No this is not a blog post on about how dense I may be. Rather it is about development density. My last blog post looked back to a paper I wrote forty years ago that focused on two rural subdivisions. Back when I was growing up, it was often thought that large lots or acreages was best for a home, and for the environment. Many desire a house on large acreages, but is that the best way to live? Several years ago as thinking "Green" became more important, a PBS production noted that Manhattan is the greenest place in the United States (and one of the greenest in the world), due to its density, and concomitant low carbon emissions. Density does matter, but it does not have to be Manhattan density. The New Urbanist movement likes density, but it also likes livable, human scaled neighborhoods. Density can be effective at non-Manhattan levels. To New Urbanists, the maximum number of stories just outside a dense urban core is best set at a maximum of six stories for the next layer from the urban core. (Although, in my mind three stories is a better human scale.) This allows a building to frame the street, but not so tall that it overshadows the human scale. Scale, whether height or density, is important. This blog post will explain why doing density matters.
 |
| 1937 Air Photo of Fitchburg |
When I was a planner I often recalled saying that if you develop at, say, four dwelling units per acre, you saved about twice as much land as if you developed at two units per acre. Likewise, if you developed at six units/acre, you saved twice as much as if at three units per acre. When working on what would be the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, we held over 100 public meetings, many of them workshops to obtain public input and get opinions. The idea of the workshop was to allow engagement, interaction and input by the public. Perhaps the best workshop, in which the public came to appreciate our work, was the one held on the housing component. This blog post will be on what we did at the workshop and how the public came to better understand the beneficial effects of density. The workshop was slightly more complicated than what I will outlay here, but the meaning is generally the same. I may be fuzzy on some of the persons per household, but one gets the idea. Future posts will focus on my creation of Resource-Based planning, the created long-term growth boundary, experience with Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and what planners call H+T.
 |
| 1974 Fitchburg Land Use Plan Map |
To understand density many 1970 to 1980 many suburban subdivisions were at a density of about 3 units per acre, net, or lots of an average of about 15,000 sq ft. Later subdivisions, were about 3 to 4 units per acre, and today, they could be even higher density, particularly some new-urbanist developments could be at 6 or 7 units per acre for single family. This is what we refer to as net density. However, the public improvements (streets, storm basins, etc) is about 35% of the lot area. Therefore, a 10,000 sq ft lot would have an actual development impact of about 13,500 sq ft. This creates gross density. (I recall testing that common 35% planning rule, and found it to be closer to 40% for many subdivisions, which I attributed to newer storm water regulations.)
The housing workshop drew a crowd of over 50 persons, which we broke into small groups. The charge to each group was to plan the residential growth of Fitchburg. We provided a map of the city, and colored squares in ten or forty acre sections with a few density levels. However, to make it more realistic they were required to meet the population parameters set for the city. Working off of information from the State, Dane County Regional Planning Commission, and the UW Applied Population Laboratory, we know Dane County is a growing region of the state, and they allocated to Fitchburg a growth of about 5,000 persons a decade. Now, to meet 5,000 persons a decade, we provided them a few figures: At an average density of 3 to 4 units per acre, or predominantly single family housing, there would be about 2.7 persons per household. If they wished to consider a mix of residential densities, at say 6 to 8 persons per acre, the average person per household would be about 2.15 persons per household. Given these figures, I, and a others in my office, went around to assist in calculations. Each group would calculate and map out the number of households per acre, and add in the 35% development figure to reach gross density.
 |
| 2017 Air photo of Fitchburg |
At the beginning most all persons in each group thought that it best to grow at single family density (most people who attend public meetings are single family homeowners and rural landowners showing a bias to single family). Simple math gives the area required: 5,000 persons divided by 2.7 persons per unit requires 1,852 dwelling units. At 3 units per acre (net) that is 617 acres and add 35% gives 835 gross acres of residential development to be accommodated every ten years. Seems fairly simple, and most thought the number was not too bad. The problem came when they had to map this out. Where would Fitchburg accommodate 835 acres of residential development every ten years, for three decades? As the small groups discussed and mapped, they soon saw the rural area of Fitchburg disappearing before their eyes. When taken over three decades, the then anticipated planning horizon, that meant they needed to allocate 2,505 acres of residential development (almost four square miles), or over 62 forty acre parcels. As they saw the rural area disappear they then changed their calculations. (To provide a common reference point, the 160 acre land area common in the Homestead Act and for farms in the Mid-West is made of four forty acre sections.)
 |
| Comprehensive Plan Workshop |
As the public attendees went through their scenarios, most came to a conclusion of an average density of about 8 or 9 units per acre being a more sufficient density in order to preserve agricultural land. The Goldilocks principle. Some groups, who wished to preserve more land had higher densities. Due to a mix of dwelling units generally required to meet eight units per acre we reduce the density per household to 2.15 persons. (Multi-family units in Fitchburg have fewer persons per household, generally about 1.8.) This would require 2,326, dwelling units to accommodate a population of 5,000 persons a decade. However, at eight units per acre, the net area required would be 291 residential acres, or 323 acres of gross residential development for every ten year time frame. That would be about 970 acres for thirty years, or just under 1.5 sq miles of land. The number of 40's used would decrease to just about 24 forty acre parcels.This is a savings, over three decades, of 1,535 acres of land as compared to the three du/ac scenario. Interestingly, about 7 to 8 units per acre is the level thought to make mass transit suitable for an area.
