Triple Bottom Line

John Elkington, editor-at-large for GreenBiz.com, coined the term "triple bottom line" in 1994 (image from The Elkington Report)

The concept of the triple bottom line (TBL) provides a framework within which to analyze the full societal costs (both direct and indirect) of environmental, social, and economic impacts. The TBL framework is particularly applicable to what architects do because of the far-reaching effects of our work. Construction and its associated extraction and processing of resources tax our environment, as does every building’s operation. The quality and efficacy of our designs directly factor into the calculation of a development’s economic benefits over time. The degree to which all stakeholder interests are viewed as interdependent, and benefitting as many constituencies as possible, influences the strength and growth of a community. 

A growing appreciation for thinking sustainably originally fueled TBL’s full-cost accounting model. Today, TBL tends to be more holistic and less siloed. It’s a useful structure for achieving integrated decision-making, adaptable for use by any organization. The City of Eugene is one such organization, having adopted the framework as a means for helping reach its sustainability goals. How to implement TBL on any particular project is a factor in the City’s consideration of responses to its Requests for Proposals, including those from architectural firms. 

Typically, an organization’s TBL policy includes a vision comprised of declarative statements similar to those listed here (these happen to be those of the City of Eugene):

• Value all people, encouraging respect and appreciation for diversity, equity, justice, and social well-being. We recognize and appreciate our differences and embrace our common humanity as the source of our strength.
• Be responsible stewards of our physical assets and natural resources. We will sustain our clean air and water, beautiful parks and open space, livable and safe neighborhoods, and foster a vibrant downtown, including a stable infrastructure.
• Encourage a strong, sustainable and vibrant economy, fully utilizing our educational and cultural assets, so that every person has an opportunity to achieve financial security.

The City of Eugene refers to TBL as a tool, but also acknowledges it doesn’t produce objective data. Instead, TBL provides a set of questions or prompts to guide discussions and decision-making. The City defines these questions in the following way:

• Environmental Health:  How would this proposal affect environmental health and our ability to effectively address climate change? 
• Economic Prosperity: How would this proposal affect the local economy and what are its costs to the community, now and over the long term? How does the proposal support responsible stewardship of public resources?
• Social Equity:  How would this proposal affect community relationships, effective government, social justice and overall livability? Does the proposal account for differing impacts on community members (vulnerable populations, specific neighborhoods, distinct groups, other)?

The TBL tool is not an exhaustive analytical process involving rigorous layers of research and analysis. It is rather a moral imperative that follows the dictates of conscience, the outcome of which are practical environmental, economic, and social benefits. 

All fine and good, but how do architects apply TBL in practice? 

The TBL does function as a useful frame of reference within which architects can evaluate an evolving design using metrics focused upon matters of equity, the environment (a metric such as LEED is useful), and economic impact (including full life-cycle costing and evaluation of community benefits). Ideally, it can also serve as a foundation upon which architects build their practices, instilling an overarching ethos that guides decisions related to running all aspects of a firm (such as efforts to diversify the workplace). 

My office—Robertson/Sherwood/Architects—recently pursued the City of Eugene’s Town Square project, of which a new City Hall building and Lane County Farmers Market pavilion will be components. The City ultimately selected FFA Architecture + Interiors of Portland as its architects for the project. While the City did not choose us, the RFP and interview process did prompt serious consideration about how we address the TBL in our work. 

In response to the Town Square RFP, we emphasized our perception of how important the project will be to Eugene’s sense of identity. If it fulfills its promise, Eugene’s Town Square will be a place where everyone embraces and celebrates diversity, equity, justice, and social wellbeing (by providing equitable exposure and recognition, allowing all to occupy the space with accommodation and dignity). We regarded the project as the strongest possible demonstration of the City’s commitment to its urban core and all that entails—a vibrant open space that attracts high-value downtown development and with it jobs, residents, and a concomitant boost to the tax base. 

Additionally, we described how we envisioned Eugene’s Town Square as an exemplar of sustainability, not only because of specific design and specifications strategies but also because it will spur a shift toward walkability and a greater concentration of pedestrian-oriented services and amenities in its immediate vicinity, reducing carbon emissions and fostering healthier lifestyles. We imagined a successful Town Square project being a force for community engagement, where everyone can be seen and heard, and where citizens and their elected officials view each other as equals—characteristics common to the most equitable and democratic of forums. Above all, we emphasized our belief that good design should benefit everyone. 

