Literature Review Draft

I finally got some stuff written and HERE IT IS. Let me know what you think! It is constantly changing, so keep checking.

The technique of converting unused space into rent-able habitation has been used in America by European settlers as early as when they arrived in the colonies. During the early 20th century there were several important state and federal court cases that upheld and further established the zoning laws that have shaped development practices for the following century. These cases procured a precedent for protecting the single family neighborhood atmosphere, but a supreme court ruling supporting exclusive single-family zoning was never achieved. In particular, the 1926 United States Supreme Court Case Village of Euclid, Ohio vs Ambler Realty Co. declared zoning as an extension of police power and more importantly instituted zoning by building type. “Although the Euclid Decision affirmed that municipalities had the authority under their zoning powers to establish density standards and to exclude apartment houses from low density zones, it did not uphold the authority to exclude two family houses...” (Gellen, 117). Two family houses were not excluded in the 1926 decision because single family houses could only be found in the minority of districts where the very wealthy resided (Flint). The justification for excluding apartment buildings and residences where more than three families reside was to protect and foster a healthy lifestyle for American families (Bettman).

The foundation and court justification for zoning principles is important to investigate when discussing non-permitted accessory structures because it helps clarify the contextual intent of the zoning laws. Vague rulings and lack of cohesion in the early court decisions helps to illuminate the complexity of zoning related issues. Zoning laws were intended to limit people from living packed together in slums, the results of industrial revolution human rights violations. The health and moral development of the future generations was commonly referenced in courts as the justification for the exclusion of houses with three or more families (Gellen). Ironically, now we lack a method to monitor and control inefficient use of resources due to the increasing number of families, but continuously decreasing family size. The concept of placing limitations on density is almost counter-intuitive to the growth management decisions of municipalities facing a lack of housing infrastructure for a decreasing family size and changing demographic (Hinshaw).

During the 1920’s a common justification for exclusive single family neighborhoods was to protect investors and lenders in the housing market. “...Residential zoning was in fact a crucial pre-condition for the introduction of the long-term, fixed-rate, fully amortizing mortgages introduced by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)” (Gellen, 115). FHA appraisers justified excluding loans to multi family houses to protect against faulty investments. They believed that the economy would crash in a cyclical pattern, which meant they were at higher risk loaning to more than one person on a single investment (Gellen). During the 1940’s zoning laws and low interest loans created the right incentives for the explosion of American home ownership and stimulation of the economy (Grebler et al, Leinberger, Cochran, Jackson).

In the1950s, planning literature began to cover the topic of “conversions” (Woodruff, Glick). Even in the earliest literature “Nonpermit Conversions” (Woodruff, 17) were a topic of consideration and study. Woodruff’s simple wisdom sums up the reality of non-permitted accessory structures all across America today. “Regardless of what the law says on paper, maintenance of housing standards depends on active enforcement. A “poor” law well observed produces better results than a “good” law poorly enforced” (17). This curt, yet powerful statement should be considered when discussing zoning regulations because it reinforces the notion that municipalities should seek to find a balance between getting codes in touch with what citizens are doing and citizens in touch with what codes are promoting. Woodruff also noted that there were very poor records for conversions “...either from lack of suitable ordinances, lack of popular support, lack of enforcement, or lack of all three” (18). The analysis of conversions in 1954, is an alarmingly accurate depiction of the reality of non-permitted structures today. There is very little monitoring of apartment conversions and significant barriers toward encouraging willing citizens in the direction of a permitted ADU.

Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s a burgeoning academic interest in “Accessory Apartments” began to develop. Numerous articles were published in planning journals and various experts emerged in support of expanding the capacity of single family houses, including: Patrick Hare and Martin Gellen. Planners emphasized the wasteful use of collective resources including: land, transportation infrastructure, housing infrastructure, utilities, and energy use in low density, single family neighborhoods. Many planners recognized the enormous potential for further development options that lie within the single family neighborhood (Moudon, 55). University of Washington social scientists, Anne Vernez-Moudon and Chester Sprague, advocate for ‘Urban Consolidation’ a phrase that embodies the idea of utilizing the existing housing stock in a more efficient manner (Hickey, 6).

Why has urban consolidation failed to take-off to the proportions that were once imagined during the 1970’s and 1980’s planning literature boom? In Washington State, it has not been constrained by policy. The Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 requires that municipalities of 20,000 and larger take action and prepare for prospected growth. The actions required by this act are to focus urban growth in urban areas. The development of High Density Corridors (HDCs) was established to locate and intensify development to reduce sprawl, provide efficient transportation, encourage affordable housing and foster sustainable economic development (Washington State Legislature). The City of Olympia adopted the present comprehensive plan in 1994 as part of the GMA requirements. This comprehensive plan directly addresses ADUs in the first (Land Use and Urban Design) chapter. In Goal LU8 and Goal LU4 ADUs are discussed in terms of design standards and as an affordable housing option (City of Olympia).

Despite the intentions of the GMA, infill development or urban consolidation has not taken off to the extent that GMA advocates hoped for. According to a research report prepared by Daniel Carlson and Shishir Mathur in 2003 for the Brookings Institute, “A major stumbling block to implementing increased densities or ADU programs is parking. Standard suburban level off-street parking requirements which significantly increase development costs for multifamily housing and neighbors’ fears of loss of on-street parking to ADU residents stand in the way of these smart growth alternatives. Flexible and reduced parking standards can go a long way toward addressing these problems” (10). The major barriers toward ADUs are: