The Revitalist

The Washington Post reports that two real estate firms have arranged to buy wind-generated power for their headquarters. The concept is more sophisticated that putting turbines on their roof or hooking into a nearby generation plant. They are purchasing credits from a middleman that buys and sells credits for green power. Because the wind farm supplies power into the grid where it mingles with all the other power generation sources and is then drawn down by consumers, the two firms can't guarantee that the actual juice comes from wind. They can, however, ensure that their money goes to the wind producer. "But we're committed to the fact that enough energy is generated through wind to compensate for the amount of energy we're using in our buildings. We purchased wind to meet 100 percent of our energy needs."

Because we're talking about annual usage for three high-rise office towers, there is enough quantity here to make this feasible. Wonder if one day individual consumers will be able to purchase green power on their own?

Recently, I have heard that the green building community is working on a similar concept: Suppose you built a building with green mechanical systems. You modelled it's operation versus a conventional building and could then quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions created by your building's operation. Suppose then that you could get emission credits (similar those created under the Kyoto Protocol) that you could sell on the open market to raise equity for your project, just like you sell Low Income Housing Tax Credits or Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits. Imagine that.

The onetenchelsea blog posts a link to the Center for Urban and Regional Policy's recap of the gubernatorial candidates discussion of urban issues back in June. (zakcq, I would have posted a comment, but your blog only accepts Blogger logins. Maybe you could do something about that?)

What always strikes me from discussions/debates like this is how skilled candidates become at manoeuvring the question to respond with their rehearsed platform issues. Sigh. The candidates (without Kerry Healy, but with Grace Ross) discussed the high cost of housing, population loss, the jobs crunch, local aid, etc. They all seem to have acknowledged the issues, but I don't hear any real plans or proposals. It feels like the discussion is all at the surface, and I want nitty gritty.

At the end of the article, there is a link to a paper from CHAPA (Citizen's Housing and Planning Association) on the candidate's housing policies. This seems sufficiently more detailed. I'll give it a read and get back to you.

CEOs for Cities posts about a proposed "Urban Bill of Rights" or "The NIMBY Manifesto" proposed by Sharon Hudson, columnist for the Berkeley Daily Planet. There is just too much to say...

I posted a comment to the CEOs post protesting her use of the term "NIMBY" as if it were a good thing. I felt that her call for a focus on quality of life in urban planning would be antithetical to the NIMBY perspective. But after reading this entry from the Wikipedia and the article that accompanies the Manifesto, it became obvious that she's a NIMBY after all and is proud of it. She decries the "race to the bottom" that she sees being created by the current urban planning regime. She says

We cannot let planners and developers decide what we will do with our lives. I never hear planners discussing psychological health and cultural values. Planners have a different approach. As one Berkeley planner told me, no matter what they build, eventually those who can or must tolerate the new, worse environment will replace those who can’t. As this happens, resistance to further degradation lessens. But I reject this “race to the bottom.” And with enough time, planners and developers could also train Americans to live like drones in anthills—but why let them?
The reason Berkeley is making these three mistakes is that we have fallen under the control of developers and extremists, instead of implementing real smart growth. Accepted smart growth urban infill guidelines recommend more open space, more parking, smaller buildings, and greater housing variety than is called for by Berkeley’s current plans, codes, decision makers, false “smart growth” advocates, and, of course, developers. Real smart growth approximates what most of Berkeley looks like right now—two-story single-family homes with small yards, two- and three-story multi-unit buildings, somewhat taller buildings in mixed-use areas, plenty of greenery, adequate but not excessive parking, and attractive, walkable downtowns based largely on the preservation of historic buildings. This is what makes urban living humane, attractive, healthy, and sustainable. And it’s exactly what most Berkeley NIMBYs support.

Reading between the lines, I think she is advocating against high-rise apartment/condo towers. But she says at the start of the article that we need to stop the sprawling of the suburbs and draw people back into urban areas. She argues that we could do that if urban areas offered many of the amenities of suburban space (like fresh air and green space). Well, I think that is a great idea. But she doesn't seem willing to make any compromises to accomplish that goal. Is there room for the suburban refugees in those "two-story single family homes" and  the "somewhat taller buildings in mixed-used areas?" Maybe some other city could make room for them.

At first I didn't really believe that someone was out there waving their NIMBY flag proudly, even in Berkeley, but it's true. Between the anthills and the engorged concept of human rights, I am happier than ever to be living on the East Coast.

LA Weekly offers Five Signs You're Gentrifying. Ornamental grasses, ubiquitous artists and gelato are all signs that your neighborhood (in LA) is coming out of its cocoon. And of course there is the Pimp My Bungalow phenonemon.

The accompanying article Welcome to Gentrification City gives a historical account of the process. It's a nice study of urban evolution and a priceless slice of LA-icana.

Two articles from the DC area elaborate on the affordable (or attainable) housing issue.

The Washington Post has an op-ed about the affordability crisis in Fairfax Co., Virginia. The obvious answer to affordability for middle-income families in inner-ring suburbs is density. The article mentions that there have been one or two developments in that direction, but the problem of exclusionary zoning in suburban communities remains. Seems to me that this issue will remain as long as the local zoning boards continue to be distracted from the forest by the trees. I wouldn't suggest that the state get directly involved, but perhaps it could provide technical assistance and incentives to help the locals pull back and look at the bigger picture.

