It is not often that the debate between small multi-family (what fits on an infill lot) developments or construction versus large multi-family (multi-lot and/or multi building, usually > than 20 units) comes up in development, investor, or even political (economic development or housing advocacy) circles because most of the publicity and public money is spent on large projects, with small projects rarely needing or getting any subsidies.
This is important because in a time when the city has little $ to give, has lots of single or double infill lots available for redevelopment, and costs for new mega projects continues to go up, it is important to consider how we direct our resources optimally.
I take the perspective that the smaller wheels need to be attended to at a greater level than the big and squeaky ones because they are what really form the foundation for our neighborhoods, community, and local economy. The big and squeaky wheels in this case are large multi-lot/multi-building projects in excess of 20 units, suburban development with large #s of units of commercial and/or residential spaces, and greenfield development in general. These will always be proposed, asking for the big handouts, and don't require as much finesse or encouragement to create as single or double infill in existing neighborhoods.
I am a proponent of small multi-family, multi-unit, mixed use, single and double lot infill development. Here are the highlights of why this should be supported and in fact encouraged through policies and practices at the municipal level.
Flexibility: many NIMBY issues arise when something that is generally though of as too large for the neighborhood is proposed; single and double lot infill will generally yield to smaller buildings that can be adjusted to adjacent uses and the concerns and needs of the neighborhood; also, many times the spaces on the ground floor can be utilized as non-residential, which can assist in economic and service diversity in a neighborhood.
Reduced expenses outside of resident's personal space: if you ever visit an older apartment community, chances are you'll see that the public spaces and amenities are a little older, used, and less well maintained than what a separate business of the same service would offer; this is because it is expensive to keep up with these amenities that aren't directly monetized: pools, spas, club rooms/lounge, dog parks, exercise rooms, and parking lots are probably the most common; without these additional cost burdens, the lease or common charges (HOA) can be reduced vs larger complexes.
Amenities/services provided by general community or local businesses: without private competition, the above amenities are provided by the community or private organizations, and can provide a higher quality experience to the entire community with more "customers" to compensate the costs, and encourages updating and maintenance of equipment and spaces; less cost to the owner means greater profit, which can yield better maintenance of the important elements
Local investment: when a project requires upwards of millions of dollars to develop, there are different parties that are involved with the financing and construction, which usually are not local money sources, local material resources, or local ownership; however, when projects are small enough that small money local investors, local money sources, local materials, and local labor can be utilized, the economic value is multiplied significantly, the community can be improved with more residents but without something that doesn't fit into the neighborhood, the ownership can take pride knowing what they are contributing to the neighborhood/community, and the return on investment stays in the community to get cycled multiple times; and if the project is a 4-unit or smaller, a traditional residential mortgage can be used increasing the pool of buyers which can improve the value of the project.
Quality design and construction respects location: a small project has a greater opportunity to employ construction techniques, materials, and design options which may work better for the local conditions than a mega project that has to meet strict a budget needs and sacrifices it's connection to the local environment and conditions; often times a large project ignores the unique nuances of a location because the numbers have to work out first, whereas a smaller project will often take these special opportunities into account which make the project more special for the residents/users and sometimes more successful for the investor and community.
Quality of project: with small infill projects, the roads, utilities, and infrastructure are generally already installed, and just need to be connected; site work is a significant cost to mega projects that can be reduced or virtually eliminated for public spaces that don't add monetized value to the leased space, and can help to lower the projects cost or be shifted into the materials and/or construction of the building, finishes and/or landscape, creating enhanced environments
Fits into the neighborhood: as with the NIMBY issue above, being a good neighborhood also means fitting in appropriately: scale, materials, volume, curb appeal, relationship to the street, quality, and neighborliness; even in neighborhoods with historic aged and styled homes, modern and contemporary designs can fit in well when these designs relate to their context; single and double lot infill naturally leads toward fitting into these existing neighborhoods better than mega projects regarding these issues.
Initial occupancy: it is easier and quicker to fill 8-units at a time than a 100-units; a smaller project takes less time to design, develop, permit, and construct; this means that during economic times as we are in, smaller projects have a greater chance to succeed from the beginning because revenue can start much sooner after construction has completed and can be 100% occupied in a shorter time; the value of larger # of units to reduce the risk of vacancies may have a small advantage when comparing to single family/single unit structures, but becomes largely mute as unit counts surpass 4; it is quite possible for a smaller building to maintain 100% occupancy throughout the year whereas a larger complex will never achieve 100% because of constant turnover (in some markets, 95% is considered full occupancy).
Economy based project risk: a smaller project is more likely to avoid getting slammed by adverse economic conditions than large projects due to their nimbleness, cost scale, and time frame; if projects can be built and completed at 8 units at a time, each project can proceed based on current economic needs and can still move forward; if a project won't work as planned, it can be delayed, redesigned, or adjusted to fit without limiting the other projects success (assuming each project is built independently from each other, even if by the same developer/contractor); as we saw, many large projects got stalled from beginning construction or halted during construction when the economy worsened (and even today many large projects are just now rebounding, several years after the recession began), but most small scale projects were able to recover quickly and move forward with minor adjustments.
Public dollar ROI (return on investment): because most small projects won't ask for or even need subsidies, all revenue generated through the permitting, construction, operation, and maintenance of the property will directly improve the tax base of the community; depending on special incentives, the municipality may reduce or wave fees, which are still costs to they have to come up with, but it is "Lincolns" (pennies) compared to "Franklins" (100 dollars); the tax base not only includes greater property tax receipts, but also income tax from labor, sales tax from materials, and income tax from investor and/or loaner profits; large projects with significant subsidies can take 10, 20 or even 30 years before they contribute more than they received.
Less interruption to the neighborhood: an obvious benefit to smaller projects with shorter time frames is that construction will be over quicker with the project providing an improvement to the neighborhood more quickly, allowing quiet enjoyment sooner
Non-intrusive intensity: density is often perceived as a bad thing to those that don't understand it, but when additional people can be added to the neighborhood without the negative impacts NIMBY's are concerned about (namely traffic from increased car trips), the additional people can provide the intensity of users to neighborhood services and businesses that can contribute to the overall vitality and sustainability of the neighborhood.
Neighborliness: smaller projects tend to keep people closer to the ground by virtue of their height and volume, and have a greater chance of being in touch with their neighbors and the goings on in the neighborhood; walking out the front door to your car at the curb engages you with the block and provides opportunity spontaneous interaction with neighbors even if you spend no other time outside the home.
Future blogs will expand on these topics, but feel free to add your constructive insights in the mean time.
No comments:
Post a Comment