It’s helpful when a client is committed to TBL principles. A challenge for architects is to avoid the urge to press their own agendas if their clients do not share a sympathetic perspective. Working primarily for a client’s benefit, the architect acts as a service-provider and the product should reflect the client’s desires. On the other hand, an architect’s ethical obligations include giving due regard for the interests of all who will be exposed to the impacts of their work. If these obligations are at odds with the client’s initial wishes, the onus falls upon the architect to fully research alternatives (architects need to ask the tough questions and not presume their clients will do likewise) so they can in turn educate their clients about the range of practical options available to choose from. In this context, framing the discussion from a TBL perspective can be helpful. 

Ideally, the triple bottom line is a winning proposition on all fronts, of mutual and synergistic benefit for the environment, economy, and society. Applying the TBL to every project—regardless of whether the project starts with TBL as a mandate—is a responsibility every architect should embrace.

2019 AIA Eugene People's Choice Awards & Sunday Streets!

Find your way downtown tomorrow, Sunday, September 22 for the City of Eugene’s end of summer Sunday Streets celebration. The first Sunday Streets took place in 2011, and since then it’s become Eugene’s single largest community event. This year’s edition will kick off with the EUG Parade at 11:00 AM. The parade’s route will include a loop around 8th Avenue, Monroe Street, Broadway, and Oak Street. Sunday Streets will also feature activity centers at the Park Blocks, Monroe Park, and Kesey Square with free bike repairs, live music, yoga, dance, food carts and more throughout the afternoon. View the 2019 event map and activities schedule here. 

While you’re enjoying everything Sunday Streets has to offer, be sure to check out the 2019 edition of the perennially popular AIA Eugene People’s Choice Awards display, which will debut during the event at the Broadway Commerce Center (44 W. Broadway). Everyone is welcome to vote for their favorite designs in several categories. The project boards will remain at the Broadway Commerce Center until October 1, so if you can’t make it to Sunday Streets you’ll have plenty of time to view the project boards and cast your votes. Online voting will also be available through the AIA Eugene web page. AIA Eugene will announce the winning projects at a forthcoming section meeting (my guess is at either the October or November meeting). 

AIA Eugene thanks this year’s sponsors for their support of the 2019 People’s Choice Awards program: 

• Advanced Cabinet Designs Inc.
• Arbor South Architecture 
• Central Print & Reprographic Services
• Rowell Brokaw Architects 
• Rubenstein’s

The City of Eugene’s goals for Sunday Streets include giving community members an opportunity to explore the city’s neighborhoods by foot or by bike, and to rethink streets as public spaces. By temporarily closing them to vehicular traffic, people can more easily imagine how our streets—more than merely serving as a means to drive from here to there—can play a broader role as truly vital public arenas for commerce, socialization, community celebration, and recreation. Our streets can be great destinations, especially if we imagine them first and foremost as places for people rather than cars. Ultimately, the benefits of people-oriented streets will include improved health, reduced dependence on motor vehicles, increased awareness of sustainable transportation options, increased neighborhood livability, and new opportunities for local businesses. 

In due course, citizens will become the leading advocates for projects to improve our streets so they are more holistic, pedestrian-friendly, and focused upon the critical public space role many should play within our urban fabric. ROW changes including safe pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure, pedestrian-scaled lighting, attractive and durable street furniture, landscaping, public art, and other features will in turn encourage private investment in aesthetically diverse and interesting exteriors and building entrances, patios, ample street-level windows, and public seating. To quote Fred Kent of Project for Public Spaces, “If you plan for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places.” 

I hope to see you tomorrow enjoying Sunday Streets and voting at the People’s Choice display. Put on your walking shoes (and if the weather forecast holds, bring your umbrellas!). 

Town Square: Final Draft Design

Eugene Town Square Final Draft Design presentation, September 12, 2019 (my photo)

The City of Eugene and the design team led by Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning revealed the final draft design for Eugene Town Square at the well-attended “September Shindig” this past Thursday on the downtown Park Blocks. Like the previous project kickoff meeting in May and July’s presentation of three initial design concepts for Eugene Town Square, the event was festive and informative, and very much a community-building fete. 

