos el aspecto de la asequibilidad”, indica. “Los desarrolladores proponen proyectos mediante nuestro proceso de RFP, y hemos seleccionado los que cubren todo el espectro de la asequibilidad”.

La coubicación de bibliotecas y, al menos, una vivienda a precio de mercado “significa que la biblioteca puede cumplir una función en el desarrollo económico de la comunidad”, destaca McGovern-Rowen. “Tomamos propiedades que estaban libres de impuestos y las colocamos en el registro de contribución; así, hasta ahora generamos cientos de miles de dólares de base impositiva”. Las bibliotecas también fueron “una inyección para los vecindarios y los distritos comerciales donde construimos los proyectos”, dice, ya que los miles de visitantes de las bibliotecas y los nuevos residentes se convierten en clientes de los comercios locales.

Destrabar el valor del suelo

La coubicación de bibliotecas y viviendas asequibles “parece encajar en una tendencia más amplia de destrabar el valor del suelo”, dice Rick Jacobus, director de Street Level Advisors, en Oakland, California, y autor del informe del Instituto Lincoln Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities (Viviendas inclusivas: crear y mantener comunidades equitativas, Jacobus 2015). “Las bibliotecas también combinan de forma obvia y sinérgica con las viviendas asequibles, que necesitan una activación en la planta baja que no sean viviendas”.

“Un desafío común en los edificios de uso mixto, en especial entre los desarrolladores de viviendas asequibles, es que les resulta difícil detectar la institución u organización correcta para asociarse y desarrollar la planta baja, y luego a los bancos les cuesta financiar los proyectos”, confirmó Hacke, del Centro de Inversión Comunitaria. Dice que, al incorporar una biblioteca, “se puede ayudar a la viabilidad económica de un edificio, pero también al bienestar de las personas que viven en él. Cuando se puede integrar eso al diseño del proyecto, se benefician las finanzas y los residentes”.

¿Las bibliotecas y viviendas asequibles coubicadas son más difíciles de financiar que los proyectos separados? Sí y no. En general, la división de bibliotecas públicas de una ciudad paga por la biblioteca, y el desarrollador de las viviendas, ya sea la autoridad local de viviendas, una organización sin fines de lucro o un desarrollador privado con fines de lucro, trabaja por separado para asegurarse la financiación. Normalmente, el componente de viviendas asequibles, y a menudo la biblioteca, deben buscar varios socios para la financiación. Pero la coubicación puede brindar la estructura y el interior del edificio para la biblioteca, algunos espacios compartidos y un catalizador para financiaciones adicionales. “Los desarrollos de uso mixto y los costos compartidos hacen que sea asequible construir nuevas bibliotecas”, dice Garcia-Febo, de la ALA.

El proyecto Cornelius Place, de US$ 20 millones, en Oregón, desarrollado por la organización nacional sin fines de lucro BRIDGE Housing con el proveedor local de servicios Bienestar, planificó durante 12 años y necesitó más de una decena de socios financieros. Luego de que no se aprobara un gravamen para la biblioteca, esta concibió la inserción de viviendas para personas mayores como un paso para que se logre el proyecto. La biblioteca reunió su parte de costos de construcción por US$ 5,8 millones a partir de fuentes como empresas locales, individuos y fondos del condado, estatales y federales, y también mediante un subsidio por el valor de US$ 500.000 de la Dotación Nacional para las Humanidades. La ciudad posee el terreno, y el edificio es de BRIDGE Housing, y la biblioteca paga una tarifa nominal de alquiler por el espacio. 

Los proyectos de uso mixto, en especial los que tienen un componente de viviendas asequibles, también pueden compensar los costos de construcción si aprovechan los créditos fiscales estatales o por viviendas de bajos ingresos. En 2009, el Sistema de Bibliotecas Públicas de Miami-Dade unió fuerzas con Homeless Trust y Carrfour Supportive Housing, del mismo condado, para construir la Biblioteca Filial Hispana y, sobre ella, los Departamentos Villa Aurora. El proyecto incluyó 76 unidades de viviendas permanentemente asequibles: 39 para familias que no tenían hogar y 37 para familias de bajos ingresos. La nueva biblioteca filial, de 1.100 metros cuadrados, pronto se convirtió en un destino comunitario. Carrfour, un proveedor de viviendas asequibles sin fines de lucro, construyó el complejo en el sitio de un antiguo refugio del Ejército de Salvación, y alquila el espacio de la planta baja al sistema de bibliotecas. Algunas de las fuentes de financiación del proyecto, que costó US$ 29 millones, fueron las acciones del crédito fiscal de Enterprise Social Investment Corporation, un préstamo incentivo de Florida Housing Finance Corporation, costos por desarrollo diferidos y fondos federales, de la ciudad y del condado. Para el sistema de bibliotecas, el costo fue de US$ 3 millones.

La ciudad de Chicago trabajó para convencer a los funcionarios federales de que las bibliotecas públicas podrían compartir la ubicación con viviendas públicas, sin arriesgar los subsidios federales de viviendas, comentó Kimmelman en The New York Times. Los tres proyectos de Chicago tuvieron paquetes de financiación diferentes. Por ejemplo, la financiación de la filial Little Italy incluyó fondos del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de EE.UU. (HUD), créditos fiscales federales, ganancias de financiamiento por incremento impositivo en dos distritos y otro fondo de viviendas. Al agregar el componente de viviendas a la biblioteca, el proyecto reunió los requisitos para recibir créditos fiscales federales y fondos del gobierno para viviendas, entre ellos del HUD, que brindaron casi la mitad de los fondos necesarios. Así, se aseguró gran parte de la construcción del edificio por coubicación.

