Can TODs Include Affordable Housing?

IF 3.3 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
Ajay Garde, Huê-Tâm Jamme, Benjamin Toney, Deepak Bahl, Tridib Banerjee
{"title":"Can TODs Include Affordable Housing?","authors":"Ajay Garde, Huê-Tâm Jamme, Benjamin Toney, Deepak Bahl, Tridib Banerjee","doi":"10.1080/01944363.2023.2236586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findings Inclusion of affordable housing in transit-oriented developments (TODs) is necessary for addressing the mobility and shelter needs of transit-dependent and low-income populations. Affordable housing in TODs, however, remains scarce despite state-level policies, interest group advocacy, and developer enthusiasm. We used a multiple case study method and focused on TOD areas in communities with disadvantaged populations in Southern California to examine barriers to and opportunities for affordable housing. We examined the contents of specific plans adopted by local governments to facilitate TODs around 10 selected transit stations in Los Angeles and Orange counties and conducted interviews with planners, policymakers, and developers involved in achieving affordable housing. Our findings indicated that although TOD specific plans permitted higher-density developments, they neither prioritized affordable housing nor presented a coherent vision for an inclusive transit community that would address the needs of different types of households. Moreover, onerous requirements for securing subsidies, patchwork financing, uncertainties in the approval process, and competition from market-rate housing inhibited affordable housing development. Although we did not analyze community opposition to TODs, it was hinted at by our interviewees.Takeaway for practice Targeting affordable housing in TODs, providing incentives, and strengthening the institutional framework are critical to achieving inclusive transit communities. The development of TODs in a politically fragmented region like Southern California necessitates a lead organization to procure affordable housing investments and strengthen the housing–transportation nexus. We note broader implications of the findings beyond California.Keywords: affordable housingdisadvantaged communitiesTOD ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Professor Ann Forsyth, editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association; and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which considerably improved the article. We also thank Nida Ahmed, Elizabeth Joun, Sang-O Kim, Lilly Nie, Isabel Qi, and Hanke Shao for excellent research assistance.RESEARCH SUPPORTThis research was supported by a USDOT Grant 65A0674, TO-041 from the METRANS Transportation Center.Notes1 We refer to housing affordable to low-income households as affordable housing throughout this article.2 In California, local governments adopt specific plans as policies and regulations to implement the jurisdiction’s future development policies included in the general plan and housing element. The housing element is a required section of the general plan of the jurisdiction (California Governor’s Office of Planning & Research, Citation2001). State law mandates that the housing element must be updated every 8 years based on a schedule set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.3 Section 65583 of California’s Government Code sets forth requirements for the scope and content of the housing element (California Government Code Section 65583).4 See Meyerson and Banfield (Citation1955) for a broader context of public housing projects of the past, and NIMBYism.5 CalEPA has created an analytical tool called CalEnviroScreen to help identify disadvantaged communities (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Citationn.d.b). For details, also see California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Citationn.d.a).6 Typically, local governments consider the half-mile radius around a transit station a catchment area for TODs, which tends to overestimate population within walking distance (Guerra & Cervero, Citation2013). Instead, they should consider a half-mile diamond (pedestrian network distance), which is a better measure.7 Santa Ana’s TOD specific plan was initially titled “Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan” and later titled “Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code.”8 The approval process of multifamily projects in Southern California takes a long time and varies across jurisdictions. The average approval time from 2014 to 2016 in Los Angeles was 13.1 months, whereas in Santa Monica it was 48.3 months (The Lewis Center, Citationn.d.).