|Draft recommendations added in blue|
|Intro to the summary memo|
From here, they don't quite come into full focus as a coherent approach or something that is really at the right scale yet.
Eliminating parking requirements and allowing more generous building heights seem reasonable.
Adjusting minimum density in mixed use and multifamily areas from 12 to 15 homes per acre seems very marginal.
But the last one, adjusting single family residential near the core network to 15 homes per acres is stronger. This is "the density at which drivable suburbanism transitions into walkable urbanism."
You can read the full summary here.
One commenter offered a good summary critique:
This idea that the Zoning Subcommittee is going “bold” strikes me as ridiculous. When I hear Subcommittee members express concern about someone not being able to build their “dream home” because it may not meet a new minimum density, that is hardly a bold sentiment. Going bold requires an acknowledgment that we live within an urban growth boundary; with that in mind, we should be doubling or tripling our housing density with all new construction. We shouldn’t see new 3500 square foot homes on 7000 square foot lots anywhere in this city.
At the same time, we also should stop seeing pods of three story apartment buildings surrounded by surface parking lots. Is that really the style of multifamily housing we all want? Or do we just accept that is the best we as a city can do?
Just the other day the Oregonian picked up a wire story and illustrated it with a picture of middle housing and low mid-rise commercial development in Reykjavik. Something like this is doable and could be delightful. But Our Salem remains a good ways away from envisioning a future like this that is also responsive to our climate emergency.
|Middle housing and commercial in Reykjavik|