Smart Growth, Affordable Housing, Inclusionary Housing, Equity, City of San Diego
In August of 2002, the City of San Diego declared a state of emergency due to a severe affordable housing shortage. Soon after, in October 2002, the City of San Diego adopted a “City of Villages Strategy” based upon smart growth principles. Smart growth, which seeks to strike a balance between environmental, economic, and equity issues and promote sustainable development, is often cited for its walkability and broad public health benefits, especially for low-income communities. Existing literature demonstrates, however, that smart growth principles such as provisions for “compact” and “mixed-use” development can decrease housing affordability for all income levels. This research investigates how these complex interactions have manifested in the City of San Diego and examines where low-income affordable housing has located in relationship to smart growth areas.
1. Alder, Nancy E and Judith Stewart. “Reducing Obesity: Motivating Action while Not Blaming the Victim.” The Milbank Quarterly 87.1 (2009): 49-70.
2. Aurand, Andrew. “Density, Housing Types and Mixed Land Use: Smart Tools for Affordable Housing?” Urban Studies 47.5 (2010): 1015-1036.
3. Baxamusa, Murtaza H. “Empowering Communities through Deliberation: The Model of Community Benefits Agreements.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (2008): 261-276.
4. Brown, Barbara B and Carol M Werner. “Before and After a New Light Rail Stop: Resident Attitudes, Travel Behavior, and Obesity.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75.1 (2009): 5-12.
5. Connerly, Charles E. “Smart Growth: Opportunity or Threat to Affordable Housing?” Prepared for International Planning Symposium on Incentives, Regulations, and Plans – The Role of States and Nation-States in Smart Growth Planning (2004).
6. Larsen, Kristin. “New Urbanism’s Role in Inner-city Neighborhood Revitalization.” Housing Studies 20.5 (2005): 795-813.
7. Nueman, Michael. “The Compact City Fallacy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (2005): 11-26.
8. Quastel, Noah. “Political Ecologies of Gentrification.” Urban Geography 30.7 (2009): 694-725.
9. Saha, Devashree and Robert G Paterson. “Local Government Efforts to Promote the ‘Three Es’ of Sustainable Development: Survey in Medium to Large Cities in the United States.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (2008): 21-37.
10. Shaw, Kate. “Commentary: Is There Hope for Policy?” Urban Studies 45.12 (2008): 2637-2642.
11. Song, Yang and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. “Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 34 (2004): 663-680.
12. Wheeler, Stephen M. “The Evolution of Built Landscapes in Metropolitan Regions.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (2008): 400-416.
http://www.housingpolicy.org/
http://www.smartgrowth.org/
Given the City of San Diego’s persistent housing crisis and adoption of a smart growth strategy to fulfill its affordable housing needs, the objective of this study is to identify the relationship between the location of the City’s affordable housing developments and smart growth areas. Smart growth, often described as compact, efficient, mixed-use developments that can accommodate higher densities, have been sited for their walkability and broad public health benefits for low-income communities. Affordable housing opportunities for low-income residents and other equity-related issues, however, must compete with other environmental and economic issues in the smart growth agenda in order to be implemented. To assess the location of low-income affordable units in relationship to smart growth areas, this study conducts Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis using the San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG’s) 2012 Smart Growth Concept Map and the San Diego Housing Commission’s affordable housing inventory. Findings from spatial analysis indicate that the central downtown area of the City has been the most successful in pursuing a synergistic affordable housing and smart growth agenda, perhaps in part due to the presence of the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), a redevelopment agency.
On a City-wide scale, most affordable housing units are located in existing/planned smart growth areas. On a smaller scale, however, the City’s subregions do not model these same patterns. In the Central City, an overwhelming majority of affordable housing units are located in existing/planned smart growth areas. In the North and South City, a majority of affordable housing units are located in non-smart growth areas featuring low-density land uses with limited transit access. These discrepencies indicate the presence of barriers to impementing a mutually supportive smart growth and affordable housing program accross the City of San Diego.
An examination of community planning documents reveals a key difference in the planning process for the Central City. In North and South City, the City’s Planning Division leads smart growth planning and implementation while the San Diego Housing Commission operates separately to develop and acquire affordable units. In the Central City, smart growth and affordable housing commitments and implementation are consolidated into the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), a redevelopment agency. While examining planning documents alone cannot establish causation, the role of CCDC in implementing a synergistic affordable housing and smart growth agenda merits further scholarly investigation. Such research will likely be complicated by Assembly Bill 1x26, which dissolves California’s redevelopment agencies.
Since no geocoded affordable housing data currently exists, the San Diego Housing Commission’s publication, “2011 Affordable Housing Resources,” served as the primary source for affordable housing data. This publication features the addresses and number of units for developments affordable to lower-income households. Data from this resource was geocoded against existing street map information.
Smart growth areas were identified using SANDAG’s 2012 Smart Growth Concept Map. The Smart Growth Concept Map identifies potential and existing/planned areas that can accommodate higher residential and employment densities in addition to higher levels of transit service. The map features hierarchical array of place types, similar to the City’s City of Villages Strategy, and identifies Smart Growth Opportunity Areas (SGOAs) based on the input of local jurisdictions.
Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), these two data layers were overlaid to create a map for spatial analysis.
Clustering patterns were studied in relationship to three geographic sub-areas: North City (La Jolla and areas to the northeast, such as San Pasqual and Rancho Bernardo), Central City (Pacific Beach and areas to the southeast, such as Downtown San Diego and Southeastern San Diego), and South City (San Ysidro and the border crossing area).
Copyright © 2009 USP Student Research all rights reserved
Site Designed By Digital Mud Studio