Denisty Deserves Thorough Review (This ran in Projo, December 5, 2005)
There’s actually a lot to like in the Planning Department’s proposed zoning revision, but there’s plenty of reason to be concerned about much of it too. Lawyers and planners who have been interviewed by the City Council suggest that some of the proposal doesn’t comply with the comprehensive plan, which will be updated before May of 2007. While we should -- as the law requires –- certainly wait to revise the comprehensive plan before adopting the proposal’s noncompliant elements, we need not reject the whole proposal outright.
An increase in density is the preeminent overarching theme of the proposed zoning revision, and is probably its most controversial characteristic. It's rarely noted that Providence is already one of the most densely populated cities in the country: as of 2000, of core cities of more than 100,000, only New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and Miami were denser. Our population has increased substantially since even then, and is growing faster than each of those denser cities', with the exception of New York’s.
In a sense, our density is something to be proud of. Dense development is a positive thing, insomuch as it makes cities more pedestrian-friendly, affords residents ease of access to a diversity of commerce, and makes public transit more convenient and efficient; provides for opportunities to increase the supply and diversity of the housing stock, and integrates our neighborhoods socio-economically; and allows for the preservation and expansion of, public green and open spaces.
But the potential benefits of increased density have been inadequately explained to the people of Providence and to Providence’s decision makers. More troubling, the zoning proposal increases density without ensuring that that increase yields all of the public benefit that it could.
Cities across the country have used greater density to create new affordable housing, of which Providence is in great need: forty percent of Providence households live in housing that they cannot afford (assuming a household shouldn't have to spend more than 30% of its income on housing). Through inclusionary zoning laws, cities require that new large housing developments maintain a certain percentage of their units as affordable. In exchange, to offset the costs of producing affordable housing, municipalities allow developers build taller or more densely – and create more market-rate units – than the zoning code would otherwise permit. Downtown Providence is ripe for inclusionary zoning: were it in place today, we'd be anticipating the construction scores of affordable units for sale downtown, amid the hundreds of new luxury condos. As of now, the zoning proposal shows no inclusionary zoning provision.
The zoning proposal shows a meager increase in parkland open spaces, if any at all, and that doesn’t seem commensurate with the proposed increase in allowable density. The benefits of parks are obvious, and well-documented – they improve residents’ quality of life and health, as well as the values of neighboring properties. Providence's 6.9 acres of park per 1000 residents puts us below average among the country's 10 densest cities, almost all of which are growing more slowly than Providence. In a sense, we’re really losing an important park of sorts: Capital Center is being developed, and of course should be, but for years it has, in effect, functioned as a central, public open space. Conserving and broadening greenspaces should be one of our priorities.
Improved public transit is a purported justification for increased density. While RIPTA isn’t close to perfect, Providence proper is already easily dense enough for top-notch public transportation. Providence is far denser than Minneapolis, and Seattle, and more than twice as dense as Portland, Oregon – all cities with superb public transit systems. While the population density within the city limits is extraordinarily high, the density of the Providence metropolitan area is far lower than those of most cities at the top of the density lists – and those of Minneapolis, Seattle, and Portland. That might be an impediment to a great regional public transit network, but an increase in density within the city limits likely won’t make the suburbs any denser – or make our governor less likely to threaten spending cuts that would undermine RIPTA.
While many neighborhoods express justifiable trepidation about the substantial citywide density increases delineated in the zoning plan, there will be a near consensus that certain elements of the proposal are worthy of quick adoption, and it would be a shame if those provisions are held up indefinitely because of the broader controversy.
It’s my sense, and hope, that we could move forward with provisions that comply with the standing comprehensive plan – those that mandate the preservation of historic downtown buildings, institute more stringent landscaping requirements for parking lots and new developments, allow more intense development downtown (and mandate affordable housing set-asides), and many others – without much objection.
At the same time, we should hold off on those revisions that are most controversial and deserve further discussion – like vastly increased neighborhood commercial densities and the elimination of waterfront zones – which also tend to be those changes of questionable compliance with the comprehensive plan.
Over the course of the next several months or year, as we prepare to update the comprehensive plan, the Planning Department and community organizations should have a broad and open conversation about the benefits -- and potential drawbacks -- of increased density, and make sure that any increase in density achieves as much public benefit as possible.