The final draft design reflects both Cameron McCarthy’s own melding of the best aspects of the initial concepts and the feedback received from citizens in response to them. Such an approach could have yielded a disjointed plan—a rambling amalgam as opposed to a cohesive scheme—but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Instead, the design promises to unify the Park Blocks, the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza, and the new City Hall & Farmers Market Block in a way that is synergistic. The whole will certainly be much more than the sum of its parts. 

Final Draft Design Plan

Some of the key features of the final draft design include: 

• Rightsizing of traffic lanes to slow traffic 
• Retention of the most significant existing trees 
• Addition of new trees to increase the overall quantity of shade and canopy cover to ensure the Town Square has a full, healthy, urban forest for generations (the new trees will be of species able to survive hotter, drier conditions) 
• Use of water-wise plantings to reduce runoff and demand for irrigation 
• Expansion of the Farmers Market area by 250% 
• A pattern of open spaces on the southwest and southeast blocks that works with the current Saturday Market tent layout 
• Retention of most parking and key routes for vehicle access 
• Improved outdoor space for the current neighboring businesses 
• Provisions for future buildings to connect to Town Square 
• More locations for food trucks and carts 
• A permanent covered stage for musical performances on the southeast block 
• A variety of subspaces for gatherings of all sizes 
• The ability to shut down streets to make room for large, special events

A clear goal of the design is to be the premier open space in the heart of downtown, something very much different from all the other parks in Eugene. I like that it will be a focus for so much that is a hallmark of great public squares around the world: well-defined outdoor spaces that are useful, significant, and full of life. The proposed design for Eugene Town Square skillfully employs axes, vistas, water features, trees, generous lawn areas, and a combination of event-oriented and passive spaces. 

You can view the plans and renderings for the final draft concept here. You can also share your thoughts about the design by participating in the latest online survey. 

The City and Cameron McCarthy have continually met with key stakeholders, including representatives from the Saturday Market, Farmers Market, downtown businesses, the arts community, and many others. Hundreds more attended one, two, or all three of the public involvement parties. Thousands have connected with the project through the online surveys and via email and social media. The goals have been to honor all voices by listening, recognizing and valuing a diversity of opinions, and to genuinely respond to ideas, critiques, comments, and praise. 

Farmers Market rendering

Overall, the scope and quality of the Town Square outreach programs and speaking engagements has been impressive. This may be the most encouraging aspect of the project so far. That said, a glance at who the respondents to the first survey were reveals they may not be entirely representative of the breadth of the community. Interestingly, the largest single number reported living in the 97405 area code, and their household income level averaged significantly above the City’s median. Generally, a shortcoming of public involvement processes is underrepresentation of certain constituencies despite truly earnest efforts to ensure inclusivity. 

If the City and Cameron McCarthy adhere to the schedule published at the outset of the public involvement process, we can all look forward to seeing the final design sometime in October. At that time, a written summary report and public hearing will accompany the presentation of the final concept. In addition to further refinement of the concept, the next phase of the project will dive more deeply into public art, materials, furnishings, specific plant types, and signage. Whether funds exist to fully implement the final design will undoubtedly be a matter for discussion by our city leaders.

Portland Building Tour

Portland Building - September 4, 2018 (my photo)

Along with my colleagues Jim Robertson, FAIA, FCSI and Carl Sherwood, AIA, I enjoyed a behind-the-scenes tour of the Portland Building this past Wednesday as its comprehensive remodeling nears completion. Our hosts for the tour were DLR Group senior associate Carla Weinheimer, AIA, DBIA and associate Erica Ceder, LEED AP BD+C, Assoc. DBIA. Carla and Erica are two of the key DLR Group members of the design-build team who along with Howard S. Wright Construction (a Balfour Beatty company) were tasked with the $195 million renovation project. In addition to sharing details about the technical aspects of the numerous improvements to the building, Carla and Erica also provided us with insights into the successful progressive design-build process the project employed.

The building’s notoriety as the first large-scale example of the Post-Modern style in architecture, and its troubled history following its opening in 1982 are well-chronicled. I cut my teeth in the profession just as its design rocketed the then relatively unknown architect Michael Graves to stardom, and I’ve followed its saga ever since. Despite thinking it ill-proportioned and lacking in scale, I nevertheless have always considered the Portland Building to be of historic significance. I’ve also argued the building is essential to maintaining Portland’s high ranking on the weirdness scale, a not insignificant consideration if we take matters of place and identity into account. I am sure it would have been missed if city leaders had decided to raze the building.

To remedy its myriad problems—a direct outcome of how cheaply it was initially constructed—DLR Group determined the improvements needed to include a total reconsideration of the building’s exterior envelope. A new aluminum rainscreen cladding (pre-assembled as panelized sections) now covers the original painted concrete portions of the exterior, while a new terracotta rainscreen system is being installed where ceramic tile was previously applied. Together, they provide a long-term solution for a building that was plagued by leaks almost since it was first occupied in 1982. 

Rainscreen curtainwall assembly (DLR Group)

One of the new exterior wall panel sections ready for delivery. The panels were assembled by a fabricator in Mexico (photo courtesy of DLR Group)

Comparison of the mockup of the new panelized cladding system with the original facade (photo courtesy of DLR Group)

There’s a refreshing crispness and glow about the new over-cladding. Of course, this is in part attributable to it simply being new; regardless, under gray skies the building seems more radiant than it ever did with its painted concrete. From an appearance standpoint, I suspect the Kynar-finished aluminum panels will wear much better over time than the original façade.  

The punched square windows continue to contrast strongly with the cream-colored walls despite replacement of the very dark (only 7% light transmission) original panes with new, much more transparent (77% light transmission) and energy-efficient glass. What many who never entered the Portland Building before its renovation may not have known is how little of what appeared to be large areas of windows in the center of each façade was in fact only opaque spandrel glass. These areas of wall are now much more fully glazed, further brightening the interior workspaces.

Speaking of the interiors, the makeover is remarkable. City employees hated working in the building because of how dark and cave-like it was inside. Thanks to the new windows, new LED lighting and HVAC systems, and the opening up of large areas of the ceilings, the workspaces will be much brighter, more comfortable, and visually appealing. To help with wayfinding, DLR Group developed unique themes for specific floor groupings (“valley,” “river,” “sky,” “forest,” and “sky”), which are expressed through the use of differing color palettes and photo murals. Most employees will be assigned open workstations, with enclosed huddle rooms and phone rooms available for confidential conversations.

Erica Ceder of DLR Group inspecting one of the new office workstations. Note the large new window openings. (my photo)

One of the staff/visitor breakout areas on the upper office floors (my photo)

New meeting rooms on the Second Floor (my photo)

Other noteworthy changes include:

• Substantial upgrading of the building’s resistance to seismic forces; 
• Elimination of the entrance and ramp to the former underground parking level to allow the introduction of a huge window overlooking Chapman Square across SW 4th Avenue; 
• Expansion of the 1st floor public spaces by reducing the width of the previously dark and underutilized loggia and replacing its walls with floor-to-ceiling glass; and 
• Relocation of the primary HVAC equipment from the 2nd floor to the roof.

View toward the large new window at the east end of the entry lobby axis (my photo)

Having now seen the Portland Building as its renovation nears completion, I can say with confidence the essence of the original design is not only retained but enhanced. In my opinion, the integrity of Michael Graves’ design intent is preserved. Indeed, I have no doubt—if afforded today’s technologies and a proper budget—Graves’ firm would have executed the project using very similar means. Carla mentioned how Michael Graves Architecture & Design principal Patrick Burke, AIA reviewed DLR Group’s designs for the improvements and believed his firm’s namesake and founder would have approved. A noteworthy comparison is the 26-story Humana Building in Louisville, KY, which Graves designed shortly after the Portland Building and stands as an example of what his office was capable of when afforded a generous budget.

The project has not been without its controversy. Doctrinaire preservationists believe the new cladding violates the historic integrity of the building and will necessitate its removal from the National Register of Historic Places (because of its significance, the Portland Building was listed in 2011, well before the usual 50-year benchmark for being deemed historic). Preservation architect Peter Meijer (who wrote the National Register application) argued the new metal panels would never have the same look as the original painted concrete. Beyond the concerns of the preservationists, the City Auditor’s Office raised eyebrows earlier this year when it issued statements suggesting a lack of budget transparency and a failure to meet the project’s equity goals.

