Housing Density and NIMBYs

Housing density has been and will remain the most common disagreement with regards to new development in existing towns. The politics surrounding this issue can be fierce with strong emotions on all sides. The battle over density usually starts when a developer purchases land with plans to build medium to high-density residential. One resident will hear about the pending project and will rally the troops. This person is usually referred to as a NIMBY which stands for Not In My Back Yard. This neighborhood watchdog will then broadcast the message that an evil developer is trying to profit with a new development and does not care about its impact on the surrounding community.

This was the case with Daybreak and many other new urban communities across the nation. The question that I would like to ask most NIMBYs is this: how did you inform yourself about the topic of density and its effects? Some of them call on first-hand experience. The neighbors near many developments complain about the traffic that the development is causing. Of course while the infrastructure that will accompany the development is only starting these neighbors pass judgment by what they see immediately. This short-term, subjectivity should not be taken as fact, but many NIMBY’s present it as fact. Many NIMBYs that I have talked to use the words “its just common sense” all too often when trying to explain their information source. While I feel that common sense is a valid tool that cannot be underestimated, I also feel that it is sometimes confused with myth.

These myths are traditional in my opinion. Passed down through the generations and are added to with each new generation. The history of where these myths started reaches back as far as the 1800s. The US started as an agricultural nation and transitioned into an industrial nation with factories and mass production. This transition was accompanied by waves of immigration from Europe. Each new wave contained different ethnic groups that were overtly discriminated against. This discrimination clustered these immigrants into densely populated areas with the least desirable jobs. This segregation along socio-economic status lines resulted in the materialization of many of the myths that are associated with density.

Fast forward to the age of suburbia that started after World War II. Being enabled to travel long distances via automobile, people could more economically live in the suburbs and further segregate themselves. Zoning use ordinances specified separation of land use and from then on commercial could no longer coexist with residential. In many cases this meant separation of density as well. Fast forward again to the 70s and 80s where the government decided to build “project housing” which not only segregated people of lower socio-economic status, but actually concentrated them. Many of these were an immediate failure with rampant crime and social problems. The images created by these projects reverberated with further intensity in the media particularly in movies and television. The “inner city” was a dangerous crime ridden area only suitable for those “other” people. All of these events perpetuated the myths of density with a simple philosophy: guilty by association.

So what is the real story behind density? The best way to answer this question is to address the myths often cited by NIMBYs one at a time.

Myth: Density will lower the value of my home. Many things can lower the value of a home, but density is not by itself one of them. In fact researchers have conducted many studies on single-family housing that is located in proximity to dense residential developments. The conclusion of these studies is that there is not a significant difference in the appreciation rate of those single family homes located in close proximity to high residential developments and those single-family homes located further away. In fact the percentage of appreciation is 2.9 versus 2.7 percent. This is not a significant difference. However, if you have an apartment building located next to your home that is 5 stories tall, over 30 years old, the grass is browning, windows are broken, loud music is blaring from the windows, and the paint is literally peeling like a sunburn, then this will obviously lower the value of your home. Of course, if a single family residence was in the same state, then it would lower the value of your home as well.

Another myth is that dense housing will create more traffic. Obviously if you add more cars to an area you will have more traffic. However, research has proven that higher density housing decreases traffic per person. Single family detached homes average 10 car trips a day. Compare that to the 6.3 car trips per day made by people living in townhomes and condominiums. Density is also needed for public transportation to be feasible. The Mid-Jordan TRAX line would not extend to South Jordan at all if not for the density that will make up the Daybreak Town Center. This mode of transportation will bring an additional choice for transportation that is likely to be used considering gas prices. Daybreak further mitigates traffic by having most necessities within walking distance which encourages the two-legged commute.

The most prominent myth about density is that it creates crime. This claim is absolutely false. Numerous studies have been conducted and the conclusion is that per population, crime is the same in higher density housing as it is in single family housing. The perception of crime is perpetuated when the observer holds an entire apartment complex to the same standard as one single family home. So when three juveniles from the same complex commit a crime and the police show up at the apartment complex three times in one year, it is considered “crime ridden.” On the other hand if the police show up for a juvenile in a single family residence this is considered an “anomaly.” Crime research indicates that crimes increase in accordance with certain socioeconomic indicators such as education attainment, unemployment (particularly of males), and the poverty rate.

The final main myth is that dense residential housing is unattractive and is only desired by lower-income households. Considering the changing demographics and preferences of consumers, this assumption is not based in reality. This market appeals to empty-nester and first-time home buyers tremendously. As with anything in real estate it is all about location, location, location. You can buy a single-family home in some locations for half of the price of a town home in south Jordan. Considering that the average income earner in Utah currently cannot purchase high-density housing in many areas, I would have to say that it is not just the poor that are moving into condos and townhomes. If the housing has a good design and is well maintained it will attract quality residents who care about and participate in their community.