En Brooklyn, FAC está aprovechando ocho fuentes para financiar los US$ 35,8 millones de la biblioteca Sunset Park, que se divide en US$ 7,8 millones para la estructura y el interior de la biblioteca, y US$ 28 millones para la parte residencial. Algunas fuentes de financiación son más de US$ 10 millones en créditos fiscales estatales y federales para viviendas asequibles, y US$ 8,75 millones del Departamento de Conservación de Vivienda y Desarrollo de la Ciudad de Nueva York. El desarrollador está construyendo el edificio sin costo para la BPL. Este equipará la nueva biblioteca por US$ 10 millones (la mitad del costo que implicaría demoler la biblioteca y construir una nueva) derivados de la venta de los derechos de aire del antiguo sitio de la biblioteca Brooklyn Heights. La ciudad entregó la propiedad a FAC durante el desarrollo, pero cuando se complete la construcción, será la dueña de la biblioteca por tiempo indefinido, y tanto su parte como las unidades de vivienda se tratarán como condominios. FAC tendrá la titularidad de los departamentos y los administrará.

Por el bien común

Las rezonificaciones ingeniosas permitirán que se renueven otras decenas de bibliotecas y se construyan más proyectos de bibliotecas y viviendas asequibles coubicadas. El Centro para un Futuro Urbano trabajó con la firma de arquitectura Marble Fairbanks para identificar, al menos, 25 bibliotecas en la Ciudad de Nueva York con excedente de derechos de desarrollo que podrían aprovechar para viviendas asequibles u otros usos, según las necesidades de la comunidad.

“Las ciudades están intentando inclinarse más por la producción de viviendas asequibles, y aquí lo que es relevante es el suelo”, dice Jacobus. “Si se tiene un activo como el suelo urbano, lo mejor es usar todo su potencial. Esto podría ocurrir en muchas ciudades con bibliotecas de una o dos plantas ubicadas en lugares que podrían tener mayor densidad. Al construir un edificio con mayor densidad, pueden destrabar el valor del suelo para subsidiar viviendas asequibles, y ese valor adicional es un activo público”.

Según Jacobus, incluso los proyectos con viviendas a precio de mercado, en vez de asequibles, pueden ofrecen un valor público importante. El proyecto One Clinton de Brooklyn Heights, por ejemplo, ofrece la biblioteca, viviendas para aliviar un mercado estrecho y una cantidad considerable de capital para cubrir mejoras en otras bibliotecas nuevas, mientras que el desarrollador también entrega viviendas asequibles cercanas. “Pudieron usar el valor de un activo para aprovechar viviendas asequibles”, dice Jacobus. “Es una jugada ingeniosa, y ahí la tendencia que se observa parece alentadora”.

Destaca que la combinación de bibliotecas con viviendas asequibles ayuda a las ciudades a alcanzar otras metas, como administración financiera y desarrollo de los vecindarios. “El problema más grande es que se obtiene un beneficio público evidente con el proyecto, lo cual ayuda a la aceptación pública de las viviendas asequibles”, y estas suelen ser blanco de oposición en la comunidad. Si bien Jacobus no cree que los proyectos de uso mixto entre bibliotecas y viviendas asequibles sean una tendencia generalizada (en parte porque aún se necesitan fondos públicos adicionales para construir y operar las bibliotecas), sí le parece que las ciudades están siendo más emprendedoras y usan todos los recursos que pueden para crear viviendas más asequibles.

Garcia-Febo, de la ALA, es más optimista. Como uso ingenioso del terreno público que ofrece valor a la comunidad, la coubicación de las bibliotecas con viviendas “representa una oportunidad excelente e innovadora para distribuir servicios en los vecindarios, y creo que veremos muchas más de ellas”, dijo. “Es difícil equiparar el valor de las bibliotecas con el suelo o el espacio aéreo que ocupan, pero para muchos dirigentes de bibliotecas, esta es una oportunidad para reforzar su valor en el acceso, la educación, la enseñanza permanente y los derechos civiles”.

Consideraciones sobre la coubicación 

Para que un proyecto de uso mixto de biblioteca y viviendas funcione, los planificadores deben tener en cuenta muchos factores, por ejemplo, los siguientes:

Zonificación. La zonificación debe admitir usos mixtos que combinen residencias con instituciones públicas (y tal vez otros usos), así como la altura y la densidad requeridas para construir una masa esencial de viviendas sobre el espacio de una biblioteca. En 2018, el Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Nueva York implementó una resolución de rezonificación de vecindarios que admitía usos mixtos y altura adicional de edificios para alcanzar ciertas metas, como desarrollar departamentos asequibles y alentar el desarrollo económico que beneficia a la comunidad local. La decisión abrió el camino para el edificio Eliza, de 14 pisos, que combina la nueva Biblioteca Inwood con 175 departamentos asequibles.

Derechos de aire. En general, los derechos de desarrollo refieren a la cantidad máxima de superficie cubierta que se admite en un terreno. Cuando la superficie cubierta real construida es inferior a la máxima permitida, la diferencia se llama “derechos de desarrollo no utilizados” o “derechos de aire”. El valor de los derechos de aire, que se puede vender a dueños de propiedades adyacentes u otros, puede variar según la ubicación y depender de distintos factores, como restricciones de la zona, altura y densidad de los edificios adyacentes, y cercanía a transporte y servicios públicos.

Financiación. En general, las bibliotecas se financian con un presupuesto de capital de la ciudad o con un gravamen fiscal especial. Las viviendas a precio de mercado, por su parte, se financian de forma privada o mediante bancos comerciales. Los desarrolladores privados de viviendas asequibles pueden aprovechar los créditos fiscales de las viviendas para personas de bajos ingresos. Las autoridades municipales de vivienda pueden acceder a fondos de fuentes locales, estatales y federales, y desarrollar viviendas públicas subsidiadas para familias de bajos ingresos. Según las necesidades de la comunidad y los planos de los desarrolladores, la coubicación puede incluir una mezcla de viviendas con subsidios públicos, asequibles y a precio de mercado; estas últimas pueden ayudar a cubrir el desarrollo de las unidades más asequibles.