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAjay GardeAJAY GARDE (agarde@uci.edu) is an associate professor at the University of California, Irvine.Huê-Tâm JammeHUÊ-TÂM JAMME (Hue-Tam.Jamme@asu.edu) is an assistant professor at Arizona State University.Benjamin ToneyBENJAMIN TONEY (btoney@usc.edu) is a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California (USC).Deepak BahlDEEPAK BAHL (bahl@usc.edu) is an adjunct associate professor at USC.Tridib BanerjeeTRIDIB BANERJEE (tbanerje@usc.edu) is a professor emeritus at USC.","PeriodicalId":48248,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Planning Association","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Planning Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2023.2236586","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findings Inclusion of affordable housing in transit-oriented developments (TODs) is necessary for addressing the mobility and shelter needs of transit-dependent and low-income populations. Affordable housing in TODs, however, remains scarce despite state-level policies, interest group advocacy, and developer enthusiasm. We used a multiple case study method and focused on TOD areas in communities with disadvantaged populations in Southern California to examine barriers to and opportunities for affordable housing. We examined the contents of specific plans adopted by local governments to facilitate TODs around 10 selected transit stations in Los Angeles and Orange counties and conducted interviews with planners, policymakers, and developers involved in achieving affordable housing. Our findings indicated that although TOD specific plans permitted higher-density developments, they neither prioritized affordable housing nor presented a coherent vision for an inclusive transit community that would address the needs of different types of households. Moreover, onerous requirements for securing subsidies, patchwork financing, uncertainties in the approval process, and competition from market-rate housing inhibited affordable housing development. Although we did not analyze community opposition to TODs, it was hinted at by our interviewees.Takeaway for practice Targeting affordable housing in TODs, providing incentives, and strengthening the institutional framework are critical to achieving inclusive transit communities. The development of TODs in a politically fragmented region like Southern California necessitates a lead organization to procure affordable housing investments and strengthen the housing–transportation nexus. We note broader implications of the findings beyond California.Keywords: affordable housingdisadvantaged communitiesTOD ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Professor Ann Forsyth, editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association; and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which considerably improved the article. We also thank Nida Ahmed, Elizabeth Joun, Sang-O Kim, Lilly Nie, Isabel Qi, and Hanke Shao for excellent research assistance.RESEARCH SUPPORTThis research was supported by a USDOT Grant 65A0674, TO-041 from the METRANS Transportation Center.Notes1 We refer to housing affordable to low-income households as affordable housing throughout this article.2 In California, local governments adopt specific plans as policies and regulations to implement the jurisdiction’s future development policies included in the general plan and housing element. The housing element is a required section of the general plan of the jurisdiction (California Governor’s Office of Planning & Research, Citation2001). State law mandates that the housing element must be updated every 8 years based on a schedule set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.3 Section 65583 of California’s Government Code sets forth requirements for the scope and content of the housing element (California Government Code Section 65583).4 See Meyerson and Banfield (Citation1955) for a broader context of public housing projects of the past, and NIMBYism.5 CalEPA has created an analytical tool called CalEnviroScreen to help identify disadvantaged communities (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Citationn.d.b). For details, also see California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Citationn.d.a).6 Typically, local governments consider the half-mile radius around a transit station a catchment area for TODs, which tends to overestimate population within walking distance (Guerra & Cervero, Citation2013). Instead, they should consider a half-mile diamond (pedestrian network distance), which is a better measure.7 Santa Ana’s TOD specific plan was initially titled “Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan” and later titled “Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code.”8 The approval process of multifamily projects in Southern California takes a long time and varies across jurisdictions. The average approval time from 2014 to 2016 in Los Angeles was 13.1 months, whereas in Santa Monica it was 48.3 months (The Lewis Center, Citationn.d.).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAjay GardeAJAY GARDE (agarde@uci.edu) is an associate professor at the University of California, Irvine.Huê-Tâm JammeHUÊ-TÂM JAMME (Hue-Tam.Jamme@asu.edu) is an assistant professor at Arizona State University.Benjamin ToneyBENJAMIN TONEY (btoney@usc.edu) is a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California (USC).Deepak BahlDEEPAK BAHL (bahl@usc.edu) is an adjunct associate professor at USC.Tridib BanerjeeTRIDIB BANERJEE (tbanerje@usc.edu) is a professor emeritus at USC.
tod可以包括经济适用房吗?
