[link]

It applies here as well as in the UK even though prices have rebounded. The bigger drop is ahead.

The city council’s Oct. 21, 2013 agenda will include council approval of the design review board’s bylaws, which were already adopted by the design review board earlier this year (in May). [.pdf of design review board bylaws]

The bylaws to be considered by the council include the following description of membership:

Appointments of members shall be made, insofar as a possible, from candidates who have an interest in the design of the built environment and its relationship to the downtown and the broader community. To support comprehensive design review, 2 members shall be landscape architects, 2 members shall be architects, 1 shall be an urban planner, 1 shall be a developer, and 1 shall be a construction contractor

Reading Article VI, Supplementary Regulations Item 5.80, I find that the language cited by Tom is present. The language under Planned Projects is what I remember, a menu of possible public benefits.

My point was not to address the practicability of affordable housing downtown (it must and will always be subsidized since the market can’t provide it) but to point out that the purpose of such premiums was presumably to encourage its provision. It should not be a way to purchase additional FAR, etc. by a simple cash payment.

I thought that Westphal’s comments about the effects of such payments increasing the overall cost of housing were very perceptive. The PUD system leaned toward extortion in the old days, when developers were required to make various payments in order to build much of anything downtown. The revision in downtown zoning was intended, as I recall, partly to eliminate the need for PUDs under most circumstances.

“Detter thought” or ‘CAC recommended’? This isn’t the first time that Ray’s public words have been difficult to distinguish from CAC’s supposed consensus or majority opinion.

Not that anything could. Downtown housing—other than that of low quality—will always be more expensive than housing elsewhere in the city. The well-intended notion of defying that reality isn’t doing anyone any good at this point (if it ever did). Any evidence (or a cogent argument) to the contrary?

Our urban core is surrounded by neighborhoods that hold a housing stock diverse in size, age, ownership, form, energy efficiency, occupancy, and lot size. All areas are walkable and bikeable to varying (mostly positive) degrees and are served by the bus system. If that’s somehow not sufficient, maybe we could clarify why not so that we don’t spin our wheels on downtown ‘affordable housing’.

Maybe ‘affordable housing’ requirements (or premiums) are a psychological crutch that allow some people to justify development that they’re not totally comfortable with. On the flip side, maybe they’re hoped to serve as a barrier to such developments. I don’t know. Just guessing.

I once posted a comment somewhere (aa.com?) describing affordable housing as energy-efficient, small units (<1000 sq. ft.?) on small lots with solar access and sufficient land (0.1-0.2 acre?) to grow a significant portion of the occupants' food, etc., etc. The irrational feedback on that comment from other posters was interesting.

In addition to some background and knowledge in the field, it is imperative that board members be well-versed in the design guidelines themselves, as well as relevant zoning ordinances and the master plan. That could come from some level of training for board members or a test, or both. This board cannot be made up of the usual political appointees with only a casual interest or worse, an agenda.

PUD or premium, in my opinion, the current calculation for determining “lower income” is flawed and results in rents that are not much different that what the market will bear. Also, building new “affordable” units in areas close to campus does nothing to address the real need for affordable housing for working adults and families.

There were suggestions made at the DDA in connection with the Connecting William Street process that perhaps the affordable housing premium could be awarded to developers for a similar in lieu payment. That is different in quality from simply offering a payment as part of a PUD packet. It would be a straightforward cash purchase of more FAR. I’m glad the commission took that possibility out of their recommendations.
I believe that the premium was intended to help provide affordable housing downtown, not as a development assist.