I’ve written
about Opticos Design of Berkeley and one of its principals, Dan Parolek, on
several earlier occasions. First, I
reported on Opticos’ role as the lead consultant for the Petaluma Station Area Plan. More recently, I noted the national award given to Opticos by the Congress
for the New Urbanism for their work with Cincinnati’s new form-based code.
And now, I
can report that Opticos has begun staking out a key element of urbanism as
their particular domain. In Parolek’s
term, it’s the “missing middle housing”.
I recommend
reading Parolek’s entire article on missing middle housing. It runs long, but Parolek uses his words well,
explaining the urban gaps left behind by the missing middle housing and some
possible configurations for reestablishing it.
But for those without the extra minutes, I’ll try to summarize.
Most
use-based zoning codes divide residential uses into single-family and
multi-family. Within the two categories,
there is usually a variation in allowable densities, but ultimately there is a clear
physical delineation between single-family and multi-family homes.
If we look
around neighborhoods that have been built since World War II, the line is
obvious. Multi-family housing is almost
always a place apart, built by different developers, served by different
parking, and separated from single-family homes by clearly evident fencing or
landscape buffers.
But if we
look at older city neighborhoods, the places that were developed before the
use-based zoning codes assumed their dominance, we find a blurring of the
line. Stealthily scattered among the
single-family homes are buildings that have a scale and character similar to single-family
homes, but contain multiple residences. Those
buildings are important to city life because they provide the density necessary
to support walkability without undermining the single-family feel that many
find comfortable.
But with
many recent zoning codes having outlawed these middle housing options, hence Parolek’s
use of “missing”, the potential for walkability is undermined. Parolek argues that reestablishing the
missing middle is a key step toward reestablishing walkability.
Parolek goes
on to present possible configurations for new neighborhoods with the missing
middle restored.
With
Parolek’s words fresh in my mind, I relooked at some older neighborhoods of
Petaluma, visiting examples of the missing middle about which he wrote. And then I considered the future of a
neighborhood that will soon come under pressure to change, perhaps adding more
of the missing middle.
Interestingly
enough, my visit to examples of the missing middle began before I even left my
driveway. Directly across the street are
three small buildings that may have begun life as a motel. (In the days of slower transportation,
Petaluma would have been a logical place to spend a night before continuing onward
to the Sonoma County coast.) Or it’s possible
that the buildings originally housed workers in the egg industry that once
dominated my part of town.
Today, the buildings
contain six small apartments, tucked in a neighborhood that is otherwise
solidly single-family.
And despite
the concerns of some about bringing the missing middle into single-family
neighborhoods (take a look at the third comment on the Parolek article), the
folks who live in the apartments have blended well into our neighborhood. We haven’t all become friends, but my wife
and I have become sufficiently acquainted with several of the residents to
invite them to our home for the annual neighborhood Christmas Eve party. We’ve become even more familiar with their pets.
Moving
further afield, I’ve always been charmed by tiny A Street. Barely 300 feet in length, A Street is host
to a collection of smaller single-family homes and larger, older homes that
have been converted to apartments and a few offices. Separated from downtown by only a parking
lot, A Street provides a fine environment for those willing to leave their cars
at the curb for the day. It would be a
different place if the larger homes hadn’t been subdivided to provide more density.
On the north
edge of downtown, I’ve long been intrigued by a pair of Italianate apartment
houses near the corner of Bodega Avenue and Howard Street. The buildings appear to have been originally
constructed as apartments, but scaled to fit within a neighborhood that is
otherwise single-family, a cheek-to-jowl configuration that would rarely be
permitted under contemporary zoning codes.
I finished
my loop of Petaluma with the East D Street neighborhood. Originally laid out as the far eastern extent
of Petaluma, with large lots for extended produce gardens and poultry sheds,
the neighborhood has long been encircled by the town. Recognizing the potential income in
additional dwelling units, much of the neighborhood has evolved to fill the
oversized lots with Hollywood bungalows, granny flats, and an infill apartment
house or two.
I’m pleased
that East D Street has already begun an evolution toward filling the missing
middle housing, but I suspect it will be under pressure to evolve even
further. The SMART station is slated to
open in the next 18 months at the western edge of the neighborhood. Hopefully not much later after that,
development will start on the first elements of the Station Area Plan, with
moderately dense residential extending outward from the station. And perhaps a decade after that, the reuse of
the current Fairgrounds may begin on the eastern flank of the neighborhood.
I applaud
all of these changes, but I’ll also acknowledge that the changes will put
pressure on the East D Street neighborhood to add further residents. People will be attracted to the urban
vitality and the easy transit access of the new developments, but some won’t be
able to afford the cost to live in new construction. Converting existing homes to apartments or
adding granny flats within the East D Street neighborhood would be a solution toward
which the market will push.
(As one
example, two participants in the Urban Chat Fairgrounds process are looking for
a site to try a creative approach to senior living. I encourage their thinking, but have suggested
that they look to acquire existing buildings in the East D Street neighborhood
rather than a new Fairgrounds building.
Using existing buildings would control their capital costs.)
A
well-written zoning code, preferably form-based, would help ensure that the
East D Street neighborhood changes in a way that benefits both the existing and
new residents. I know that many
residents of East D Street are happy with their neighborhood as it is, but the
Station Area and the Fairgrounds will put pressure on the neighborhood to
change. And it’d be better to manage the
change than to try to put a bell jar over the neighborhood.
In passing, I’ll
also mention parking. At present, it
isn’t clear how much parking will be available at the station or how well
Petaluma Transit can serve the station. With
those conditions, it’s likely that parking will spill into the East D Street
neighborhood. I suspect that parking
management will quickly become a hot topic.
Although different than the missing middle housing challenge, the two
may be susceptible to a coordinated solution.
There is
irony in this discussion of East D Street.
As Opticos was beginning their work on the Station Area Plan, I
suggested, in my role as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, that Opticos
look at the East D Street neighborhood to help manage its transition. They seemed amenable, but the look didn’t
happen. Perhaps there were funding or
scoping issues of which I wasn’t aware.
But today, nearly five years later, Opticos is nationally recognized for
their work on missing middle housing and the East D Street neighborhood is in
need of a missing middle housing policy.
It was a missed opportunity.
The concept
of missing middle housing is subtle, but real.
And it can be important to urban vitality. If you’re motivated, take a look around your
North Bay community and look for good examples of missing middle housing or
places where missing middle housing could fill a need and then comment below,
or email me, with your insights. I’d like
to see other North Bay communities through your eyes.
In my next
post, I’ll return to the topic of more stringent water conservation standards. The Petaluma City Council will be considering
new rules at an upcoming meeting. I
won’t be able to attend, so will use this forum to add my final thoughts. After listening to some of the community
response at the earlier City Council meeting on the subject, I want to clarify
my earlier comments.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment