See also: “Dwelling Units per Acre” – Another terrible way of measuring housing.
“Housing Units” and “Housing Density”
Why these are terrible ways to measure housing success
To regard a three-bedroom apartment in the same way — as one “housing unit” — and equal to a studio apartment is just engineering-thinking. Instead, count the bedrooms. Count the number of people — adults and children — who might be living there. Don’t count the number of housing units or how the maximum density in a building design allows it to “pencil out” (i.e. be profitable). This just encourages lots and lots of tiny apartments.
Homes are for people. Let’s not forget that.
The phrases “Housing Units” and “Housing Density” are common in the world of planning. But would it be possible for us here in Arcata — please — to move beyond this dehumanizing language?
My father was an engineer. The thought-processes of engineers are vital to modern society. I respect engineers. I value the contributions (mostly) that engineers make to our modern world.
But so much of this draft Gateway plan reads like it was created by engineers. It seems to be written by people preoccupied by numbers — and not by the actual reality that those numbers represent.
Please: We are not here to make “housing units.” We are here to make homes.
These aren’t numbers we’re talking about. We are talking about people. People will be living in these buildings.
There is a type of engineering-think that has to be avoided — entirely — for new housing that’s added to our community to be successful. I say “successful” and I mean: On our terms. Certainly the new project has to make money for the developer; we understand that. We need to look at the value to the community, not the “efficiency” or some other benefit to the developer. There can be a correlation between the cost to the developer and the value to the community — but it is not a given truism that there is that correlation.
What do the developers get in exchange this negotiation with Arcata?
They get to put in more “housing units.” There will be more housing units, and the “housing units” will be smaller.
The large example of this is in the expressed desire to increase “housing density.” In the Gateway plan, developers can get a housing density bonus if they supply some “amenities” that are considered as community benefits — things that are good for all of us, that can be enjoyed and appreciated by all of us. Like a community garden, or a space for a bus stop. (The exact community benefits and their relative values are being worked on. The initial go-around can be see in “Community Benefits and Development Standards – Chapter 2” on Page 48. Link here on Page 1 of the chapter.)
What do the developers get in exchange this negotiation with Arcata? They get to put in more “housing units.” There will be more housing units, and the “housing units” will be smaller.
When non-subsidized Gateway apartments are built, I foresee standard one-bedroom apartments as having a rent of $1,600 or $1,800 a month — or more.
I don’t consider that to be what Arcata wants or needs.
The December 2021 draft plan uses the phrase “small units (which are naturally more affordable” and “affordable-by-design studio apartments” — six times in the document. I say: Remove these phrases from the document. Those word are elitist and offensive. A tiny apartment is not automatically affordable by its design any more than a tall person is automatically a good basketball player. There are lots of factors involved, and as has been stated elsewhere on this website much of the rent cost is based on the cost of construction. Now it could be the case that a small apartment is more affordable than a larger version — that could easily be true. A smaller one costs less than a bigger one. But when we’re seeing 400 square foot apartments renting in Santa Cruz for an average of $2,800 a month — that is hardly affordable. When non-subsidize Gateway apartments are built, I foresee standard one-bedroom apartments as having a rent of $1500 or $1600 a month — or more. [August 2022 comparative prices] I don’t consider that to be what Arcata wants or needs.
Suppose the developer says “I want to put in more units.”
Well, that’s easy: Just make the units smaller.
Here’s the problem, and I’ll use Sorrel Place as an example — in this case, it is a good example. (Location: 7th Street, between I & J) Sorrel Place has 16 one-bedroom homes, 17 two-bedrooms homes, and 11 three-bedroom homes. The average size is almost 825 square feet for the 44 apartments. Sorrel Place is 100% affordable housing so there are restrictions, but for this discussion let’s pretend it’s an ordinary apartment building.
Suppose the developer says “I want to put in more units.” Well, that’s easy: Just make the units smaller. If they were 400 square feet, you’d have 88 units in the building (roughly). If they could be squeezed down to a 360 sq.ft. size, you could get about 100 units — in the same building.
David Loya, is proposing that there be no maximum limit on the density of units within a building.
The Planning Commission Chair, Julie Vaissade-Elcock, disagrees.
The Community Development Director, David Loya, is proposing that there be no maximum limit on the density of units within a building. The form of the building — height, size, setbacks from the street — will determine the largest quantity of units that can fit into that building, he tells us.
The Planning Commission Chair, Julie Vaissade-Elcock, disagrees: She has strongly stated that there should be a policy for the maximum number of units. Ms. Vaissade-Elcock owns and operates a property management service in Arcata. She likely has a good sense of what the rental market is with this direct connection.
Without a clear maximum of units in a building, what happens? The developer is encouraged to build smaller and smaller units. And this is what we see now in Santa Cruz: A single building made up of 200 micro-studios 360 to 400 square feet in size. It can be said: Apparently this is what people want.
Is that what is good for Arcata? Is this what we want? I do not think so, not one little bit. I believe that we need a blend of housing, housing in all sizes. I feel that there should be a limit — as a percentage — of how many studio and micro-studio apartments that can be included in any building. Perhaps 20% maximum would be appropriate — and maybe some other percentages brought in as minimums of two-bedroom and up apartments. Such as 30% of a building must be two-bedroom and larger.
To the argument that to get around this developers will just build in the “Tea Garden”-style design — four bedroom, four bath apartments with a minimal kitchen — clearly intended for student living. I believe this style of apartment should be banned.
And back to “housing units” and “housing density” — see the WordCloud article here. There are over 28,000 words in the draft Gateway plan, and the words “House” and “Home” — as meaning a place where people will live — do not appear a single time. (Lots of other words and phases are missing or mentioned only once or twice also, including “solar shading, “
In the Gateway area, people will live in “Housing” and “Housing units.” As the plan stands now, people will not live in Houses, and people will not live in Homes.
Let’s change that. Let’s make livable homes for people and not just a quantity of something that’s used to enter a figure to satisfy a numeric goal, or to fill out a form and check off a box.
To regard a three-bedroom apartment in the same way — as one “housing unit” — and equal to a studio apartment is just engineering-thinking. Instead, count the bedrooms. Count the number of people — adults and children — who might be living there. Don’t count the number of housing units or how the maximum density in a building design allows it to “pencil out” (i.e. be profitable). This just encourages lots and lots of tiny apartments.