Implicaciones impositivas. Las viviendas a precio de mercado que comparten el espacio con bibliotecas casi siempre son tributables; por lo tanto, estos proyectos pueden ayudar a expandir la base impositiva de una comunidad. En comparación, las viviendas asequibles suelen estar exentas, al menos cuando pertenecen a una autoridad de viviendas o a un fideicomiso territorial. La mejor opción de viviendas depende de las necesidades de la comunidad: las ciudades con dificultades fiscales podrían priorizar la base impositiva, mientras que las más buscadas en el mercado priorizan las viviendas asequibles. En general, reducir los costos para construir bibliotecas y viviendas públicas beneficiará a los contribuyentes.

Kathleen McCormick, directora de Fountainhead Communications, en Boulder, Colorado, es editora colaboradora de Land Lines. Escribe con frecuencia sobre comunidades sostenibles, saludables y con capacidad de recuperación.

Fotografía: Cornelius Place, un desarrollo de uso mixto en Cornelius, Oregon, combina una biblioteca en la planta baja con viviendas asequibles para personas mayores cerca del centro de la ciudad. Crédito: Scott | Edwards Architecture, foto de Pete Eckert.

Referencias

Brey, Jared. 2018. “How Library Systems Can Help Address Affordable Housing Crises.” Next City. 18 de junio de 2018. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/how-library-systems-can-help-address-affordable-housing-crises.

CHA (Autoridad de Viviendas de Chicago). 2019. “Taylor Street Apartments and Little Italy Branch Library Garner National Award.” Comunicado de prensa. 24 de junio. https://www.thecha.org/news-media/news/taylor-street-apartments-and-little-italy-branch-library-garner-national-award.

Giles, David, Jeanette Estima y Noelle Francois. 2014. Re-envisioning New York’s Branch Libraries. Nueva York, NY: Centro para un Futuro Urbano. Septiembre. https://nycfuture.org/pdf/Re-Envisioning-New-Yorks-Branch-Libraries.pdf.

Jacobus, Rick. 2015. Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities. Enfoque en Políticas de Suelo. Cambridge, MA: Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/inclusionary-housing.

Kimmelman, Michael. 2019. “Chicago Finds a Way to Improve Public Housing: Libraries.” The New York Times. 15 de mayo. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/chicago-public-housing.html.

A city in the generally take-it-slow Midwest may seem like an unlikely place for the start of a revolution. But Minneapolis has passed some of the most progressive housing policies and zoning reforms in the country, and other cities—including those on the coasts struggling to overcome an affordability crisis—are taking notice.

Minneapolis first attracted attention by banning single-family-only zoning in an effort to usher in more multi-family housing in all neighborhoods. The city also legalized accessory dwelling units, eliminated minimum parking requirements, and dramatically up-zoned for more height and density along transit corridors and around employment centers.

Perhaps most important, Minneapolis tied all up-zoning with increased affordability requirements for new development—based on the idea that changing zoning to allow more housing creates measurable value for private landowners and developers.

It was a singular moment when a political coalition came together to focus on equity, says Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender, one of the leaders of the effort and a rising star in local politics. She made time for the Land Matters podcast recently on a trip to Vancouver, Canada, where she was a speaker at Rail-Volution, an annual summit promoting transit and transit-oriented development.

Vancouver—full of residential high-rises and well served by transit, but known as the most expensive city in North America—was a fitting place for the 41-year-old Bender, who has a master’s degree in city and regional planning from the University of California Berkeley and served for a time in San Francisco’s planning department, to reflect on her experiences. Nobody wants a city, she says, that can only be enjoyed by the wealthy.

You can listen to the interview and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Learn More

Backyard Brouhaha
Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities
Land Value Capture: Tools to Finance Our Urban Future
 

Photograph Credit: Kubrak78/GettyImages

In early 2019, the town of Cornelius, Oregon, celebrated the opening of a new mixed-use development called Cornelius Place. Situated on the town’s main thoroughfare, the building features a 13,650-square-foot public library that replaces one at City Hall that was only one-quarter that size. It also includes a café, a courtyard that will host concerts and a farmers’ market, and a 2,900-square-foot YMCA recreation and fitness center. “Our town didn’t have a senior, youth, or community center, so our library is a lot more than a repository for books—it’s a multi-purpose community space as well,” says Library Director Karen Hill, who shepherded the project.  

Cornelius Place offers something else for the community: above the library are 45 apartments intended to be affordable for seniors with household incomes of up to 60 percent of area median income (AMI). Eleven apartments are part of the Section 8 program, making them more deeply affordable by requiring households to pay no more than 30 percent of their income in rent.  

Cornelius, a city of 12,400 in metro Portland, anticipates growing by more than one-third in the next five years. Cornelius Place is its first three-story building, first mixed-use building, and an anchor for a new walkable-downtown master plan, says Ryan Wells, community development director. Combining a new public library with affordable senior housing made both projects possible. “There is cost sharing to construction when you mix those uses,” says Wells. “We could not have built the library on its own.”  

Despite predictions that they would die in the digital age, public libraries in many U.S. communities are in fact busier and more loved than ever. Increasingly viewed as community hubs, the nation’s 16,568 public libraries are places where visitors peruse the stacks, focus on laptops, upgrade job skills, study English, try out “maker” equipment, connect with social workers on staff, and more. But many libraries are struggling to meet this demand with facilities that are small, outdated, and in need of repair—or in need of major upgrades to offer the collaborative areas, flexible workspaces, and cutting-edge technology that patrons increasingly expect.  