I predict these controversies will fade upon the building’s reopening late this year. As I wrote last November, I expect the Portland Building will still be standing a century from now, cherished and protected by generations of future Portlanders for the same idiosyncrasies that once drew scorn from legions of detractors. DLR Group’s improvements to Michael Graves’ era-defining design are meant to ensure it lasts that long and more.

Thank you Carla and Erica for giving us an exclusive look at the impressive transformation of a Post-Modern icon!

  

Carla Weinheimer (left) and Erica Ceder (right)

Does Eugene really have an affordable housing crisis? Yes, but . . .

Image from the City of Eugene's Missing Middle Housing Types Handbook

Paul Conte—former chair of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood Association—is a well-known opponent to upzoning of single-family residential zones and a persistent and formidable thorn in the side of advocates for more diverse housing choice within well-established, historically stable neighborhoods. Paul’s aggressive defense on behalf of the homeowners he chooses to represent has garnered him considerable notoriety and animus within the local planning and development community.

This past June, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 2001, which requires upzoning of single-family neighborhoods by June 30, 2022 to allow a greater diversity of housing options and increase density through the introduction of “missing middle” types. HB 2001 applies to Eugene and Springfield, but excludes nearby commuter towns with a population of 10,000 or fewer, including Coburg, Junction City, Veneta, Creswell, Pleasant Hill, Harrisburg, Monroe, Lowell, and Oakridge. The bill also exempts all existing subdivisions with applicable Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (thus, residents of many wealthier and newer developments would not be required to bear their share of the burden of increased density, which is unfair to other neighborhoods that do not have CC&Rs).

Paul emailed me a couple of messages with the hope I would share them with my fellow local architects. Fundamentally, he believes most architects and advocates for densification of R-1 zones (such as WE CAN) don’t understand the real nature of the housing crisis and why mandating the introduction of missing middle typologies within R-1 neighborhoods may be misguided. I found the points he made in his messages persuasive but also deserving of our skeptical examination, so I am happy to share them here.

One of his emails included the following letter to Eugene mayor Lucy Vinis and the members of the city council on August 13:

Dear Mayor and Councilors,

While you have time to catch your breath on break, you may want to take a calm look at a question for which there seems to be little debate regarding the answer:

Does Eugene really have an "affordable housing" crisis? 

The "conventional wisdom" from some quarters seems to be "Yes! And we need more ADUs, more 'Missing Middle Housing' and fewer 'barriers' in the code."

Well, the first part of the answer is valid—Yes, we do have an affordable housing crisis. 

But what follows in the conventional wisdom is patently wrong. The chart below (also attached as a larger PDF page), using the City staff's own data drawn from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (see attached), shows that there is no shortage of "affordable" housing in Eugene, except for low-income households.

Lest anyone is skeptical of this chart, I created it using the exact method used for the following chart in the National Low Income Housing Coalition in their March 2019 report: The GAP -- A Shortage of Affordable Homes. 

So, to the councilors who want to do more than support a "feel good" attack on decent, single-family homeowners, stop the current staff nonsense and focus all your energy on subsidized apartments on major transit corridors. Start by taking the steps to "activate" MUPTE on the W. 6th and 7th Ave. segment of EmX.

The very simple fact is that above the Very Low Income (VLI) and Extremely Low Income (ELI) categories, there is no shortage of affordable housing either nationally or in Eugene. (Not surprisingly, the city planning staff's slick handout obscures the central fact and gives the false impression that the "housing crisis" affects a wide range of household incomes.)

The second simple fact is this: The discrepancy between income and the price—not cost—of market-rate housing is what causes VLI and ELI households to be severely housing cost burdened. Market-rate "middle housing," including market-rate fake "ADUs" (i.e., with no owner occupancy) is no solution at all for the real housing crisis in Eugene. These "YIMBY" diversions aren't even a so-called "one tool in the toolbox"—as market-rate housing, ADUs and plexes do not provide the truly "missing" dwellings, which are subsidized apartments, but instead will cause harm from redevelopment and price increases arising from speculation.

Thank you.

Paul Conte

Given the passage of HB 2001, Paul may be tilting at windmills by lobbying the mayor and city councilors; nevertheless, the issue is whether his arguments carry merit and therefore worthy of our consideration.

