Friday, April 11, 2014

Do tiny homes build family neighborhoods?

Over the past year there has been an increasing amount of interest on the interweb about tiny homes. Whether its weekly videos from Fair Companies, blogs postings about cramped conditions in Hong Kong, or even the City of Austin’s attempt to consider building small to build affordable.  Each of these perspectives have something of value to share and I’ll admit that even I think about downsizing from my 1,700 sqft home from time to time.


But one of the issues at hand in the local debate here in Austin, at least from my perspective is;  


Does tiny mean family friendly?


On our neighborhood listserv there was a recent post about a new apartment community being built on Burnet Rd.  While I’m generally in support of increasing density in our urban core by building up (i.e. density), I was not happy to hear that the mix of units for this development would only include efficiency, 1 br and 2 br units.


Now many of the city planners and neighborhood advocates agree that keeping neighborhoods family friendly is one of their goals. Our neighborhood plan (that was approved over ten years ago) specifically states that we want to keep the neighborhood affordable, allow for more density, make it walkable and family friendly.  But I see a disconnect on the last point when our planners and building codes are permitting un-family friendly developments.


I’m not saying that some families won’t benefit from 2 bedroom units. Our 750 sqft house only had two bedrooms when we bought it and I think that fact that it only had two bedrooms made it affordable enough for us to get our foot into our great neighborhood.


But, higher density condos and multifamily rentals don’t provide the same opportunity to grow by adding on that our small home provided. Some might argue that if designed correctly that you can knock out walls and create bigger more family friendly units in these new multifamily projects. That might be true, but at what cost and will it be affordable to do so?


Other might argue, like the folks who are part of the tiny home movement, that families don’t need all the extra space that traditional homes have. I’m not going to argue against that either, but I do want to point out that market forces are at play here, and while the tiny home movement is growing I have not found a study or report that shows it is a statistically significant portion of our housing market.


I also feel that with majority of new units being added as 1 & 2 bedroom units a shift in household demographics towards singles and couples that don’t have kids will occur. That could be an assumption, but if true it will also drive businesses to adjust and may create less family targeted businesses.


I’m descending into a rant. So, let me just say this from an advocacy point.  I support the City of Austin’s efforts to development more dense and affordable housing. I want that housing to include enough variety so that families can live on RBT lines, so that singles can put a foot hold in neighborhoods that were once not affordable to them, and so that we can build the multi-use, multi-purpose and multi-generational communities that every bleeding heart liberal, like myself, desires. And, I really hope that our planners, leaders and neighborhood advocates take this kind of holistic view when creating new policies about how Austin grows and thrives.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Mini golf and Brownfields

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2013/09/lets-turn-more-empty-lots-mini-golf-courses/7038/

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Container Homes for All?



Shipping containers are one of of the most ubiquitous objects in the world. We see them everyday on the backs of tractor trailers on the highway, on trains cruising through town, at commercial construction sites and now in your neighborhood. I've been interested in the use of shipping containers for housing over the past several years. There’s plenty of news about them each month, with hotels and coffee shops popping up around the world, and using them for affordable housing is the new re-use that’s getting lots of news.

Last year, Brighton Housing Trust has been worked with developer QED to raise funding for an ambitious program that would recycle containers into transitional housing for persons who are homeless in the UK cities of Brighton and Hove. The key to the programs likely success is that the containers were already retrofitted by Tempo Housing, an Amsterdam housing program, that failed to convert the entire project into a viable housing project.

Although a single 40 foot long shipping container would only provide about 320 square feet of space, this is comparable to many SRO and converted hotel/motel projects. Now this might sound cramped by most US standards of living, but it’s also the size of several of the IKEA mini rooms that I see in their catalogs. The point is, that for temporary housing this might be a great fix, and the UK is not the only place looking into these types of solutions.

Container Home by Container Home Solutions India
On a recent work trip through the Eagle Ford Shale area of Texas, where the oil and gas business is booming, I found examples of recycled shipping containers being used as housing. These are not just ideas that are permeating the first world.