As public libraries look to rebuild, however, they often face financial challenges. Land values and construction costs in many cities are on the rise, making such projects increasingly costly and frequently requiring special tax levies or capital campaigns. Meanwhile, cities seeking new solutions to the affordable housing crisis are eyeing some desirable real estate: the air space above those typically low-lying public libraries. Joining forces makes it possible to invest public dollars in—and leverage additional funds for—projects that serve the community in multiple ways.  

“The evolution of public libraries in U.S. cities generally has followed the evolution of community needs, and in a growing number of cities, that now means combining new libraries with affordable housing,” says Loida Garcia-Febo, a library consultant and 2018–2019 president of the American Library Association. “Most libraries see their value in how they integrate and respond to the community, and it’s clear that in tight real estate markets, libraries can leverage their physical assets to increase the value they provide to the community.” 

Living at the Library 

Combining libraries with apartments is “part of a trend away from single-use zoning and back to mixed uses,” says Robin Hacke, executive director of the Center for Community Investment at the Lincoln Institute, which helps disadvantaged communities harness investment to achieve their economic, social, and environmental priorities. Hacke added that the trend also reflects a recognition of the importance of libraries as “third places for civic engagement and social cohesion.”  

One of the nation’s first examples of a library and affordable housing sharing space took shape in San Francisco in 2006. As part of the 50-acre Mission Bay redevelopment, the city partnered with Catellus Development Corporation and Mercy Housing, a nonprofit affordable housing developer, to add a 7,500-square-foot branch library as a civic anchor. The building that houses the library includes a community meeting hall, an adult day health center, a coffee shop, and Mission Creek Senior Housing, with 140 apartments for low-income seniors.  

Though it has been successful, this project so far has been a one-off for the city. At least one public official has asked the city’s acting librarian to explore whether future library renovations might be combined with affordable housing. “We are in an affordability crisis and we need to maximize our existing public land for 100 percent affordable housing,” wrote Sandra Lee Fewer, a member of the city’s Board of Supervisors, in an email response to Next City (Brey 2018). “It would be a missed opportunity to not pursue adding affordable housing above newly renovated public resources like our libraries.”  

Although San Francisco has been slow to replicate the Mission Bay model, other cities have taken up the idea, including Chicago. Under Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s leadership from 2011 to 2019, the city made more than $300 million in new investments to renovate or build 30 public libraries in the city’s network of 80 libraries, which serves 10 million visitors annually. The “Branching Out: Building Libraries, Building Communities” initiative has focused on investing in libraries as community anchors with high-quality civic architecture and programming.  

Since 2011, six new libraries have been built, and 14 branches have seen significant updates. By the end of 2019, construction of five additional libraries will be finished, with four existing libraries renovated.  

Three of the new libraries are co-located with housing in world-class examples of modern architecture. In 2016, the city announced a partnership between the Chicago Public Library (CPL) and Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) that would cut costs, increase library patrons, and invest in attractive, sustainable buildings that provide the kinds of services the city needs. A city-run competition attracted submissions from 32 architecture firms, and three award-winning, Chicago-based firms were selected to design the projects:  

• The six-story, $33.4 million Independence Branch Library and Apartments in Irving Park on the Northwest Side, designed by John Ronan Architects and developed by Evergreen Real Estate Group, has a two-level library featuring a music studio and makers’ workshop, topped by 44 subsidized apartments for seniors.  
• The $34 million Northtown Public Library and Affordable Apartments in West Ridge, a four-story, curvilinear structure designed by Perkins and Will, also was developed by Evergreen Real Estate Group. The bright, 16,000-square-foot library has a garden and a rooftop terrace shared with tenants. The upper floors include 44 apartments for seniors, with 30 CHA public housing and 14 affordable apartments.  
• The seven-story, $41 million Little Italy Branch Library and Taylor Street Apartments on the Near West Side, designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) and developed by Related Midwest, includes a single-level, open-floor-plan library and six floors with 73 apartments above, including 37 CHA public housing, 29 affordable, and seven market-rate apartments.  

Besides traditional library programs, such as book clubs for seniors and intergenerational educational and cultural programming, each branch offers early-learning playspaces and facilities for teens to explore digital design, music, and recording technology with help from skilled mentors. They also provide high-tech programming such as 3D printing, virtual reality, and robotics, as well as dedicated workforce development support and technology tutors.  

In West Ridge and Irving Park, “these projects enabled CHA to deliver new housing units and expand affordable housing opportunities in two communities where CHA had not previously had much of a presence,” says Molly Sullivan, CHA senior director of communications. “This helped meet a demand for affordable senior housing in those communities.” The library system also had been seeking ways to bring modern facilities and services to these communities, says Sullivan, so combining housing with libraries made sense.  

“Co-locating libraries with affordable housing provides housing and learning centers where they are needed—and makes communities more resilient and sustainable,” says Sullivan. “We know that housing is vital to our neighborhoods, but strong, healthy communities also require anchors that provide resources for lifelong learning.”  

Critiquing the three projects in The New York Times, architecture critic Michael Kimmelman characterized the libraries as “just plain good urban planning.” He praised Emanuel for promoting the idea that “distinguished civic buildings in underserved neighborhoods constituted their own brand of equity” (Kimmelman 2019).  

In June, Smart Growth America named the Taylor Street library its Project of the Year. “We knew when we embarked on this unique project and partnership that we were building more than a new building,” said former Chicago Housing Authority CEO Eugene E. Jones, Jr., when the award was announced. “We were creating a community anchor and asset that will have a lasting impact on residents and this neighborhood” (CHA 2019). 

A Branch Grows in Brooklyn 

Brooklyn is also leveraging opportunities to improve library infrastructure with housing, using aging branches as sites for redevelopment projects that combine new libraries with affordable apartments, or, in one case, sleek new tower architecture with market-rate luxury condominiums.  