【摘要】问题、研究策略与发现:在公交导向发展(TODs)中纳入经济适用房,对于解决依赖公交和低收入人群的流动性和住房需求是必要的。然而,尽管有国家层面的政策、利益集团的倡导和开发商的热情,tod中的经济适用房仍然稀缺。我们采用多案例研究方法,重点关注南加州弱势群体社区的TOD地区,以研究经济适用房的障碍和机会。我们研究了当地政府为促进洛杉矶和奥兰治县10个选定的交通车站附近的tod而采取的具体规划的内容,并对参与实现经济适用房的规划师、政策制定者和开发商进行了采访。我们的研究结果表明,尽管TOD的具体规划允许高密度的开发,但它们既没有优先考虑经济适用房,也没有提出一个连贯的愿景,即一个包容性的交通社区,以满足不同类型家庭的需求。此外,获得补贴的繁重要求、拼凑性融资、审批过程中的不确定性以及来自市场价格住房的竞争,都抑制了经济适用房的开发。虽然我们没有分析社区对tod的反对,但我们的受访者暗示了这一点。针对tod中的经济适用房,提供激励措施和加强制度框架对于实现包容性公交社区至关重要。在南加州这样一个政治上支离破碎的地区,TODs的发展需要一个领导组织来获得负担得起的住房投资,并加强住房与交通的联系。我们注意到加州以外的更广泛的影响。关键词:经济适用房弱势群体感谢《美国规划协会杂志》编辑Ann Forsyth教授;以及三位匿名审稿人的建设性意见,这大大改善了文章。我们还要感谢Nida Ahmed、Elizabeth jon、Sang-O Kim、Lilly Nie、Isabel Qi和Hanke Shao出色的研究协助。研究支持本研究由美国交通部拨款65A0674, TO-041从METRANS运输中心支持。注1在本文中,我们将低收入家庭负担得起的房屋称为经济适用房在加州,地方政府采用具体规划作为政策法规来实施总体规划和住房要素中包含的辖区未来发展政策。住房要素是司法管辖区总体规划的必要部分(加州州长规划与研究办公室,Citation2001)。州法律规定,住房要素必须根据加州住房和社区发展部制定的时间表每8年更新一次。3加州政府法典第65583条规定了住房要素的范围和内容要求(加州政府法典第65583条)关于过去的公共住房项目和邻避主义的更广泛的背景,请参阅Meyerson和Banfield (Citation1955)加州环境保护局创建了一个名为CalEnviroScreen的分析工具,以帮助确定处境不利的社区(加州环境健康危害评估办公室,Citationn.d.b)。有关详细信息,也见加州环境健康危害评估办公室(citation .d.a)通常,地方政府认为交通站点周围半英里的半径是tod的集水区,这往往高估了步行距离内的人口(Guerra & Cervero, Citation2013)。相反,他们应该考虑半英里钻石(步行网络距离),这是一个更好的衡量标准圣安娜的TOD具体计划最初被命名为“圣安娜复兴具体计划”,后来被命名为“圣安娜交通分区代码”。在南加州,多户家庭项目的审批程序需要很长时间,而且在不同的司法管辖区也有所不同。2014年至2016年,洛杉矶的平均审批时间为13.1个月,而圣莫尼卡的平均审批时间为48.3个月(The Lewis Center, Citationn.d)。作者简介:杰伊·加德(agarde@uci.edu)是加州大学欧文分校的副教授。Huê-Tâm JammeHUÊ-TÂM JAMME (Hue-Tam.Jamme@asu.edu)是亚利桑那州立大学的助理教授。Benjamin TONEY (btoney@usc.edu)是南加州大学(USC)的博士候选人。Deepak BAHL (bahl@usc.edu)是南加州大学的兼职副教授。Tridib BANERJEE (tbanerje@usc.edu)是南加州大学的名誉教授。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
10.70%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years, the quarterly Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA) has published research, commentaries, and book reviews useful to practicing planners, policymakers, scholars, students, and citizens of urban, suburban, and rural areas. JAPA publishes only peer-reviewed, original research and analysis. It aspires to bring insight to planning the future, to air a variety of perspectives, to publish the highest quality work, and to engage readers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信