A recent post on Inhabitat revealed the use of containers for housing in India. The home not only used recycled containers, but beer cans to construct a 900 sq/ft home. Not only did the designers/builders  Kameshwar Rao and Neeraj Kumar build a home for themselves, but spawned a company, Container Solutions India, that is focused on building more affordable creative housing using containers. And, the idea of recycling containers is not limited to just housing.

In Brooklyn, NY, Mexico City and elsewhere recycling shipping containers into commercial space that can be creative and impactful on the urban environment. The Dekalb Market in Brooklyn was one the earliest temporary uses for commercial space that provided an relatively low-cost path for a vacant lot to be transformed, and to test the viability of commercial space in one corner of the city. Mexico’s Container City is another example of not only testing commercial spaces, but designing habitats that might not otherwise be funded through traditional commercial banking or finance channels.

The flexibility and speed with which these Lego blocks of the building world can be formed into new private and public spaces bodes well for their future. I’ll just have to keep my eye out for the latest from around the web.

Best aye,

Dave

Here are some other great stories and links.


Monday, August 26, 2013

How do we improve community engagement in affordable housing?

The process of community engagement as I have experienced it since the beginning of my career has always seemed to have more promise than follow through.  Yes we hold public hearings on every federally and state funded project so that neighbors, stakeholders and advocates can come out to speak their minds. We accept emails and phone calls with complaints, save them and respond in the most “even and fair” manner that we think we’re allowed to. We even hold stakeholders meetings and create commissions and advisory committees so that “representatives” of different populations and groups can tell anecdotal stories about their needs and wants.

But do we really ever listen? Do we create an atmosphere where the public, advocates and developers can talk about their ideas and differences in an open manner? Do we even care?

I’ll start by saying that many of us in community development really do care. We are in this business not because of lush salaries or the hope of obtaining public adoration (at least I don’t think we are). I think that most of us really do want to change the way things are done. To create opportunities for the public, neighborhors, stakeholders and advocates to share their ideas and effect change. Unfortunately, I think that many of the systems for generating discussion and engagement are fatally flawed.

The two largest public finance programs for affordable housing are driven by federal regulations that ensure a public hearing is held for every housing tax credit and tax exempt bond project proposed. The agencies that manage these programs schedule hearings (at least the really good ones) near their development site and on days and times that neighbors can come by and share their ideas. The public can air any grievances they have over the proposed projects and impacts to their community, ask questions or just state that they don’t really know what’s going on and need some type of information.

In nearly every public hearing that I have been involved in the staff person in attendance reads into the public record a set speech that they may not waiver from. They ask anyone who wants to speak to come forward, provide their comments and then sit down. There is no dialogue. The staff person has been informed that they may not provide a response to any questions or comments on anything said. And so they sit calmly (smile or not) and “listen” to the public air their ideas.

But is this really all that the public gets or deserves? It often feels to me that we are short changing the public’s role in the process and providing only a placative avenue for them to speak, without much opportunity to really effect change. Does this really have to be the case? I don’t think so.

A recent article at Next American City by Neeraj Mehta touches on many of these same concerns and issues I’ve pointed out above. Mr. Mehta also goes on to provide some meaningful responses to the “how can we make things better” question. Specifically, he notes three steps or considerations that would at least begin to move us in the right direction.

  • Acknowledge our interdependence and need for increased diversity.
  • Be honest with the complexity.
  • Be comfortable with uncertainty and controversy.

Within his analysis he notes that every project is different and that each will possibly need a unique process or approach to gain meaningful input from stakeholders and decision makers. I recommend that you read the article in full, if you care at all about this topic, and look into Mr. Mehta’s other works.

The better news is that public engagement is something that a lot of people have been thinking, writing and teaching about for decades. It may not all be focused on housing or community development, but there is one really great resource out there with a vast collection of resources. The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) not only produces ongoing research about better avenues for community engagement, but has several easy to use tools for people like me, to help improve procedures and use new strategies that might be better suited to the kinds of inputs and feedback that I need and our communities deserve.

I’ll be starting a process over the next few months to research better strategies and I’ll provide updates on anything I try out in my programs. I hope some of you will share your thoughts and ideas, too.

Thanks,

Dave

Friday, May 10, 2013

Partnerships - Complementary Skills


Developing successful partnerships, I believe, is the key to good community development. But the use of the term “public-private partnership” is often overused and misused. For years I followed the path that most state and federal agency employees do and mislabeled the projects that I funded as partnerships. But I realize now that this couldn't be farther from the truth.


In my opinion, and the opinion of others, partnerships require both parties to work in consort towards a common goal. Partners use each others skills in order to achieve their goals in a way that doesn’t burden one partner more than the other. In the process of financing affordable housing, or any community development project, there is typically a clear lack of “partnership” taking place.

I don’t want to minimize the role that government or private funders have in making affordable housing possible. But, I don’t see that the process of setting up rules and regulations, application and award procedures, then monitoring the successful building of housing by awardees as a partnership.  I certainly don’t feel that I’m in a partnership with the plumber that I select to fix the leaking pipe under my house.  I don’t feel that I’m in a partnership with the police officer that enforces speed limits in my neighborhood, though I’m happy he does. The point is that paying someone to do something, like build affordable housing, does not mean that you’re in a partnership with them.

To me, partnership means that you “do work” together and using your complementary skills to increase the likelihood of success. In housing that means I have to put some effort into the process and ensure that I fulfill the roles and responsibilities that I take on in order to make the project work. In our land banking program we work hard to screen properties and ensure that we’re not getting a project site that won’t work for my local partner. We use our skills in acquisition, property review, financing and sometimes fundraising to ensure that our partners can focus on their responsibilities.

While some might say that we also take on the role of monitoring and ensuring compliance like a state agency, I argue that the difference in a partnership is that both parties have agreed to ensure a common goal and affirmed this through our contracts. I do take on the role of reporting to our funders and financiers that we are being successful. I need the help of my partner to provide some information, but I collect, process and report that information back to our funders. Again, this is part of the partnership process, a process that I hope allows our partners to focus on building communities, which they are great at.

When it all comes together we get housing done. We allow our partners to focus on their strengths in building quality homes, helping families become homeowners and revitalizing neighborhoods. We share a common goal, we share responsibilities and we achieve more through good partnerships.

Dave

Friday, November 2, 2012

Affordable Green for Everyone



Common Ground, New South Wales
It’s been far too long since my last post. We’ve been super busy at work with closings, new programs and preparation for a new fundraising program. All that aside, I came across a beautiful affordable and green housing project that recently won an award at the world architecture festival. The project call Common Ground was designed by the arch and planning firm Hassell and is located in Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia. While the project is both beautiful and highly efficient it’s also a great example of the new direction that affordable housing has taken as green building techniques have become mainstream and both public and private funders realize the need for energy efficiency in housing.

This type of green and affordable housing is not just popping up in Australia though, and because I live and work in Texas I wanted to share some other great examples of green affordable housing, that’s really cool.

Cevallos Lofts, San Antonio
First off is the Cevallos Loft in San Antonio, Texas. I got to visit this great property just last week during the Texas Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies annual conference. This place blew my socks off. While the location is considered more of an “up and coming” neighborhood, the property is only 5 minutes from downtown and near San Antonio’s world famous riverwalk. The interior courtyard and pool reminded me of a luxury hotel, but I had to keep pinching myself and remember that low-income families also lived in this property.

2424 Sakowitz, Houston
Another great group of recent green and highly artistic properties in Texas are owned and managed by New Hope Housing. This great organization based in Houston, TX have broken the mold of what we think about SRO development. Gone is the idea of bunkhouses and old pay by the week motels. New Hope has successfully mixed art, architecture and green building into everything they touch.

Well, I wish I had more time, cause I might just turn this into a coffee table book if I did. Hope you enjoy the pics and links. Now go out and support affordable housing in your neighborhood.

Best regards,

Dave

Friday, June 22, 2012

A Smarter Way to Help Others, While Making Profits


I may not be a frequent blogger but I do consider myself a voracious reader. This morning while waking up slowly to a new day I read a great post by Erik Simanis on the Harvard Business Review. Erik’s newest article was titled The Smart Way to Make Profits While Serving the Poor. Now I’ll admit the title attracted my attention because of its almost devious tone, but the article gave me some great ideas about my own community development work.

Eric’s argument can be broken down like this. “Low price, low margin, high volume” is the traditional model for serving low-income people. However this model requires that a product obtain a large share of the market in order to be successful (30% or more according to Eric).  While his examples are more focused on consumer products, I feel that this same situation also plays out in the community development field.

I work with lots of nonprofits across a very large state. Many struggle to make ends meet because they are also trying to use the “low price, low margin, high volume” model. Unfortunately, there are very few that reach the last, and according to Eric, most important aspect, high volume.

The nonprofits I know are great at producing good products at very low prices and at very low margins. However, it can take years to grow to the point of capturing 30% or more of a market, and in larger urban areas that goal may never be obtainable.  Many groups do manage to hang on and have minimal impact for many years, but never see the growth or impact that they should by using this model of development.

So what’s Eric’s solution? Well, he points to three other strategies that can work individually or together.

  • Localise and Bundle Base Products
  • Offer an Enabling Service
  • Cultivate Customer Peer Groups

These strategies have also been used by many nonprofit organizations successfully. Here are a few examples from the work that I do.

The most successful rental property portfolio that I’ve financed in the past 5 years is run by an organization call Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation. While they’ve grown by leveraging housing tax credits and tax exempt financing to build a large multi-state housing portfolio, I think that the key to much of their success is the resident services programs that they run.  One might think this service fall more under the category of an “enabling service”, but Rainbow’s delivery system meets the “localize and bundle” category.

Rainbow develops and packages core training and tenant service programs from their home office. These packages are then customized to meet local needs and to leverage local talents and direct service providers. The benefit of this approach is that Rainbow can produce very consistent reporting and performance across a wide variety of properties and locations.

Other organizations do this successfully too. Habitat for Humanity is a great example of a nonprofit that has grown large, and relatively successful, based on their ability to centralize planning and product development, and then dispersing those based products to affiliates on both a national and global scale.

Enabling services are probably the area in which I see the most crossover in the affordable housing sector. Those groups that are the most successful have developed key services that clients can access, which either lead to obtaining housing, or are the pathway to moving up and out of subsidized rental housing programs. Home builders in the affordable arena that provide homebuyer counseling, down payment assistance and in some cases post home buyer services generally are the most successful. Many organizations even start out in one service and then grow into new arenas in order to become more self sufficient.

One recent example of this is Frameworks Community Development Corporation, a growing homebuyer education provider that we’ve helped to become a housing provider through acquisition and redevelopment of foreclosed and blighted properties. Having just reviewed their most recent financial statements shows me that their success in transitioning from a single service entity, into a multi-service one, has been very beneficial for their bottom line.  And very likely for the benefit of their clients, too.

The last area that Eric writes about, cultivating customer peer groups, is an area that nonprofit also do well at, but this is the key component that I think I can do better at in my own work. Over the past three years we’ve built up a network of local partners who’ve helped us build a statewide land banking program with more than 350 properties, to date. Understandably, I’ve been a bit busy with the individual aspects of this program, but Eric’s article helped me realize that there was one significant weakness to the program.

I’ve failed to cultivate our network and bind them together under a common mission and goal. You might call it the ‘forgetting the forest for the trees’ syndrome, but I realized this morning that if my program is going to become more successful I need to focus on this aspect of the program’s development.  Building the strength of my network might also increase participation by my local partners and lead to more property purchased, redeveloped and sold to low-income families. That’s not only our goal, but our mission.

I’ll try to focus on this over the next several months and record what steps I take to move forward. Any advice from readers would be great.

Best regards,

Dave