The Brooklyn Public Library (BPL) is an independent library system that serves the 2.5 million residents of the borough. BPL is the fifth-largest library system in the U.S., with 59 neighborhood libraries and 7.9 million annual visits. That might sound like a lot of capacity, but many of the system’s buildings are crowded, worn, and inadequate for modern use. In total, New York City libraries have some $1.1 billion in unfunded capital needs, mostly repairs, with $271 million needed just in Brooklyn, according to a 2014 report by the Center for an Urban Future, an independent nonprofit research and policy organization (Giles 2014). The report recommends ways to bolster libraries as community centers, including incorporating affordable housing.  

“We see libraries performing a much bigger role in New York,” says Eli Dvorkin, editorial and policy director for the Center. “We have never relied on libraries as we do today.” He says libraries “are the single resource of first resort for immigrants, teenagers, seniors. They are the 21st-century settlement house, building the social infrastructure of our cities, but we haven’t invested in their infrastructure.”  

That is changing with projects like Brooklyn’s Sunset Park Public Library redevelopment. Built in the 1970s, the popular Sunset Park branch was too small to meet the needs of a community whose population increased 34 percent between 1990 and 2014, double the citywide growth rate. During the same period, housing became more expensive, with median rents increasing 63 percent, far outpacing Brooklyn’s median income growth of 25 percent. In 2017, the city issued a competitive RFP and selected the Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC), a Brooklyn-based nonprofit affordable housing developer and social justice organization, as a partner in revamping the library. FAC proposed a 21,000-square-foot library—double the original size—with 49 units of permanently affordable housing on top.  

Located on the first two floors of the eight-story building, the library will be outfitted with collections, technology, and flexible space. Above that, the apartments are slated for low- and middle-income households ranging from formerly homeless residents with no income to those earning between 30 and 80 percent of AMI. Apartments in the building, which is expected to open in 2020, will rent for well below the current market rents in the neighborhood.  

“The City of New York isn’t creating more land, but our population is growing, and resources are in demand for both libraries and affordable housing,” says Michelle de la Uz, executive director of FAC and a New York City planning commissioner. The city has a long history of combining civic uses with other development, she noted, but those projects haven’t included 100 percent affordable housing. “We wanted to create the model so it can be replicated and we can have more of these win-win-win situations for libraries, for people who need affordable housing, and for taxpayers” to achieve the greatest benefit possible from public land.  

The Sunset Park branch is one of several library-housing hybrids in New York. The three-story, 26,000-square-foot Inwood Public Library in Upper Manhattan, now under construction, anchors a 14-story mixed-use building called the Eliza, which has 175 deeply affordable apartments, universal pre-K classrooms, a social services delivery center, and amenities including a children’s playroom, gym, and roof garden.  

The Inwood site was rezoned to allow for a sizeable increase in height and density, notes de la Uz, while “at Sunset Park, we built as-of-right and didn’t have to rezone—the height was allowed.” She agrees with a recommendation from the Center for an Urban Future that rezoning, where appropriate, would make many more of these projects feasible (see sidebar). “We’ve done many projects in partnership with government, and giving land at a reduced rate is how you make affordable housing happen,” she says. “The project has to be a certain size” to support the cost of construction, she notes, and rezoning and revaluing the land on which libraries sit to allow for higher buildings and greater density “would allow for many more affordable units above libraries and greater public benefit to be realized.” 

Not Always Affordable 

Not all of the city’s library-housing projects offer affordable housing, and some have inspired controversy. The 28,000-square-foot 53rd Street Library across from the Museum of Modern Art in Midtown Manhattan, which opened in 2016, provides a three-story base for the 50-story luxury Bacarat hotel and apartment tower. And a rebuild of BPL’s Brooklyn Heights branch saw the original 1962 building demolished and the site reenvisioned as One Clinton, a mixed-used, 38-story condominium tower with a new library, STEM learning center, and retail space at its base. Due to be completed in 2020, the tower’s 133 market-rate condominiums are listed for between $1 million and $6.4 million.  

The Brooklyn Heights branch would have required over $9 million for renovations and upgrades. Instead, Hudson Companies paid $52 million for the old branch library site. That money is providing funding for BPL’s capital needs, including $12 million to fit out the new One Clinton library—and $10 million for the Sunset Park branch.  

Critics of One Clinton have been outspoken about the dangers of “privatizing” public land and property, the plan to scrap the old library rather than renovating it, and the new project’s lack of on-site affordable housing. As part of the deal, Hudson Companies is building 114 units of permanently affordable workforce apartments nearby, at no cost to the city. Off-site development of affordable housing within the same community district is allowed under the city’s mandatory inclusionary housing program. The apartments are intended for households earning from 60 to 125 percent of AMI, with half reserved for local residents.  

Milwaukee is also combining a mix of market-rate and affordable housing with libraries. Milwaukee Public Library (MPL) has partnered with developers to build four new mixed-use branches that cost the library system a total of $18 million. They include the Mitchell Street Branch Library and Alexander Lofts, which opened in 2017 in the South Side historic commercial district. With 23,000 square feet on two floors that feature a large community room, recording studio, makerspace with kitchen, and a reading area with a fireplace, Mitchell Street is now the city’s largest branch library. The $21 million project—$6 million for the library and $15 million for market-rate housing—involved the restoration of a historic building that once housed a department store. The new development has 52 market-rate apartments and eight adjacent townhouses.  

The housing for these four projects varies from affordable to market-rate, a decision left to the developer, says Sam McGovern-Rowen, MPL project manager. “The library board and the city have expressed a preference for mixed-use housing developments, but we do not dictate the affordability aspect,” he says. “The developers propose projects through our RFP process, and we have selected projects that cover the full spectrum of affordability.”  

