California’s progressive drive to encourage affordable housing around transit hubs came off the rails in the Sacramento State Legislature earlier this year. Proponents of the concept, undaunted, are rallying for another push.
Unfortunately, the core of their thinking has so far suffered from a fatal weakness when it comes to legislating their intent. The idea is to allow greater housing density near transit hubs, in order to provide more affordable housing.
So far so good, but also very much wishful thinking. Without any teeth in the legislation to require that affordable housing be built in these higher density areas, what’s to prevent market rate developers from outbidding competitors for available land, then flooding the transit nodes with higher-rise upscale condos and apartments, so convenient for gentrified folk doing business or shopping jaunts to downtown transit hubs?
It seems that there’s not only absolutely nothing to prevent it, but also evidence from several sources worldwide to suggest that higher density zoning around transit hubs might have the opposite effect, not only squeezing out the people who require more affordable housing but also their access to city centres.
Here’s an example from Malaysia. Concentrate not so much upon the schemes to fix their problem, but the nature of the problem itself, in PropertyGuru: Build More Affordable Homes Near Public Transport Links, Says Minister
Another recent example of transit hubs which appear to threaten, not alleviate, affordable housing problems (together with further details of California’s so-far lost affordable housing cause): California Dreaming? Europe’s Mature Rail Networks Spread Unaffordability, Not Affordability.
