Can We Talk Here?
Tuesday, the City Council has voted to allow the Planning Board to hold a discussion on Alameda’s housing/density law Measure A. I commend the council for recognizing the need for the city to bring people together to discuss the issue and to help inform the debate by looking at the many points of view involved in it.
The discussion is a difficult one. It involves a passion for Alameda, its architectural heritage, and the quality of life we enjoy here, as well as an interest in looking at community design options that will preserve what is central to Alameda’s Alamedaness. There’s no doubt that on both sides of the debate, there is a lot of understanding of and love for the unique place that is Alameda.
In recent weeks, lawn signs have sprung up in a few yards around town. One council member told me that he thought they were an important part of an education program around Measure A and what it does for Alameda. And he’s right, in a way—only what these signs really highlight is the need for public discussion about Measure A, because the information on them is not correct.
These signs promote the idea that “Less density” leads to “Less traffic.” What they actually mean is that “Fewer houses” leads to “Less traffic.” While it is true that in some circumstances increased density leads to more houses (thereby leading to more traffic), it is not always the case. It is within this area of nuance that the community discussion resides.
Starting in the mid-1980s researchers began looking at the connection between neighborhood density and auto use. Whether you look at an entire city or just a neighborhood, study after study has shown that as density of an area increases, auto use (aka traffic) decreases. In fact, what they’ve found is that every time density doubles, the number of vehicle miles traveled decreases by 20–30%. These numbers hold up whether one is looking at suburban sprawl—say, going from 1/4 acre to 1/8 acre lots—or at higher densities, like those found in San Francisco.
While this might seem counterintuitive, one need only scratch the surface of the research to see that it makes complete sense. First, low density and high car ownership go hand in hand—and common sense tells us that the more cars there are, the more traffic we should expect. Secondly, as density increases, a wider variety of homeowners and renters can afford to live in an area. This broader range of residents has a much lower car-ownership rate as well.
Single-family homes suit the needs of families with kids (and others as well, obviously), but the number of childless households is growing as the population ages. These no-child households include both young couples and empty-nesters, who are often looking for smaller, more manageable housing options. Moreover, they account for 72% of the households in Alameda, according to the 2000 Census. While we discuss traffic and other concerns, we should be thinking of housing for all Alamedans at the same time.
So how does this look, say, at Alameda Point, where the city has 1700 homes planned? The planned homes could be spread across the entire area, or they could be planned to mimic Park Street, with a denser core along a retail corridor and less density the further you get from this core. Alameda would have the same number of houses under both plans, but experience shows that one plan (the denser one) will reduce the number of car trips generated by the project.
Is it possible this will work in Alameda? How will we ever know if the city doesn’t talk about it? If we don’t examine our options and see what the community wants, rather than sticking our heads in the sand out of fear of what terrible possible thing “could” happen? It is easy to identify possible problems with any given project or program. The trick is to identify the likely concerns and address them, not insist on moving forward blindly with the idea that everything will be peachy.
The issues surrounding planning and development cannot be summed up in less than 10 words posted on signs around town. It is time for Alamedans with differing viewpoints to come together to discuss their concerns and to work in concert to ensure that whatever development does move forward in town, moves toward something we can all be proud of when it is built.
At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, the council took the first positive step toward making this community dialogue happen. They should be commended for it. I’m sure it was not an easy step to take.
Leave a Reply