Co-locating libraries with at least some market-rate housing “means that the library can play a role in community economic development,” McGovern-Rowen points out. “We take formerly untaxed property and put it on the tax rolls, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax base so far.” The libraries have also been “a shot in the arm to the neighborhoods and business districts where we build these projects,” he says, as thousands of library visitors and new residents patronize local businesses.  

Unlocking the Value of Land 

Co-locating libraries and affordable housing “seems to fit into a broader trend of unlocking the value of land,” says Rick Jacobus, principal of Street Level Advisors in Oakland, California, and author of a Lincoln Institute report, Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities (Jacobus 2015). “Libraries also are an obvious and synergistic pairing with affordable housing, which needs a ground-floor activation that is not housing.”  

“A common challenge in mixed-use buildings, especially with developers of affordable housing, is they run into difficulty locating the right institution or organization to partner with for ground-floor development, and banks then have trouble financing the projects,” confirmed Hacke of the Center for Community Investment. Incorporating a library, Hacke says, “can contribute to financial viability for a building, but also to the well-being of people who live in the building. When you can bake that into the design of the project, it serves the financials as well as the residents.”  

Are co-located libraries and affordable housing any more difficult to finance than separate projects? Yes and no. Generally a city’s public library division pays for the library, and the housing developer, whether it’s the local housing authority, a nonprofit, or a private for-profit developer, works separately to secure financing. The affordable housing component, and often the library, typically have to seek multiple funding partners. But co-location can provide a core and shell for the library building, some shared space, and a catalyst for additional funding. “Mixed-use development and shared costs make the building of new libraries affordable,” says ALA’s Garcia-Febo.  

The $20 million Cornelius Place project in Oregon, developed by the national nonprofit BRIDGE Housing with local service provider Bienestar, was 12 years in the planning and required more than a dozen financial partners. After a library levy failed to pass, the library conceived of introducing senior housing as a feasibility step. The library cobbled together its $5.8 million share of construction costs from sources such as local businesses, individuals, and county, state, and federal funds, including a $500,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The city owns the land, and the building is owned by BRIDGE Housing, with the library paying a nominal leasing fee for its space.  

Mixed-use projects, especially those with an affordable housing component, can also offset construction costs by taking advantage of low-income housing tax credits or state tax credits. In 2009, the Miami-Dade Public Library System joined forces with the county’s Homeless Trust and Carrfour Supportive Housing to build the Hispanic Branch Library and, above it, the Villa Aurora Apartments. The project included 76 units of permanently affordable housing: 39 for formerly homeless families and 37 for low-income families. The new 12,000-square-foot branch library quickly became a community destination. Carrfour, a nonprofit affordable housing provider, built the complex on the site of a former Salvation Army shelter and leases the first-floor space to the library system. Funding sources for the $29 million project included the Enterprise Social Investment Corporation’s tax credit equity, an incentive loan from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, deferred developer fees, and city, county, and federal funds. The cost to the library system was $3 million.  

The City of Chicago worked to persuade federal officials that public libraries could be co-located with public housing without putting federal housing subsidies at risk, noted Kimmelman in The New York Times. The three Chicago projects had different funding packages. Financing for the Little Italy branch, for example, included U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds, federal tax credits, revenue from two tax-increment financing districts, and another housing fund. By adding the housing component to the library, the project qualified for federal tax credits and government housing funds, including from HUD, that provided almost half the needed funds. Thus, the construction of the building was underwritten significantly by co-location.  

In Brooklyn, FAC is leveraging eight sources to finance the $35.8 million Sunset Park library, which breaks down to $7.8 million for the “core and shell” of the library and $28 million for the residential portion. Funding sources include over $10 million in state and federal affordable housing tax credits and $8.75 million from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. The developer is constructing the building at no cost to BPL, which will fit out the new library for $10 million—half the cost of demolishing the library and building a new one—derived from the sale of air rights to the old Brooklyn Heights library site. The city turned the property over to FAC during development, but when construction is completed, the city will own the library in perpetuity, with both its portion and the housing units treated as condominiums. FAC will own and manage the apartments. 

For the Common Good 

Smart rezonings could allow dozens more libraries to be upgraded and more co-located library and affordable housing projects to be built. The Center for an Urban Future worked with the architecture firm Marble Fairbanks to identify at least 25 libraries in New York City with surplus development rights that they could leverage for affordable housing or other uses, depending on the community’s needs.  

“Cities are trying to lean more heavily into the production of affordable housing, and what’s relevant here is the land,” says Jacobus. “If you have an asset like urban land, you might as well use it to its fullest potential. This could happen in many cities with one- or two-story libraries in places that could be denser. By building a building that is denser, they’re able to unlock the value of the land to subsidize affordable housing, and that extra value is a public asset.”  

Even projects with market-rate rather than affordable housing can provide significant public value, says Jacobus. The One Clinton project in Brooklyn Heights, for example, provides the library, housing to ease a tight market, and a fair amount of capital to underwrite improvements to other new libraries, while the developer also provides affordable housing nearby. “They were able to use the value of an asset to leverage affordable housing,” Jacobus says. “It’s a smart move and there’s a trend there that seems promising.”  

Pairing libraries and affordable housing helps cities meet other goals such as financial management and neighborhood development, he notes. “The bigger issue is that you get obvious public benefit out of the project, which helps with public acceptance of affordable housing,” often a target for community opposition. While Jacobus doesn’t see mixed-use housing and library projects as a widespread trend—in part because libraries still require additional public funding to build and operate—he does see cities becoming more entrepreneurial and using all the resources they can to create more affordable housing.  

Garcia-Febo of the ALA is more optimistic. As a wise use of public land that provides value to the community, co-location of libraries with housing “is a great new opportunity to distribute services across neighborhoods, and I think we’ll see many more of them,” she said. “It’s difficult to equate the value of libraries with the land or air space they occupy, but for many library leaders, this is an opportunity to reinforce the value of libraries for access, education, lifelong learning, and the civic commons.”

