Council meets on Monday, and they will hear an information item, a big update, on the process to designate Climate Friendly Areas, which the City prefers to brand "Walkable Mixed-Use Areas."
 |
| A little bird says...are we listening? Lower ballfield, Bush Park earlier this summer |
The City has unfortunately chosen a pathway that DLCD apparently approves (this is very weird!), but which is a bit phony, by design or by accident, and yields an actual Potemkin village, a paper success that will have insufficient correspondence to reality.
 |
| Map with Staff Report Text from Tech Memo #1 (see below) |
A knowledgeable former State land use expert says of the process:
Very similar points are made here in three posts over the spring and summer:the results are deeply disturbing: Salem is likely to fall way short....A big reason is that the city is vastly over-estimating the amount of housing that might be built downtown and in the other three areas that it is considering as CFAs....But the best example is downtown: the city study asserts that there is "zoned capacity" for about 20,000 housing units downtown - implying that is an achievable amount of housing in the next 20-25 years, even though there are only about 1000 housing units in downtown now, and that current adopted plans forecast only about 2,000-3000 units would be built over this time. In short, it's highly misleading and left as is, will leave the city way short of meeting the state's 30% target....
The clear objective of the state rules is to get 30% of *all* housing in CFAs by 2050. Salem's study - whether it follows the rules or not - leaves us hugely short of that goal. My guess is that it gets us to maybe 5-10% of all housing in CFAs. To get anywhere near close to 30%, we'd need to build *all* new housing in CFAs; something that clearly isn't going to happen under existing plans that target 80% or more of new housing to outlying car-dependent neighborhoods.
- "Our Land Use Policy and Zoning is often too Theoretical: On CFAs and Overlay Zones" (2023)
- "Real Outcomes, not Potential on Paper, is Goal for Climate Friendly Areas" (2023)
- "Early Stage Plan for Climate Friendly Areas Seems Awry" (2023)
1000 Friends anticipated all this back in January.
 |
| 1000 Friends letter Jan. 11th, 2023 |
In a letter to city planners here and in several other cities (curiously not included in the agenda packet here for Monday) they cautioned against dramatic overestimation and "unrealistic assumptions."
Overestimation is exactly what the City's current approach employs.
Significantly, this Staff Report uses few numbers, leaving Councilors to fill in the blanks imaginatively, even wishfully:
The WaMUAs [i.e., CFAs] are sized to have a zoned residential capacity that can accommodate at least 30 percent of Salem’s current and projected housing needs.
There is no target number for "30 percent" in the Staff Report.
That number in fact is 25,956 homes, which has to be pulled from the technical memos buried in the 100pp study document linked in the Staff Report.
 |
| 25,956 homes in downtown |
By saying only "30 percent" and not giving numbers of existing housing downtown, planned housing downtown, this target value for housing, and the gap between, Staff is giving to Council a selective and misleading impression.
Overlay Zones
Somewhat related, and on a smaller scale, is the debate over overlay zones on middle Commercial Street SE. The debate echoes the CFA problem of concentration vs. distribution. (I am afraid that the politics of the payroll tax may interfere with level thinking on overlay zones, but there may be nothing to do about that.)
Previously we've discussed it some here.
- "Our Land Use Policy and Zoning is often too Theoretical: On CFAs and Overlay Zones" (2023)
- "City Council, July 10th - To Revisit Overlay Zones" (2023)
- "Housing, Livability, and Cars: Notes on Overlay Zones and Origin of Free Parking" (2023)
- "Mixed-Use Project on Commercial and Bush Evidence to Ditch Complexity of Overlay Zones" (2023)
- Notes on first reading in "City Council, March 13th - Second St NW and the Charmless Concrete Bunker" (2023)
- First introduction of idea, in "City Council, November 14th - Overlay Zones and Video Promotion" (2022)
Since Council was dissatisfied with the vote to keep things the same earlier this year, and decided to revisit the matter on Monday, there has been more discussion, a good bit on social media. Too often those are off-the-cuff kinds of remarks, and FB itself does not easily lend itself to developing an argument, so perhaps this takes the comments too seriously. Also people are thinking most critically about the payroll tax and budget right now, and not digging as much on zoning. Still, knowledgeable people are advancing these claims, and they deserve response. Here is some FB text from a discussion of the overlay zones, with the text overlaid on some illustrative images, an easy juxtaposition which seemed like the most immediate way to contest them. They do not seem grounded enough in fact and actual conditions.
One person argued in favor of height restrictions and generalized from not wanting height near a backyard, to "building tall is bad for everyone." Seriously? Some of the greatest cities in the world are packed with midrise construction, and people rhapsodize over them! Even without plopping a world-class metropolis into Salem, we could use a good bit more midrise. (There is no talk of highrise towers here, so any "height" is clearly midrise.)
 |
| Just the worst city in the world, apparently |
Another person seemed to miss the actual limits of the overlay zones, to be thinking as inside an overlay zone houses converted to businesses that are in fact outside of any overlay zone. (There is a stretch of Commercial with lots of houses converted to businesses between Owens and Superior that is not in any overlay zone at all.) They described a "cozy" walking environment.
 |
| "Cozy" strip mall, lube & oil, car wash |
Here is Commercial along the Hoyt-McGilchrist overlay. It is not
actually very pleasant to walk on, and "cozy" does not seem accurate at
all. Commercial is generally not cozy, even along those converted
houses, and the development actually in overlay zones is even less cozy.
It has consistently seemed that even people whose backyards directly
abut the overlay zones do not walk much on Commercial Street, and are
thinking only of conditions at their immediate home, and not of conditions
for people who might be walking on Commercial Street. They remain bound
to autoist conceptions of space, where they drive though and past Commercial Street, but do not visit it as a place. Their home is a place, but not the street.
The same person suggested other places were better for development. They suggested the 12th/13th couplet. A couple of decades ago in the Salem Futures project there was interest in mixed-use concepts and housing for that area, but the City retreated from that after public comment and criticism. 12th/13th does seem like an area with underutilized promise!
 |
| March 14th, 2004 |
Today most of 12th is zoned "General Commercial," which allows for apartments
in mixed-use buildings. Most of 13th is zoned "Industrial Commercial,"
which also allows for apartments in mixed-use buildings. So even though
the couplet was not assigned any of the new MU-type zoning, the most common zoning still
appears to allow some kinds of homes in mixed-use configurations.
But the railroad is a great barrier on one side, cutting off the east side neighborhood from retail and other services, and increasingly we should think about flood plains. We likely need new kinds of plans for redevelopment that is resilient against increased chances of flooding. Shunting development from Commercial to 12th is not a simple substitution.
 |
| Not sure the 12th/13th couplet should be a focus Clark Creek's flooding potential is also slighted City of Salem |
More generally, instead of warehousing housing abundance in problematic or low-demand places, we
should create housing abundance in high demand and attractive places, rich with amenities and future amenities.
In the most recent tranche of public comment, a person writes as if deleting the overlay zones will somehow deplete the neighborhood and harm downtown.
Maintaining livability in these neighborhoods is critical because the success of our downtown area is economically and physically dependent on these adjacent neighborhoods.
J.C. Penney, Nordstrom, T.J. Maxx, and others, were not supported enough by those "adjacent neighborhoods." Now we have a Dollar Tree and Family Dollar to replace T. J. Maxx. That is not a ringing endorsement of the economic power wielded by those "adjacent neighborhoods" in downtown!
A need to broaden the economic base of downtown with more people living in it and living nearby is a better inference.
More interesting on social media was a link to a piece at Jacobin, "The Problem with YIMBY Economics."
The piece engages in a bit of strawmanning, saying
the main obstacle to plentiful and affordable big-city housing is the restrictiveness of metro-area land-use policies. These policies, which favor single-family, low-rise homes, severely curtail the construction of apartment buildings and other density-friendly types of development. Eliminate the restrictions, these voices insist, and more affordable housing will proliferate.
It hinges on the time-frame for "proliferate."
The argument reasonably critiques the idea that upzoning will immediately create affordable housing.
But is that what people are arguing?
At Sightline, a big booster of the State's middle housing reform and center of regional YIMBYism, they say
On most urban lots, legalizing smallplexes would mean nothing at all for many years....This is...why a neighborhood that has legalized fourplexes looks almost the same 40 years later. It’s also why the older neighborhoods in North American cities, built before zoning arrived in the 1920s, often have a mix of apartments, plexes, and detached homes.They also say
as Sightline and other housing advocates warned when proposing this option in 2019, mixed-income sixplexes at this size probably aren’t going to pop up on their own even if they’re legal....They would also need some sort of direct subsidy.
The arguments are true for larger developments also.
Change is slow, filtering from market-rate housing takes years, and upzoning is a necessary tool and ingredient but not a sufficient one. Affordable housing requires several other ingredients.
If we are to hit our housing and emissions targets, the slow nature of change means we should cast our nets as widely as possible and make as many lots as possible eligible for change so that at least a few of them do change. Many will not change.
 |
| ULI report on West Salem |
A better point in the Jacobin piece is on the speculative value of land. That we have so much prime land downtown that is un- and under-developed, shows we need something like a land value tax. (There might be other things to revisit and engage in that piece, also, another time. It's an interesting piece, and may dovetail some with some odd pieces from Strong Towns a few years ago.)
 |
| State & Commercial was vacant for decades! (2014) |
 |
| Chemeketa & Liberty still vacant (March 2019) |
Finally, the Staff Report references talk about an end-run by creating a new Historic District in SCAN. This would be a crypto-exclusionary zoning scheme. Discussion at the State office is finally beginning to grapple with exclusionary themes in historic preservation.
 |
| Exclusionary themes in draft 2024 Oregon State Historic Preservation Plan |
For more criticism of our Historic Preservation framework and its use for exclusionary ends, especially misuse of Historic Districts distinct from individual designations, see:
- "Defense against Developer Dark Arts: Historic Districts' Unpredictable Charm"
- "Update on Historic Preservation Plan may be too Limited"
- "Incumbency Privilege in the Historic Preservation Plan at Council Monday"
- "Zoning and the Restoration Drama: Different Perspectives on the Buchner House"
- "Attempt at Grant Historic District Bears Watching: At the HLC"
Meeting our climate and housing goals is going to take multiple policy tools, and each time we shut one down or narrow its scope in order to insulate incumbents from change, we make things more difficult. We can't use 20th century custom and 20th century incumbency protections to address our 21st century exigencies. To do so is to show we aren't listening to what the little bird says.
Other Items
And just a couple of other minor items to note, about which there might be more to say later.
- In the URA adminstrative purchases, CB|Two has a $110,979 contract for a "Marion Parkade Revitalization Study." I don't remember seeing this before. Looks interesting!
- In the City administrative purchases, there is an $85,646 contract for "Archaeological Services for Pedestrian Safety Improved Crossing Project" with Historic Research Associates, Inc. And I don't recall seeing any archeological assessment on enhanced crosswalks before. This too looks interesting.
Addendum, September 24th
In the DAB packet for this week, there is a memo on the Marion Parkade project:
Until recently, due to its proximity to the RiteAid building, the Marion Parkade has been focal location for the homeless in downtown. The stairwells, elevator and interior walkways have experienced significant vandalism and increased cleaning demands, which have impacted the structural integrity of the building.
Due to Marion Parkade being in a key location to support development in north downtown, in February 2023, the city engaged JRMA Architects and Engineers to complete a condition assessment. The report indicated deterioration in a significant number of structural elements (Stair Towers/Seismic Upgrades, and Post Tension Slab).
During the 2023-2024 budget process there were discussions, and a recommendation was made for an allocation of funds to continue the evaluation of the structure to determine the costs to mitigate the key items outlined in the JRMA report and include in the scope exterior façade improvements that could positively change the look and feel of Marion Parkade.
The City has finalized a scope of work with City contractor of record CBTwo Architects for three (3) design concepts, which includes façade changes resulting in increased visibility and appeal to encourage increased usage, along with incorporating solutions to all the recommended non-maintenance improvements from the condition assessment completed in early 2023.
The designs are to include recommendations to discourage vandalism and graffiti, improve safety and security, and reduce cleaning and sanitation. The designs are anticipated to be complete in early 2024.
4 comments:
One thing I'm curious about is if a underutilized tax wouldn't get caught up as unconstitutional as it could be argued to be a "property tax"
There is also the question if single family homes could be considered "underutilized or if the zoning would be grandfather in, creating possible "spite houses"
Areas of Salem that were once wealthy, and have managed to preserve the historic architecture that tells the stories of Oregon's past often are no longer quite so wealthy. Particularly those where historic districts have yet to appear. They are often rich in diversity, including economic wealth (or lack thereof). There's a longstanding misunderstanding that historic preservation means keeping neighborhoods in museum condition, at the expense of all else.
In reality, historic presrevation is a powerful tool to advancing equity and racial justice, housing needs, and climate resilience.
You come close to hitting the point with your picture of the City of Paris. Paris is the worlds foremost example of a 15 minute city. They've achieved that status thanks, almost exlcusively, to a citywide maximum building height cap.
[comment moderation note: Please use a pseudonym/handle when you are giving opinion in a comment]
It is hard to understand your points, whether you are agreeing with or contesting the claims here. Your general tone seems to suggest disagreement, however.
On historic preservation see in particular the posts on the Buchner House and on Incumbency Privilege. Historic preservation in Salem has not worked on housing need and generally works against it, framing up resisting new housing as resisting "encroachment" and "stabilizing" the neighborhood and its property values. Most recently see the rhetoric from Grant Neighborhood Association in opposing the conversion of the German Baptist Church to housing. Preservation has also got stuck on the idea that the most climate-friendly strategy is anti-demolition, but they ignore transportation and the way a new apartment block closer to the city center can help lower total VMT in a city. Otherwise residents must seek out single detached housing on a greenfield at the city edges - and drive lots more. Restore Oregon is very bad on this, and treats the embodied carbon in a building as the only carbon that matters.
As for Paris building heights, the Second Empire program of Haussmann called for four, five, and six story blocks, the taller ones on wider boulevards - wide like Commercial! Even the limits in the 1600s were taller than what SCAN prefers in retaining the overlay zones. We're not arguing here against the general concept of height limits, just arguing against ones that are too low. Salem doesn't need towers. Salem needs midrise.
In addition to the land value tax, cities and the State have to tell developers that they will not increase road capacity to edge developments. And they have to stick with it. Developers need to understand that just because they can build in the semi-rural parts of the UGBs, they won't be serviced with infrastructure.
Post a Comment