I bet Ms. Shevlin would agree with most of what I said in the Beacon: bsky.app/profile/beac...

Previously: bsky.app/profile/beac...

Akron in Action, Ep. 9 - Sustainability that Improves Daily Life with Casey Shevlin YouTube video by Akron Ohio

Casey Shevlin, Akron's Director of Sustainability and Resiliency appears on the city's latest podcast.

She's saying a lot of the right things for an affordable, green future.

Wondering what this could look like in Akron.

⚠️ ACTION ALERT | Don’t Delay the Midway! The Superior Midway project has completed public engagement, detailed design, and is fully funded. Now, an ODOT highway plan is threatening the groundbreaking of Cleveland’s Midway project.
Help stop the delay here bikecleveland.quorum.us/campaign/Cle...

In Arden-Arcade, a Sacramento suburb, the full stack of YIMBY reforms help to turn a mall parking lot into 174 homes: AB 2097 allowed the mall to carve off parking, SDBL granted a 20% bonus, and HAA guaranteed entitlements. h/t @dovkadin.bsky.social

New York City built more housing in the 1920s than it has built in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s COMBINED.

Nobody alive knows what an actual urban housing boom looks like.

These little reforms like backyard cottages and parking flexibility are cases where great states and cities (Montana, California) have made homes more affordable over time.

I'm talking about the "Super Assembly", which is voluntary and provides only food, no paid attendance. It is not a random lottery the way the Civic Assembly is.

Unify could do a better job of providing its research and facts to participants, so we're debating policy, not facts.

Under the heading of zoning reform, they could provide the pros and cons of ex.:

Allow backyard cottages
Streamline approvals for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes (by-right)
Adopt form-based zoning
Reduce minimum lot size
Allow parking flexibility

Each item could be debated. More productive.

Instead of providing "a couple big ideas", Unify should provide "a couple big themes" with dozens of ideas evaluated inside each idea.

Community Proposal #6: Comprehensive Zoning Reform — Unify Akron This proposal looks at a different approach to what types of housing can be built in Akron’s neighborhoods.

There's no such thing as "zoning reform" and Unify Akron is doing participants and residents a disservice with this framing. Zoning reform is a topic that encompasses tens or maybe hundreds of ideas.

Even if a duplex currently exists, it cannot be replaced with a new duplex in the white areas. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and small apartment buildings are illegal in most of Akron. That means as buildings age, we lose more and more duplexes, triplexes, and so on.

I was citing (in my head) the Akron zoning map, which I have practically memorized.

White = single detached housing. Notice the suburban sprawl of white on the map.

www.akronohio.gov/departments/...

Skimming, there are about 9 candidates that I think would do well in the seat and could win the vote by Council. It's a shame that Council is doing all this behind closed doors because there are several interesting candidates that deserve a fair shot.

Who are the 17 candidates vying for the open Akron City Council seat? - Signal Akron Akron City Council’s has several options to consider as it seeks to fill the at-large seat vacated by the retirement of Jeff Fusco.

Signal does what Council doesn't

signalakron.org/17-candidate...

But if the point is "there are some duplexes and small apartment buildings in Akron", sure. The solutions we recommend depends entirely on how prevalent these are.

Do we have enough homes?

I believe we need much more. Homes are $1100/month rent because we are in a shortage.

If you zoom out in earth.google.com or Street View, you see how obviously false this is.

Here's a duplex or maybe a small apartment building. Where are its friends? Nowhere.

Single detached housing has a look from satellite. And most of Akron has that look.

First off, I think this is straight up false. A rare Unify L.

If we define "block" to mean "the smallest area bounded on all sides by streets", then this seems easily false.

Roxy cited the Unify packet we were given:

"On the same block, it is common to see single-family homes, duplexes, and small apartment buildings. Some larger homes have also been divided into multiple units over time."

But there was some miscommunication which I found frustrating. We were both citing information we knew, but in ways the other person didn't understand.

So then there's the "zoning reform" teams. My peer who wrote and reported out our team's thoughts characterized our group as disagreeing. I don't think it was that harsh, but I get what she meant. She's a very nice person and I've seen her at a few of these. I'll call her Roxy for this thread.

Having lived in a tiny home, my experience was very valued by the group. I estimated how the home would fit into the room we were in and said it was great living there.

To sum up historic preservation, #YIMBY groups should create a definitive overview about what we lose when we put historic preservation above all else. We lose affordable homes, we lose home choice, we worsen gentrification, and make the city hostile to business.

The room in question, at the main library. About a 50-50 split talking zoning reform (left) and tiny homes (right).

(Olive Garden catering: unsurprisingly worse than regular Olive Garden. The breadsticks are good doorstops.)

The room loved historic preservation? The right statement would get them to agree with building "more homes, in more shapes and sizes, for all of our neighbors."

Unify's Civic Assembly (a random lottery) attempts to avoid this by having 60+ people working for weeks with access to technical experts.

The Simpsons - Itchy & Scratchy focus group YouTube video by letsbepandas

The sad part about community meetings, not just housing meetings, is they are all like the Simpsons focus group.

A skilled public relations person could probably get a room full of people to agree to any statement whatsoever.

I was half right. "A homeowner who wants to convert a large house into two units or build a small additional home on their property may need special permission from the city." This is called a variance, and it "can take time and may require public hearings and additional fees for property owners."

Existing processes are:
- undemocratic
- unpredictable (builders and mortgage lenders hate that)
- not likely to produce optimal outcomes (e.g. happiness per $, unique old buildings per $)

This is a cause of the housing shortage.

Some groups (I can't find a specific example) propose front-loading community engagement, historic preservation debates, etc.

Whatever debate, discussion, engagement needs to happen, it should happen all at the beginning. And then builders can follow the agreed plan without obstacles.