Co-location Considerations  

For a mixed-use library and housing project to succeed, planners must consider many factors, including the following:  

Zoning. Zoning should allow for mixed uses combining residential with public institutions (and perhaps other uses), and for the height and density required to build a critical mass of housing over library space. A 2018 neighborhood rezoning decision by the New York City Council allowed for mixed uses and additional building height to achieve goals such as developing affordable apartments and encouraging economic development that benefits the local community. The decision paved the way for the 14-story Eliza building, which combines the new Inwood Library with 175 affordable apartments.  

Air Rights. Development rights generally refer to the maximum amount of floor area permissible on a lot. When the actual built floor area is less than the maximum permitted floor area, the difference is referred to as “unused development rights,” or “air rights.” The value of air rights, which can be sold to adjacent property owners or others, can vary by location and can depend on factors such as zoning restrictions, the height and density of adjacent buildings, and proximity to public transit and services.  

Financing. Libraries generally are funded by a city’s capital budget or by special tax levies. Market-rate housing generally is financed privately or through commercial banks. Private developers of affordable housing can take advantage of low-income housing tax credits. Municipal housing authorities can access funds from local, state, and federal sources to develop subsidized public housing for low-income households. Depending on the needs of the community and developers’ plans, co-location can include a mix of publicly subsidized, affordable, and market-rate housing; the latter can help underwrite development of the more affordable units.  

Tax Implications. Market-rate housing that shares space with libraries is almost always taxable, so these projects can help expand a community’s tax base. In contrast, affordable housing is usually tax-exempt, at least when it is owned by a housing authority or land trust. The best housing option depends on a community’s needs—fiscally stressed cities may prioritize their tax base, while hot-market cities prioritize affordable housing. In general, reducing costs for the construction of libraries and public housing will benefit taxpayers.

Kathleen McCormick, principal of Fountainhead Communications in Boulder, Colorado, is a contributing editor for Land Lines. She writes frequently about sustainable, healthy, and resilient communities.

Photograph: Cornelius Place, a mixed-use development in Cornelius, Oregon, combines a ground-floor library with affordable senior housing that is walkable to the downtown area. Credit: Scott | Edwards Architecture, photo by Pete Eckert.

References 

Brey, Jared. 2018. “How Library Systems Can Help Address Affordable Housing Crises.” Next City. June 18, 2018. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/how-library-systems-can-help-address-affordable-housing-crises.  

CHA (Chicago Housing Authority). 2019. “Taylor Street Apartments and Little Italy Branch Library Garner National Award.” Press release. June 24. https://www.thecha.org/news-media/news/taylor-street-apartments-and-little-italy-branch-library-garner-national-award.  

Giles, David, Jeanette Estima, and Noelle Francois. 2014. Re-envisioning New York’s Branch Libraries. New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future. September. https://nycfuture.org/pdf/Re-Envisioning-New-Yorks-Branch-Libraries.pdf.  

Jacobus, Rick. 2015. Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities. Policy Focus Report. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/inclusionary-housing.  

Kimmelman, Michael. 2019. “Chicago Finds a Way to Improve Public Housing: Libraries.” The New York Times. May 15. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/arts/design/chicago-public-housing.html.

Ian McHarg me introdujo a la transección ecológica. Me situó de una forma única en la tierra donde hacía poco había llegado como estudiante desde la India, a 12.000 kilómetros de distancia. No solo estaba en Filadelfia; estaba en una línea dibujada desde los montes Apalaches que pasaba por la meseta Piedmont y llegaba a la llanura costera y el Océano Atlántico. La transección me resultaba familiar, ya que había aprendido acerca de la Sección del Valle de Patrick Geddes, a partir de su trabajo en la India en la década de 1910. Según sus palabras, era “esa pendiente general desde la montaña hasta el valle que encontramos en todas partes del mundo”.¹

Sin embargo, la transección no solo me situaba; también ofrecía un punto en común a los estudiantes de mi clase, que provenían de cinco continentes distintos. Cultivaba una visión del paisaje que llevaríamos a todas partes. Para muchos de nosotros, era como estar de nuevo en nuestros hogares.

Cada semana, llegábamos a un punto en la transección: las minas de carbón cerca de Scranton, el campo de rocas en la zona de Pocono, los bosques del Wissahickon, los prados cerca de Valley Forge, las cascadas de Manayunk, los lodazales y canales de Pine Barrens y las dunas en la costa de Jersey. Cavábamos fosas en el suelo, identificábamos vegetación, buscábamos pistas acerca de qué había sobre la superficie terrestre y debajo de esta, y en nuestras notas de campo armábamos el rompecabezas de la historia seccional de la tierra. En el taller, trabajábamos en grupos y nos familiarizábamos con sitios particulares de la transección. Cada uno de ellos era un área de 65 kilómetros cuadrados, representada por un mapa topográfico en el que identificábamos distintos suelos, vegetación, usos del suelo, laderas y geología. Resaltábamos las líneas de arroyos, terrenos anegables, humedales y acuíferos, y construíamos distinciones evidentes entre rasgos que pertenecían al suelo y los que pertenecían al agua. Si bien los mapas de base eran los mismos todos los años, usábamos una escala de 1 centímetro por 60 metros (1 pulgada por 500 pies) y nos enorgullecíamos de elegir nuestra paleta de colores, que se extendía en gradientes sutiles de verde, azul y marrón, tal vez en un intento por disolver los límites impuestos por el mapa, que no se correspondían con nuestra experiencia en el campo. Pero era inevitable que la transección en el campo retrocediera hasta ser un recuerdo distante, a medida que el mapa se convertía en el sitio principal de análisis y diseño. Después de todo, permitía hacer capas con la información de múltiples disciplinas sobre la misma superficie geográfica. Como estudiantes de diseño y planificación, nuestra tarea era responder al mapa. Esta fue nuestra experiencia en el taller 501 en la Universidad de Pensilvania en 1989, el taller de paisajismo fundamental iniciado por Ian McHarg y Narendra Juneja en uno de sus últimos años.

