I’ve recently moved to California, and their take on housing is quite different from that of Singapore’s. For one, housing is so spread out that duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes are considered to be “environmentally-friendly”. I attended a talk that discusses how to make housing more affordable and how that can help the environment, too. Notes below the cut.
Oregon: Their laws helped with making housing affordable. Still has problems but this worked. HP2001 helped. Portland was one of the bigger pushers in Oregon.
ADUs – duplexes and triplexes vs single family homes actually have carbon savings.
Conflicts – people who oppose the bills think it might not be progressive enough, but sometimes it’s hard to get it.
Holistic approach – must have all parts of the bill in place, because the same person was handling all the separate parts.
Had the support of both Democrats and Republicans, along with good media and messaging. Being honest helps with building a relationship with media.
To build community with many others: they held walking tours in a loved part of Portland, and then revealed that the population density there was much more dense than previously. So people saw that it wasn’t that bad.
Cities (in California) is more incentivised to build commercial buildings instead of residential units, because they get more tax from commercial property. (Measure T I think?)
Vox media Jenny Schutz interview – holistic things that the federal government needs to do to make affordable housing more accessible.
SB50 & A27 bills – shelved in California. But they wanted local control within cities. A good way to do it is to disallow demolition of single family homes, but allow conversion to a fourplex. Building codes gotta change though. Eg four and above are considered property for commercial purposes, but we should push that up if we want to convert single family houses to fourplexes.
Cap on sizes, too – if you demolish/renovate, you get more space only if you build duplexes or triplexes or quads.
The council reps in SF is good with it, but in district elections, quite a few people oppose affordable housing. So there’s a conflict.
Neighbourhood preference – let people who stay in the area enjoy the benefits of moving in first. So people won’t get displaced when there’s construction.
Housing takes time – years and years for bills to see effect.
Historically narrow lots were legalised which helps.
HB2003 – tied fiscal carrots and sticks. Companion bill to HB2001. 2003 allowed state economists to predict housing needs and set goals for housing in Oregon. 2003 also helped to protect housing and make sure fourplexes can’t be appealed against.
Zoning gotta change – allow not just high rise apartments but fourplexes. There are people who are able to build them, but it depends on the city too.
Rent control – ADUs have been doing fine in SF city. Rent control hasn’t really been a deterrent there. In Berkeley, the rent control cap is pretty high.
Oregon – how did you do pitch the idea, was focusing on the housing affordability or the environment benefits better? But it really depends on the person you talk to.
With density, public transport will work better too.
For parking, it shouldn’t be REQUIRED.
sustainabam! 