[ad_1]
If you follow U.S. housing policy, You may have noticed a specific term popping up a lot lately: public welfare housing.Maybe you have read the long article academic journalliving in a city that is developing a social housing policy, e.g. seattle or Atlantaor see one of the recently mentioned New York Timeshighlight us and viennese Success story.On the design front, Dezeen is running a social housing renaissance series.
As the term has come into common use, different definitions have emerged. To cast a wider net, the distinction that interests me in the US context is that governments (federal, state, local) should be more actively involved in the production and provision of housing. This distinction matters because we have developed a dizzying array of policies at different levels of government to guide housing production in the United States. California has done a great job recently in reforming and streamlining housing production, and these changes are important. But more and more people are questioning whether incremental changes will be enough (they won’t), or whether we need systemic reform in the face of the nation’s ongoing housing crisis (we do).
Last summer, I organized a panel discussion on social housing at the American Institute of Architects (AIA) national conference.At the same time, I also advocate East Bay for everyone Support social housing in California. The initiative initially resulted in a white paper, “California Housing Corporation: The Case of Public Sector Developers”, written by one of my panelists, Derek Sagehorn. The document calls for the development of a California Housing Corporation that would be actively involved in housing production and inject some energy into our currently troubled housing model Innovation.
I was a little surprised that the group proposal was accepted. I felt even more humbled when I was invited to this event. AIA Podcast Talk about it. People from all over the country come to hear us speak, ask tough questions, and express interest in continuing the conversation. Among audiences across the country, one theme that emerged was skepticism about the role of social housing in America, that our society is inherently incompatible with it. Another question is what to do in a more challenging political environment: “Sure, you all can have social housing in California. What can we do in the state I’m from?”
One response to these problems is to consider more flexible local measures. Efforts at the federal and state levels will undoubtedly be slow to progress. Meanwhile, advocates working at the local and/or regional level can get to work (see Seattle and Atlanta). This could lead to regional differences, which would be great. The aforementioned long-term success stories of Bartholomew County, Maryland, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, are prime examples of how social housing is working at the local level in the United States, and new victories are slowly emerging.
In fact, starting at a local scale is consistent with the history of public housing in the United States. The New York City Housing Authority was the first agency of its kind, established in 1934. Then at the federal level, Housing Act 1937, written primarily by Katherine Power Worster.Worster was an early and lifelong advocate of public housing in the United States, but by 1957 she found that strict policies and initial compromises that limited public housing for low-income groups had led to dull stalemate In public housing, it is stated:
“…Now it seems that the original approach has two fundamental fallacies. One is the issue of basic policy formulation and management, and the other is the issue of physical planning and design. The approach in 1937 was natural and effective at the time. It was even necessary, and it represented progress relative to the previous one. But it solidified too quickly and became too rigid to flexibly adapt to American values and national conditions.”
In California, where the ongoing housing crisis is forcing innovative policy thinking, we are taking a fresh look at social housing. In 2023, SB 555, the Stabilizing Affordable Housing Act, authored by Aisha Wahab, was signed into law. SB 555 is a non-binding “study bill,” and while it hasn’t started production today, it sets some ambitious goals—Produce and acquire 600,000 affordable housing units within five years and 1.2 million units within ten years—And make some strong value statements:
“The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) The private housing market fails to meet the needs of the vast majority of California residents, who cannot afford market rents…
(3) Affordable housing produced through the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program is an important component of California’s housing stock, but is insufficient to meet the demand for affordable housing for those who cannot afford market rent. “
These are bold statements and calls for bold action, but that’s exactly what California’s housing crisis demands. The bill did not pass smoothly. In the Legislature, an overwhelming majority voted in favor, and a governor who appeared to have his eye on the White House signed the bill.Additionally, it is worth noting that many housing advocates across the country are reaching same conclusion. This is not just a California phenomenon.
As California’s social housing program is set to be developed in the coming months, we need to keep in mind the unique opportunities that social housing presents. As the text in SB 555 states, the current system for utilizing the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is critical but fails to meet people’s needs. For years, these projects have languished in a tedious deadlock as developers and architects considered a limited range of solutions and optimized them to perform well in grant applications. Here are a few ways social housing can enrich California’s housing landscape.
mixed income
A typical LIHTC program has income requirements that dictate who can live in it. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, many successful programs around the world (and Maryland’s program) have found continued success by providing housing that serves a wider range of incomes. This model solves some problems. For mixed-income buildings, some residents can pay market rent, helping public developers rely less on external subsidies, or in some cases not rely on public subsidies at all. Whether at the scale of the overall portfolio or at the scale of individual buildings, we can have a financially viable entity without having to compete for state and/or federal funding. This helps insulate social housing from future funding cuts; it also helps public developers permanently reserve some of their buildings as below-market-rate homes. This contrasts with the typical LIHTC model, in which below-market units can be converted to market prices after 15 years.
mixed tenancy
As my panelist Alex Schafran noted, healthy housing environments provide diversity Term options. At community meetings on the affordable housing program, people often come up to us and ask us why the houses are all rentals, or why senior housing is separate from family housing. This is also a product of the affordable housing-led approach under the LIHTC model. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with renting an apartment, the reality is that people are often best served by different types of rentals throughout their lives. When below market rate apartments are the only type of rental available, a family might adapt and find a way to fit into a 3 bedroom apartment, which brings me to my next point.
unit type
To receive funding for family housing under a typical LIHTC structure, a minimum ratio of two- to three-bedroom housing must be provided. A minimum unit size was set, and in order to keep the project cost-competitive, the unit size hovered around the minimum. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with these controls, but they provide limited solutions for a home to live in, time and time again. New public developers may recognize that there are a variety of home arrangements, some of which may not be suitable for a three-bedroom apartment, and so start building a wider variety of homes to meet a wider range of needs.
public welfare
Finally, public developers should act in the public interest. This change in thinking can provide new perspectives on the meaning of sustainability and resilience measures. As California LIHTCs develop, projects are often incentivized to incorporate sustainability features to some extent. They have to keep their cost per unit competitive, but they also have to consider that in 15 years, the building may change hands.
Link to the mixed income point above, Public subsidies bring pressure to contain costs. If a public developer owns a building that does not require public subsidy and wants to invest in a system that will easily pay for itself within 25 years, the added upfront cost of the system is less worrisome.
Additionally, public sector housing developers should invest in healthy materials.My colleagues have research Various types of hazardous materials commonly found in our built environment. These chemicals are often found in cost-effective materials, making them difficult to eliminate from affordable housing. Public sector developers weighing their impact on public health should choose to eliminate these chemicals from their homes, even if it means spending more money doing so.
In 2017, AIA National recognized basic rights housing, begging the question: What are we doing to achieve this goal?After our AIA panel had a lively discussion of economic and policy details, an audience member commented that we should also discuss social potential of social housing. This is where architects need to step up. Policy details are important and will be hotly debated, but as my panelist Karen Kubey said, “People don’t live by policy.” Architects have a responsibility to show the public what social housing in the United States will look like. potential. Activists and policymakers are rising with new ideas to address the nationwide housing crisis. Architects need to join them.
Featured image by author.
[ad_2]
Source link