On the Character of the Neigborhood

“Character of the Neighborhood” is a phrase often thrown around by people who oppose change, often concerning housing and new developments. It is rarely explained or defined and assumed to be “self-explanatory.” Of course, we do know what they mean; they want the neighborhood to look and feel how it has always felt, regardless of what realities may be at play, which is where the phrase loses meaning. Here, I will explain how the traditional way we view “neighborhood character” is flawed.

Consider a neighborhood that has always been characterized by single-family homes and no commercial activity. Does it retain the same ‘character’ if houses in that neighborhood are now split into apartments? What if there are now illegal basement units? What if the neighborhood, once predominantly black, is now mostly white? Or vice versa? What if it used to have a vibrant community of families, but now mainly houses retirees and roommates? What if it used to have a close-knit group of kids, all known by everyone, who all grew up together but now have all left due to lack of housing, scattering their friendship across the country? Each of these scenarios represents a shift in the neighborhood’s character, challenging the traditional understanding of ’neighborhood character’ as a static concept that can be protected by freezing zoning codes in time.

Now, envision a scenario where the housing stock of the neighborhood is expanded to accommodate the growth of the community. This could mean a new home for those kids who are growing up, a place for a new young family, or anyone else who wishes to join the neighborhood. Perhaps an external developer, seeing these changes, or even a local homeowner who no longer wants to maintain a large house, decides to replace their house with a small apartment building. Yes, the ’look’ of the neighborhood has changed, but that old homeowner now owns an apartment in that building, or one of those kids can move there instead of moving away. The buildings may have changed, but the people are still the same, and the community has grown and become more inclusive.

Now, I want to speak about the fear of rapid change over a short time. It is understandable that many may not want to see a place with single-family homes suddenly change to 10-story high structures. So, how do we grow while not allowing that? Strong Towns, an organization that advocates for policies that create stronger, more resilient towns in the US, has a good policy proposal: incremental development. The idea is simple: the zoning code for an area should make the next development step legal as of right. For example, an area with primarily detached single-family homes (R1) should allow for attached homes and duplexes (R2) as of right. Areas with mostly R2 should upzone to R3, and so forth. This allows the area to grow, but not suddenly. For this to happen, we would need to enable missing middle buildings by removing regulation that make them impossible, such as parking minimums and dual-staircase requirements; these kinds of regulations make it almost impossible to build small apartment buildings.

Defending a neighborhood’s character cannot fall for the trap of “trees and houses.” It’s the people who make a neighborhood, not just the physical structures. By embracing change, we can foster a stronger sense of community and inclusivity.