By allowing persons to see first hand how development can eat up land, they became more understanding of the need for a variety of housing options. Fitchburg is rather unique as a city, since it urban, suburban and rural, and many of its residents view the rural area as important, in other words they are vested in the rural land, which may make them appreciate rural land more than in other cities where expansion into the rural areas is nothing big. As the persons per household continues to decline in part due to a decreasing marriage rate, fewer children being born, and boomers aging, varied housing options are necessary. Large lot single family no longer fits the population desires of some Americans. Fitchburg has seen some significant growth in its new-urbanist subdivisions, and many residents who do not live in one of those houses complain about how close the lots are, but it fits a need, and can be more affordable than large lot housing. I recall talking to persons who were calling about availability of neo-traditional housing options, and desire their own home, but also a desire for a small lot. Less mowing and care. At over $450 (2018 dollars) a linear foot, public improvements for an urban subdivision are expensive. For a 50' wide lot the cost of improvements is $22,500, compared to an 80' wide lot at $36,000, on average.
 |
| New Urbanist Development in Fitchburg |
Since 1978 Fitchburg has not allowed for the creation of rural subdivisions (although rural cluster development was approved several years ago, but that is another story). The question, could then arise, what if Fitchburg allowed only rural subdivisions? A minimum one acre lot would be required to meet the necessary septic system requirements (primary and a replacement area), but let us assume an average lot size of 1.2 acres (52,272 sq ft) for 1,852 dwelling units, which would be 2,222 acres, or adding 30% (assume some on-site storm water) of the area for public improvements would take us to a required 2,889 acres for rural subdivisions to accommodate the 1,852 dwelling units. This amount of acreage is equal to over 4.5 sq mi, or over 72 forty acre sections. Just think what this would be like if all dwelling units in the county were on 1.2 acre lots!
 |
| Density Allows for this (Heritage tree in Fitchburg) |
Now, those are just development acres, but the actual impact is greater, since streams, wetlands and steep slopes cannot be developed, they often become corridors though a development, and hence would generally mean an increase in road, and utility length. The greater area required, the more likely you are to have to work around the natural features. This is why density matters, and for those who live on large acreages should be quite happy that there are people living in Manhattan.
The current politics of Fitchburg, from what I understand, tend to favor single family housing, and that market is currently strong. The problem is that if Fitchburg only had a single family housing focus a decade ago, during the great recession, there would not have been much construction. Because of its diversity, and its land use controls of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Fitchburg avoided the large swaths of single family home sites that tended to remain vacant for several years, with a city plowing a long stretch of vacant street, to get to one home; worse yet were the built but unoccupied homes that were mined for copper and other materials. Because Fitchburg allowed for multi-family construction, it saw growth in its tax base, unlike communities that only preferred single family where the tax base stayed generally steady or, in some cases, declined. Before the recession, I received a call from HUD, asking about multifamily development in Fitchburg, and the person noted that there was a strong need in Dane County for that type of housing. Prior to the recession, single family development was favored over multifamily leading to a high demand for multi-family housing. When I worked, I preached balanced and diversity of use in neighborhoods. Having a variety of housing types allows a development, and a community, to better meet changing market conditions, and economic declines. That assisted Fitchburg through several tough years brought on by the great recession and the related single family housing crisis.
To show why, here is a thought to ponder: The United States has an estimated 140 million housing units, with a total area of the fifty states (water included) being 2.43 billion acres. That works out to one housing unit for each 17.35 acres in the United States. What do you think about that number?
Those who live on large acreages should be grateful for urban areas, and their residents. When you see homes that are near each other, think not of them as sitting so close, but how they preserve land. It is the urban area residents, who live at the higher densities, which allows for the open spaces and farmland we all enjoy. Density, studies show, leads to less carbon emissions. That is one reason why Manhattan was considered to be the greenest place in the United States. To preserve open spaces, to maintain or create livable communities, to balance varied values, is why as a Planner we held public workshops. It is why planning matters. Properly accomplished doing density benefits the nation, and in so doing benefits each of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment