Separating apples from oranges: the continuation of Gainesville’s density debate

OPINION

BY KIM TANZER

Commissioner Bryan Eastman recently published a Substack post titled “A Proposal for Sensible Lot Sizes in Gainesville.” He describes it as “a common-sense compromise between those who say we need to build more homes and those who are worried about the impacts multifamily will have on their single-family neighborhoods.”

Unfortunately the “proposal” is not at all sensible: it proposes rezoning all single-family areas across the city to allow 35-foot-wide, 3,500-square-foot lots anywhere. He justifies his proposal in many ways, in part by saying the city’s current Residential Conservation (RC) zoning already allows this. Gainesville’s RC zoning category was applied after the fact to bring formerly-segregated, historically Black neighborhoods into compliance with zoning ordinances. These small lots were created during the Jim Crow period—hardly the model we should want to impose across the city.

While I appreciate his effort to communicate his rationale, unfortunately his blog post reveals that he misunderstands many aspects of zoning and land use. He consistently confuses terms and concepts—neglecting to separate apples from oranges, so to speak.

At the end of this essay, I will describe what many believe to be a truly common-sense path forward. First, though, it is important that we agree on our terms:

House size vs. lot size. Commissioner Eastman asserts that it is illegal to build “small lot, single family homes across 86% of the single family lots in Gainesville,” a non-factual argument repeated in the City’s publicity. Here he conflates the size (and cost) of a house with the size of a lot. Gainesville has no minimum house size—any size home can be built on any size lot in the city, if setbacks are adhered to. People design, build, rent, purchase, and describe their homes based on the home’s square footage—not the size of their lots. Conflating house size and lot size is illogical.

Conclusion: Let’s focus on lot sizes, not “house sizes,” in zoning discussions.

Median cost vs. average cost. Commissioner Eastman states that “the average single-family home in Gainesville, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, was $484,190 last month.” Here he chooses to use an average rather than the median price commonly used. The median cost of all homes sold that month in Gainesville, according to four national online real estate platforms, was around $300,000. This is still high, but the number he presented was 61% higher than our local median. (Median price is the middle point, with an equal number of homes sold above and below the median. Average price adds the price of all sales together and divides by the number of sales. Million-dollar and multi-million-dollar homes drive up “average” costs and do not indicate general market conditions.)

Conclusion: Let’s use commonly accepted median costs as our metric.

Net density vs. gross density. The heart of Commissioner Eastman’s argument, following the national YIMBY position, is that we need to densify our cities. He argues that “69% of the single-family land is restricted to a minimum of .28 acres before any home can be built, a full 55% larger than the national median.” 

Here he refers to gross density, presumably based on the chart he provides, which includes necessary roads, green space, and right-of-ways to serve homes. Net density, on the other hand, refers to lot size only. As explained in theurbanist.org, “Gross density measurements are often best used when looking at large developments that are likely to have internal roads and open space. Net densities are often more appropriate for neighborhood infill situations.”

According to the zoning chart he provides, Gainesville’s RSF-1 zoning’s gross density is .28 acres, in part because Hogtown Creek and its tributaries run through much of northwest Gainesville, where most of this zoning is located. The area’s net density, which his chart does not include, is only .19 acres–barely above the national average for all residential zoning he cites.

Conclusion: Let’s focus on net density, the size of individual lots.

Infill vs. new development. Commissioner Eastman, with talking points echoed by City staff, conflates new developments like Tioga with infill opportunities such as those found in Pleasant Street and the Duckpond. Many people are not concerned about lot sizes in new developments, believing that people will choose to live in neighborhoods that suit their spatial preferences given the opportunity. Rather, Commissioner Eastman’s focus, and community concern, is on infill lots in existing, already platted and developed, mature neighborhoods.