So who is winning this battle, the NIMBYs or the New Urbanists? The New Urbanists have the clear lead, but this depends greatly on where you live. In North Dakota and Oklahoma , the NIMBYs are holding their ground. If you live in Utah , Colorado , Texas , Florida , or California on the other hand, the New Urbanists are definitely ahead of the game. Since its inception in the early 80s, New Urbanism has grown at a phenomenal rate in most states. Locally, more and more new urban developments are popping up. They are called by different names such as smart growth or transit oriented developments, but they are the same with respect to density.

In fact, South Jordan will shortly be surrounded by these developments. With the Herriman Towne Center , Daybreak, Jordan River , and other future communities coming to light, New Urbanism will also be the future of development locally. A number of strong forces demand this density. Energy costs demand homes that are more efficient, smaller, easier to take care of, and closer to the necessities of life. Businesses now want to locate their operations in communities that are vibrant, walkable, and have transit nearby. Density is the vehicle that has to be used to accomplish these attributes. The government wants density as it allows for less expenditure on infrastructure per tax payer. Finally, people are demanding more density and they are voting with their feet. The success of dense New Urban communities speaks volumes about this demand.

Density will have its place in the future of South Jordan, but if not planned correctly it can cause problems. Density cannot be thrown in a community in a half hazard manner in order for the developer to make a buck. Instead it should be planned and integrated correctly according to transect planning and community needs. These new developments must feature good designs that are sensitive to the context of the surrounding community. These designs and features must be maintained by a community organization such as a HOA. I can see why many NIMBYs are opposed to housing density, but assumptions should not be made based on false associations of the past. To those NIMBYs who will fight till their last breath any development that has more density that 2 units per acre consider if your beliefs about density are actually true. Also consider if your energy might be better spent ensuring that these developments are integrated properly instead of trying to ban them all together. Density is here to stay. Instead of a battle of how many units per acre, we need to ensure that these units are built, maintained, and located in a fashion that will enhance the community for all of us.

Renting In Daybreak

In an earlier post I talked about how apartments are an integral part of new urban communities. In my opinion if they are integrated properly into a community they can bring diversity and allow people that could not otherwise afford to buy a home a chance to live in Daybreak. How do Daybreak residents feel about apartments being built? According to a Daybreak Daily website poll most Daybreak residents do not like the idea. In fact, 62.5% of the 115 respondents indicated that they were not happy with the decision to build apartments in Daybreak. (May 13) They are not alone. Most owners of single-family homes or condos in the United States do not want to live near rental housing. They see them as high-crime areas that put extraordinary burdens on local schools and civil services. However this has been proven completely false. Numerous studies conducted by Harvard, NYU, and numerous government entities prove that these claims are false. Per unit crime in apartments is almost equal to that of single family homes. As for property values, "Between 1987 and 1995, single-family houses located within 300 feet of apartment communities appreciated at roughly the same rate as those not near an apartment property, 3.12 percent compared to 3.19 percent."

On the other hand I feel that there is something to be said about the habits that tend to be exhibited by renters. People frequently moving in and out result in noise and create an environment of impermanence and of a transitory lifestyle. Property managers report a higher incidence of rule violations by tenants. Examples include noise disturbances, illegal parking and overburdening of the Association recreational facilities. These rules are broken because many tenants are ignorant of these community restrictions. Rental occupancies tend to be shorter than owner occupancies and do not facilitate long-term relationships among neighbors. Resident owners are more likely to carefully maintain exclusive use common areas than are tenants. However, most of these negative attributes apply to homes and condos that are rented out. These are properties that are integrated into the community with the purpose of being owner occupied. The condos and homes in Daybreak that are being leased are more likely to exhibit these problems. With the proper planning the negative impacts can be minimized.

From what I understand Kennecott intends to build many apartments in or within close proximity to the village center. This is good planning, but the devil is in the details. How exactly will they integrate it with the predominant architecture in Daybreak? Exactly how close will these apartments be to single family homes? I would not want to walk out of my front door and stare at a massive facade of a 5 story concrete apartment building. Kennecott Land seems to have a penchant for surprising stake holders by withholding details until the last minute. I would urge them to be a little more forthcoming with residents. Especially those on Topcrest.

Many aspects of the community hinge on the successful integration of higher density housing. Take TRAX for example. You cannot justify having a line run into daybreak without a certain amount of residents in the immediate area of the stations. This calls for density. To truly be a walkable community a development must have a higher density for all essentials to be in close proximity to all homes in a community. From a business standpoint, it makes sense to build these apartments now. It is good timing that they are ready to build the village center and apartments right when the market for rental properties has become much more attractive and commercial entities are still expanding. In all practicality I feel that these apartments can be a great addition to the community if they are done properly. I just hope the planners use the successful attributes of other new urban communities.

Is Daybreak Crimogenic?

A few days ago I read about a supposed stranger that approached a young girl in Daybreak and threatened her with a knife. The apparent intention of the stranger was to get her to drink something. This story was later proven false as the girl was lying, but it peaked my interest about crime in Daybreak. I wrote an article earlier about crime in Daybreak that compared statistics with my old neighborhood, but this article only touched base with a debate that has been raging for years about new urbanism and crime.

A theory of community design called Defensible Space seems to be the clashing point of this debate. This theory was thrust into the mainstream in 1972 by Oscar Newman with his book, "Defensible Space: - Crime Prevention through Urban Design." The four main principles of this theory are:

• Territoriality - The differentiation between public and private space
• Owners, or those who take ownership of a given space, have a vested interest and are more likely to challenge intruders or report them to the police.
• The sense of owned space creates an environment where "strangers" or "intruders" stand out and are more easily identified.
• Natural surveillance - the link between an area's physical characteristics and the residents' ability to see what is happening
• Image - the capacity of the physical design to impart a sense of security also known as the broken window effect. The community must look well-maintained with no signs of criminal mischief.
• Milieu and Access - Features that may affect security, such as proximity to a police substation or busy commercial area

In the related literature you can find many instances where authors suppose that the principles of Defensible Space are at total odds with New Urban Design. The table below illustrates this proposition:

In fact, supporters of this line of thinking believe new urbanism to be crimogenic. However, new urbanist designs have taken the concepts of defensive space to heart in their designs. Most literature that contrasts this point does not understand new urbanism or does not understand defensible space concepts. Possibly both. In reality, new urbanism creates harmonious communities that combine private spaces with active, well-observed, well-connected streets and other public spaces. Streets, squares and plazas are compact and lined with buildings whose many doors and windows help occupants to provide ongoing natural surveillance.

Daybreak has only a few problems from a defensible space standpoint. The walking tunnel that goes under the main road to Daybreak could be a problem. While homes do face this tunnel there are many spots that are obscured from public view. I would not recommend kids hanging around this tunnel. Another problem area is the alleyways that are used as access routes to vehicle storage. For the most part the second story buildings that are so prevalent in Daybreak neighborhoods help in this matter. The windows on the second floor can usually see over fences into the alley. The garage apartments also help in this area. The biggest worry, from a defensible space standpoint, is actually in Eastlake where new construction provides ample areas for theft and vandalism.

Overall, about 95% of the Daybreak development adheres to the concepts of defensible space. Daybreak residents are territorial in that we care about the community and what happens in it. There are clear lines between public and private space. Being able to distinguish a stranger at Oquirrh Lake may be a challenge since it is public space, but this same problem is applicable to any public space: churches, schools, playgrounds. These features can be found in just about any neighborhood in Utah.

Natural surveillance is the category in which Daybreak truly excels along with any new urbanist community. Our houses are close to the street and we have many eyes on the street. Image, well does Daybreak look unsafe? Does it seem like a place where criminal activity can thrive? That idea is laughable. As far as access, yes Daybreak is a mixed use development with a grid-like system of roads, but even Oscar Newman himself did not think that this was a particularly bad thing, especially where cars are made to go so slow. Finally, Daybreak does have a police substation in the community center. This proximity as part of the design speaks well for the planners of Daybreak.

Unfortunately, you cannot "design" out crime from a society. Design can only take you so far. While new urbanism seeks for people to know each other and be more active, it cannot prevent disagreements between people in a community. People are people no matter what neighborhood you are in and they will have disagreements. That is why Daybreak has experienced some crime as of late. For details you can look at the map on www.crimereports.com. This website is extremely handy to assess crime in any neighborhood. My prediction? Daybreak will remain a low-crime neighborhood because of new urbanism not despite it.

Crime in Daybreak

How much crime is in my neighborhood? This is a question that everyone is concerned about. I can tell you that my former residence was located in a part of Salt Lake City that definitely had a lot of crime. When I moved to Daybreak I found that I was still locking my doors, but that I had definitely gained a sense of security that could not be found in my old neighborhood. For this article I decided to compare the crime statistics from my old neighborhood and Daybreak. Fortunately, statistics are available for both.

According to government published statistics, in the last 3 months my old neighborhood had 84 crimes committed within its boundaries. The most notable of these were 5 cars stolen, 1 sexual assault and 1 aggravated assault. Of course my old neighborhood looks tame compared to a West Salt Lake neighbor hood that has had a few homicides and drive-by shootings. Daybreak on the other hand is not without crime, but is definitely better. The South Jordan Police Department has seven sectors from which they gather crime statistics. Daybreak is partially covered by sectors 1 and 7. In these sectors approximately 48 crimes were committed in the last 3 months. However, sector 1 covers The District which reports all thefts from their stores which adds up quickly from month to month. It also covers the neighborhood around the district which has had a few problems in the past. Talking to a South Jordan policeman, I found out that crime in Daybreak is really as low as it can get in a community this size. Daybreak definitely wins the safe neighborhood award here.

With houses so close together and neighbors who keep a watchful eye over the neighborhood, new urbanism plays its role in keeping crime down. Daybreak also has an official neighborhood watch program. South Jordan even sponsors a citizen's police academy which gives one class a week for nine weeks. This class is great place to learn about your local law enforcement roles, techniques, and concerns. If by chance you ever do witness something suspicious or have information you can call the hotline at 253-5281. Hopefully with neighbors looking out for each other and a good police department, crime will stay low in daybreak.