Diez años más tarde, me tocó enseñar el taller de paisajismo fundamental.² No llevaba a los alumnos a la transección de mis días como estudiante, sino a un lugar a partir del cual pudieran construir su propia transección. Llevaban cintas métricas, hilo, niveles improvisados, lápices, papel periódico, fichas y tiza. No llevaban mapas para orientarse, solo las páginas en blanco de sus cuadernos de bocetos, para empezar a negociar un terreno desconocido. Yo los alentaba a caminar, no tanto para que encontraran el camino, sino para que hicieran el propio. Algunos se abrían camino entre arroyo y cresta, otros entre bosque y restos industriales, y otros tantos entre humedales y corredores de infraestructura. Al igual que los supervisores de caminos frente a los ejércitos, a cargo de mapear territorios desconocidos, triangulaban entre puntos y los conectaban con líneas de vista y medición. Aprendían a prestar atención a los puntos que seleccionaban. Algunos eran fijos; otros, efímeros. También aprendían a valorar las líneas que los conectaban, y prestaban particular atención a la línea entre tierra y agua. Esta línea estaba colmada de controversia. Se sabía que cambiaba todos los días y todas las estaciones; pero en una tierra de colonos, también cambiaba a discreción. Aprendían a valorar la humedad en todas partes (en el suelo, el aire, las plantas, las rocas, las criaturas), en vez de aceptar la presencia del agua tal como se indicaba en los mapas. El terreno no se agotaba con una sola caminata. Cada vez, se caminaba de un modo diferente. Luego de triangular, los alumnos esbozaban, seccionaban y fotografiaban con ojos y oídos sintonizados en la medición y el movimiento, el material y el horizonte, la continuidad y la ruptura. Habían aprendido a ver cómo se disolvían estas distinciones y fronteras, y ahora empezaban a articular nuevas relaciones y límites.

Los alumnos aprendían qué se necesitaba para hacer un mapa. También aprendían qué se necesitaba para armar una transección. Se necesitaba atravesar. Atravesar es el acto de viajar por un terreno con el objetivo de registrar descubrimientos y también imponer una nueva imaginación. En este sentido, ya diseñaban mientras armaban una transección. El diseño estaba en los ojos con los que veían, las piernas con las que caminaban, las decisiones que tomaban, los instrumentos con los que medían. Aprendían lo que Geddes y McHarg sabían muy bien: que el paisaje y el diseño emergen en simultáneo en el acto de atravesar para armar una transección.

El trabajo en las paredes y los escritorios de los alumnos suscitaba una sonrisa y una fuerte inhalación, características de McHarg cada vez que entraba en mi taller 501, con las cuales expresaba un aprecio por las secciones y triangulaciones que se bocetaban en grafito, los montajes fotográficos que se armaban y los moldes de yeso que se preparaban. Era un aprecio que solo podría provenir de alguien que sabía que la transección le debía a la acción de atravesar.

Hoy, llevo a alumnos de talleres más avanzados a lugares de conflicto, pobreza y tragedia presente, como Bombay, Bangalore, las Ghats occidentales de la India, los desiertos de Rayastán, Jerusalén y Tijuana. Estos son lugares en laderas propias de montañas al mar, laderas que, según lo que creían Geddes y McHarg, “estaban en todas partes del mundo”. Pero soy muy consciente, como lo habrían sido ellos, de que estas “transecciones” son producto de los caminos atravesados por “diseñadores” previos a nosotros: agrimensores, exploradores, colonizadores, conquistadores. Sus transgresiones extraordinarias articularon los paisajes que se convirtieron en lo ordinario de estos lugares, incluso lo que se da por sentado como natural y cultural, suelo y agua, urbano y rural. En resumen, crearon las bases del conflicto de hoy. Sin duda, lo menos que podemos hacer en nombre de McHarg y Geddes es volver a atravesar estos lugares, atrevernos a una nueva imaginación que no necesariamente pretenda resolver problemas, sino mantener la transección viva como agente de cambio.

Anuradha Mathur, arquitecta y arquitecta paisajista, es profesora en el Departamento de Arquitectura Paisajista de la Escuela de Diseño Stuart Weitzman, Universidad de Pensilvania. Escribió junto a Dilip da Cunha Mississippi Floods: Designing a Shifting Landscape (Inundaciones en Mississippi: diseñar un cambio en el paisaje)Deccan Traverses: The Making of Bangalore’s Terrain (Travesías en Deccan: cómo se hizo el terreno de Bangalore) y Soak: Mumbai in an Estuary (Empapar: Bombay en un estuario). Ambos coeditaron Design in the Terrain of Water (Proyectar en el territorio del agua).

Notas

¹ Patrick Geddes, “The Valley Plan of Civilization”, Survey 54 (1925): 288–290.

² Estuve a cargo del taller 501, el taller de paisajismo fundamental en el Departamento de Arquitectura Paisajista de la Universidad de Pensilvania, entre 1994 y 2014, con algunas pausas en el medio. Durante este período, tuve la oportunidad de trabajar junto a Katherine Gleason, Mei Wu y Dennis Playdon, y a partir de 2003, con mi compañero Dilip da Cunha. Les debo muchísimo a estos colegas, en especial a Dennis y Dilip, quienes aportaron estructura, opiniones profundas y un gran nivel de habilidad al 501, y me enseñaron el verdadero significado de atravesar un terreno.