Here we come to a real conundrum: in neighborhoods developed after World War II, many with lots wider than 70’ (the minimum frontage that could be divided by 35’ into 2 lots), there are very few empty lots that could be subdivided. In older, pre-WW2 neighborhoods, most lots are too narrow to subdivide. This means there are few lots to which this extreme change could be usefully applied.

Commissioner Eastman, however, has proposed two solutions. First, he explains in detail that people’s homes could burn down in newer neighborhoods, and they could use this “opportunity” to rebuild two homes, one for themselves and one to rent or sell. We might describe this as public policy dependent on personal tragedy or criminal enterprise. He says, “Doing a teardown wouldn’t have made sense economically without the fire happening: the home was worth $500,000 and they’ll [his fictional Henderson family in Forest Ridge] never make that up through tearing down a perfectly good home, but at the end of the home’s useful life they have more options for what they can do that makes more sense for them, and brings more affordable housing to Gainesville.”

Second, in a recent meeting, when Commissioner Eastman was reminded that many newer neighborhoods have restrictive covenants preventing such lot splits, he argued that covenants may lapse in 20 years, thus allowing such splits to occur 20 years from now.

Conclusion: Let’s focus on infill development, and let’s be realistic.

Affordable housing vs. “housing that is affordable.” When the City Commission began efforts to upzone the entire city’s residential-zoned land in 2018, they argued that they were trying to provide affordable housing. I am one among many who have argued that the term “affordable housing” has a specific meaning and that it is focused on those with unmet needs for permanent shelter.

It is now clear that Commissioner Eastman’s goal is “increasing the number of affordable starter homes in Gainesville,” in part, by providing “greater flexibility for smaller homes to be built on smaller lots.” 

In a recent community meeting hosted by Gainesville Neighborhood Voices (I serve as a volunteer Board member), one small-scale local developer said he believed that he could sell 1,000-square-foot houses on 25’ lots for under $300,000, or $300 per square foot. Another developer confirmed this per-square-foot price. Most of us would agree that $300,000 for a 1,000-square-foot house is not attainable for most first-time homebuyers, which is why they typically do not buy new homes.

In any case, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of small lots available right now, mostly in East Gainesville. We might ask, if small lots are in demand, why have these lots not been utilized? It seems “the market” is not working according to recent Commissioners’ predictions or hopes.

Conclusion: Let’s figure out why the existing small lots are not being used to build new housing. Separately, I hope some of us will continue to focus on the needs of our most vulnerable residents for housing they can afford.

A sensible way forward

I have tried to highlight some of the confusions built into Commissioner Eastman’s proposal to reduce allowable lot sizes across the city. Unfortunately, by misusing language and commonly accepted land use terms, his conclusions cannot be relied upon.

Before proceeding to change all of the residential zoning in the City, we should all know:

• How many housing units are allowed across the city now, in all zoning districts? (By my calculations, based on City data, we already have the capacity to build housing for more than twice as many residents as currently live here.)
• Where are the vacant lots, relevant to this proposal, located? (These will be lots larger than 70’ across, and more than 7,000 square feet, so that they can be divided into two lots.)
• Which neighborhoods have restrictive covenants that would exclude the subdivision of lots?
• How many new homes would likely be built in 5 years, and where? These would likely be built in existing neighborhoods with large lots, but without restrictive covenants.
• Which of these neighborhoods (with sufficiently large lots) seek the changes proposed?
• Which neighborhoods (with sufficiently large lots), beyond these, could be persuaded to endorse this proposal?
• Are these neighborhoods served by infrastructure (roads, wastewater and stormwater removal, power, cable, etc.) with sufficient excess capacity to absorb substantial additional development?

In a city with truly sensible elected officials and professional staff, all these questions would be answered before any city-wide changes were proposed, much less approved. I am hopeful that our City will require this bare minimum of data-gathering in the management of our collective resources.

Kim Tanzer lives in Gainesville. She is a former UF architecture professor, who was also dean of the University of Virginia School of Architecture.

The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.