His second email to me related a cautionary question & answer with a senior planning commissioner (Alissa Luepke Pier) in Minneapolis reflecting upon that city’s historic zoning reform, which upzones its single-family neighborhoods to allow diversification of housing types within them. Paul views the commissioner’s comments as a “damning critique” of legislation that Oregon’s HB 2001 emulates:

“The policy took as its starting point that more units automatically equals more affordability, and there wasn’t any interest in delving into whether or not that was actually a factual equation on which to base major decisions. The policy does not cite any research to support its assertion, nor does it even lay out any aspirational goals regarding the extent of the impact they hope to achieve (such as in anticipated added units, or even in theoretical decreases to housing costs). Without any sort of concrete metric, it is impossible to analyze the policy's effectiveness in achieving its goal of improved housing affordability. That is convenient when what one is proposing is a vague, one-size-fits-all solution with no real statistical support linking it to its presupposed conclusion.

“We don’t have any safeguards for this proposed policy, and once we enact these rights, they’re grandfathered in forever. There is no contingency plan, no method to test effectiveness, and no metrics for success. The consequences of a policy like this on a community like mine are far too harmful to be glossed over in the name of innovation. Let me be clear: Adoption of this policy without adequate safeguards will cause great, long-term harm to low income families and communities of color, and there is no way to undo the damage once Pandora’s box has been opened.

“We’re seeing investors come in, run the housing stock into the ground, treat the tenants like garbage, and immediately take all their rental income—money that could be invested in the community—out of the neighborhood. This is an immediate capital flight from the community, leaving local residents without the expendable income to invest in local opportunities or support local businesses.

“To summarize: In an effort to alleviate the affordable housing crisis, the city is offering my community smaller, crappier housing for no less money, with the added insult to injury of making it harder for them to buy a house and build generational wealth within their own community. It’s shocking to me that we’re patting ourselves on the back for this.

“Question: As of the last few years, the largest residential real estate owner in metropolitan California is the global equity firm Blackstone. Are similar changes in residential ownership happening in Minneapolis?

“Yes. I’ve heard from realtors specializing in North Minneapolis that they are being contacted by firms on the West Coast, in Florida, Missouri, Texas, and elsewhere who are looking to buy up multiple parcels at a time, sight unseen. Those interests are chomping at the bit for this policy to pass. It saddens me that we would take ownership opportunities away, not only from the immediate community, but from the region as a whole, in favor of global investors.

“If you are enacting change in the name of others, it seems morally irresponsible not to examine that change from every possible angle and study its impact on those same communities before pushing it through. We can brand it with whatever buzzword we want, but if the end result is just a perpetuation and exacerbation of housing and economic inequities, should it really be lauded as “innovative?””

So if not in established R-1 neighborhoods, where can we provide expanded housing opportunities while fulfilling the affordability, compact urban development, and neighborhood livability pillars of Envision Eugene, not to mention HB 2001? The recalcitrance of concerned owners of single-family homes has proven to be a considerable obstacle. Is overcoming that obstacle necessary to responsibly address our community’s growth and change? If we do nothing will we effectively be accepting financially gated neighborhoods in our midst, contrary to our better natures?

I previously asserted the recipe for success includes sustaining the patterns that make older neighborhoods unique, but also demands creative, inspired design. This may be the reason why it is elusive: the making of good, deferential architecture that respects its context isn’t always assured, and resistance to change is human nature. Regardless, it’s clear our housing stock needs diversification to adequately address the myriad ways Eugene is changing. Certainly, managing change by densifying established neighborhoods will only work if it is the outcome of a community and neighbors-driven process that dives deeply into issues of structural form, market demand, affordability, and traffic impact. Lacking such a process, the inevitable results will be continued resistance. 

One argues with Paul at their own peril, because he is always well-armed with selected facts to back his position. If you’re not likewise prepared and able to riposte effectively, scoring points is difficult. I don’t entirely understand what makes Paul tick and what his motivations are but I know well-enough to avoid taking him head-on because, as a preternaturally skilled debater, he is capable of talking circles around me and most everyone else.

My guess is Paul considers me a useful fool, which is why he asked me to forward his thoughts on this subject. The bottom line is everyone acknowledges the affordable housing crisis is real. Where folks differ is on how to address the problem—whether the solution includes upzoning of R-1 zones or providing MUPTE-like incentives outside those neighborhoods along major transportation corridors instead, or both. I’m sure Paul would appreciate hearing your opinions.