The Baltimore Sun reports on incentives being offered by home builders to entice new buyers and even those who had pre-ordered and are now backing out. The incentives include "Make Us an Offer We Can't Refuse," gas and electricity credits, prepaid gasoline cards, and credits against closing costs. Executive Vice President of the Home Builders Association of Maryland gets the prize for the most colorful analogy of the day: "Builders are working through the inventory they have. It's like the snake that swallowed the pig. Once they get the inventory through their system, things will even out."

So, the housing market numbers are in, and no one is smiling. The consensus seems to be that the market is correcting—the days of sky rocketing value are over, and god help you if you got one of those interest-only mortgages (bad idea then, really bad idea now). But there seems to be a certain amount of chatter over whether the correction will be a soft or a crash landing. 

NY Times: New Signs of Cooling in Housing. "The trend here is one of stabilizing prices after the sharp gains seen for many years. While certainly a change in trend, so far the official data are not corroborating some of the more alarmist stories being bandied about recently." Joshua Shapiro, chief US economist with MFR, Inc. 

 Boston Globe: Market unease: Home prices fall 3.5%. "Home prices in Massachusetts fell 3.5 percent in July, the largest decline in 13 years, as the slowdown in the real estate market finally led sellers to cut their prices." BUT "During the real estate boom earlier this decade, prices increased 80 percent in Massachusetts. [my italics]"

 Paul Krugman: Housing Gets Ugly (Times Select article). Mr. Krugman waves his arms and cries "bubble!" and "pop!"

Wall Street Journal: The House the Fed Built (unfortunately only available online to subscribers). A WSJ editorial offers the 'what goes up, must come down' theory and lays the blame at the Fed's door. "The current slump in sales, new construction and prices is the aftermath of the astonishing and unsustainable housing boom that began in 2002." "How hard the housing fall will be is impossible to know, but a broader recession is far from inevitable."

The NY Times stokes the fire by reporting on the panic-stricken lengths that some sellers are going to in the most competitive markets to get their houses noticed.

CoolTown Studios posts about a recent ULI report on the popular town-center-style shopping centers. One of the examples is North Hills in Raleigh, NC. This one I know well because it's just a few blocks from where I grew up. The new development replaced a decrepit 1967 mall (you could almost hear the death rattle when you drove by) that was once the community hub. The new one is a wild success—people from across Raleigh are flocking here. The whole family can go for the evening—the kids can hang out with their friends, and the parents can have dinner or a drink or browse.

Also, Kara sent me this Onion article that is a sharp send-up of the whole CoolTown/Urban Hipster phenomenon (although, I'm sure they would insist on leaving the bodega just the way it is). 

Dominance of Exclusionary Land Use, Brookings Institution

The Columbus (OH) Dispatch reports on the local issue of essential personnel (teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc.) being priced out of the housing market where they work. This isn't a new issue and is one that we're very familiar with from our work with the community in Woodstock, VT. A recent Brookings Institution report cites low-density, exclusionary zoning in these suburban neighborhoods as a major culprit. The mandated large lots and other zoning elements virtually ensure that developers build high-end housing estates, and vitally this is what the community prefers. One mayor is quoted as saying, "Higher density means more children and more (school) buildings. A better quality of life is easier if density is low." The city officials interviewed all say that there was no exclusionary intent, but I think what they really mean is that there was no malice, not that they don't have a preference for others like them in the community. A local architect says, "It's easy to say, 'I don't want my neighborhood to be more dense.' What they have to understand is what that means." The Brookings report concludes, "To the extent that their regulatory environments are in part responsible for those failures [on several indicators measured in the report], wholesale regulatory reform is probably called for."

The Christian Science Monitor reported earlier this summer on a pilot program from the Chicago City Council to provide matching funds for developers putting green roofs on existing buildings. The fund is starting with $500,000, up to $100,000 per grant. Wonder how it is going so far. Of course, the Chicago City Hall roof is the poster child. The article reveals that the building's roof is actually divided in half: the City side, all green, cool and luscious, and the Cook County side, all black, tarry and sweltering. From our experience with WM Lofts, I'm sure that this matching program is welcome. We found that the costs of the green itself weren't the issue, it was the cost of structural alterations to support the weight of the roof that were prohibitive.

If you haven't gotten your fill of green roofs and Mayor Daley, PBS is airing a documentary narrated by Brad Pitt called design: e². I guess the coolness of Mr. Pitt will reinforce the coolness of green design for those not already in the know.

We have been keeping an eye on the developments (or lack there of) at Fan Pier since our proposal for the redevelopment of the Old Northern Ave Bridge (oh so long ago). The Globe reports that the Fallon Company, the most recent owners of the site, were out last week hanging banners to pretty up the site. The banners will make some improvement to the eyesore vacant lots and display renderings of the planned buildings. A model of dense collection of towers can be seen at their website. Let's hope 1. that they can actually get something built and 2. that they can attract people to the site/neighborhood other than those just going to work.

The article also reports that the ICA has delayed their opening until at least October...