Quality Infill Quality Infill - Idaho Smart Growth

Opposition Opposition to to Infill Infill Infill – Perceived Perceived Consequences Consequences Create Barriers
Local opposition comes in as a close second to cost as a barrier to infill development. Generally there is a fear
of change and a perception that change will bring a myriad of negative consequences and fundamentally
change the character of the existing neighborhood. Our literature review confirms that existing neighbors often
oppose infill because of density. 32 People worry about compatibility, traffic, and crime, and may resist lower
income residents. 33 Yet, in one study of the factors that could be quantified, including traffic, parking and
property values, community fears were generally unfounded. 34
Opposition can be grounded in past experience. Infill can introduce new housing forms that are incompatible
with those existing in the neighborhood 35 and neighbors may have had a previous bad experience with
development that is a poor fit. Though the kind of compact development that introduces a mix of uses is often
cited in planning goals, there is often a lack of understanding and support for introducing commercial and
retail uses into residential neighborhoods. The negative impacts of poor design can exacerbate fears. 36
Local Local Regulations Regulations Discourage Discourage infill
infill
Goals and policies about infill are often not in sync with
regulations designed to support conventional suburban
development, leaving decision makers to decide between
the developer who cites goals[of the comprehensive
plan] and the neighbors who cite the [zoning] code.
Such inconsistencies in regulations may prohibit certain
building types such as multi-family housing,
manufactured housing, and accessory units, 37 and
provide little support for a mix of uses at higher
densities even when goals support them. Other
requirements such as parking, setbacks, and minimum
lot size are often excessive for infill locations. Older
buildings that still have useful life are needlessly demolished if building codes do not have the flexibility to
address the idiosyncrasies of older structures.
Inefficient Inefficient Process
Process
Residential infill using amended building
code, wood frame construction, Boise
A development process designed to serve conventional suburban development doesn’t anticipate numerous
stakeholders, agencies, or existing neighbors concerns; concerns that can be met if they are aired early on in
the process, but may be impossible to address if they surface too late. Coordinating competing interests is
complex and may result in an uncertain and lengthy permitting process. 38 Financing designed to serve
conventional development patterns with separated uses may be difficult for infill projects 39 that have mixed
uses and less conventional building types. The infill process may need environmental reviews, historic asset
inventories, infrastructure adequacy analysis or other information to make an informed decision on approval. If
those analyses are needed, it is often a cost borne by the developer.
32
Washington Research Council, page 3
33
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Costs of Sprawl 2000, Report 74, 2002, page 19
34
Smart Growth, The Consequences of Residential Infill Development on Existing Neighborhoods in the Treasure Valley
a Study and Conclusions, in cooperation with the Urban Land Institute Idaho, 2007, page 2
35
Fairfax County VA, page 3
36
ULI – The Urban Land Institute, page 8
37
Campaign for Affordable Housing, page 2
38
MRSC of Washington, Infill Development Strategies for Shaping Livable Neighborhoods, page 8
39
Haughey, Richard, Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact, ULI – The Urban Land Institute, 2001, page 10
Quality Infill Recommendations and Tools Page 6