Greater Greater Washington

Where do Montgomery's car-free residents live?

Like many suburban communities built after World War II, Montgomery County developed based on the assumption that everyone would have a car. However, many households have just one, or none at all. While some are in the county's urban centers, a surprising number are in very car-dependent places.


Where car-free residents live. All images by the author.

According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, a sort of annual census, there are over 374,000 households in Montgomery County, and 91.8% of them have cars. That's not surprising for a largely affluent suburban county, where many people own cars simply because they can. Growing up, I had several friends whose parents raced sports cars, but never drove them on the street.

But car ownership countywide is slightly lower than in 2000, when 92.5% of all households had cars. Today, more than 2 out of 5 households have one car or no car. Like transit riders and young adults, those households are concentrated in certain areas, which can give us insight on where to make it easier to get around without driving.

Car-free households cluster around transit

Just 8.2% of the county's households have no car, and you'll find many of them near transit. 5 of the top 10 largest concentrations of car-free households are near Metro stations. Over 30% of all households in Silver Spring and 28% in Twinbrook are car-free. Some concentrations are in older, walkable areas with good bus service, like Long Branch, where over 1/3 of all households have no car. As a result, Long Branch has high transit ridership.

There are also many car-free households in newer suburban areas like Briggs Chaney, where they make up a quarter of the population, and even Germantown and Damascus, where 10% of all households are car-free. These communities have winding, disconnected streets, which can make walking very dangerous and good transit service nearly impossible.

Not surprisingly, retirement communities also have lots of car-free households. Over a quarter of all households in Leisure World and Old Town Gaithersburg, home to the Asbury Methodist Village retirement community, have no cars, while Riderwood Village in Calverton isn't far behind.

These developments don't have great transit or much within walking distance, but they do have a lot of on-site amenities. (But that still wasn't enough to lure my retired aunt and uncle to Leisure World from Columbia Heights.)

Bethesda, Chevy Chase have lots of one-car households

One-third of all county households have one car, a slight decrease from 2000. Like those with no cars, these households are concentrated along major bus routes and in retirement communities. As before, Briggs Chaney and Leisure World top this list.


Where households with one car live.

But there's also a lot of one-car households along near Red Line stations in Bethesda and Chevy Chase. Nearly 2/3 of downtown Bethesda households have one car, but relatively few have no cars at all. This suggests that many Bethesda residents move downtown to have amenities within walking distance, but bring a car anyway.

There are also large concentrations of one-car households along I-270 and Rockville Pike, which appear to coincide with activity centers like White Flint and Washingtonian Center in Gaithersburg. These are places that might support a "car-lite" lifestyle: they have some walkable areas, and in the case of White Flint, a Metro station. But for now at least, they're not dense or pedestrian-friendly enough to leave the car at home all the time.

Households with many cars in suburban, rural areas

Almost 40% of Montgomery County households have two vehicles, and 19% have three or more. But where they live is almost the inverse of where no-car and single-car households are located. Two-car households seem to form rings around the county's Metro stations and activity centers. Many of them are concentrated west of I-270 and in further-out communities like Olney and Clarksburg.


Where households with two cars live.

But 3 of the county's largest concentrations of two-car households are in close-in areas, like Four Corners in Silver Spring and Chevy Chase Village. Four Corners especially sticks out, as car ownership rates are generally lower in East County, and it's a pretty walkable area served by two major Metrobus lines.


Where households with three cars live.

Meanwhile, three-vehicle households are largely confined to the county's Agricultural Reserve and other rural areas. Those third vehicles probably aren't being used for commuting, but for hauling supplies or produce.

Without transit, car-free residents are stranded

The concentrations of car-free or car-lite households in places like downtown Silver Spring or downtown Bethesda show that Montgomery County's efforts to build around transit have encouraged people to drive less. But for the county's growing number of low-income households, going car-free isn't a choice. Places like Germantown and Briggs Chaney are more affordable, but without good transit or walkable neighborhoods, their residents are basically stranded far from shopping, social services, and most importantly jobs, which restricts their economic mobility as well.


A dirt path in Germantown. Many car-free people live in places where it's hard to get around without a car.

How can we fix this? Part of the answer will come in the redevelopment of places like White Flint, which will result in some affordable housing, giving low-income households a chance to live in a place redesigned for walking, biking, and transit. But we'll also have to figure out how to provide better transit and better walking conditions in the neighborhoods where people already live.

One solution could come from the county's Bus Rapid Transit plan. While planners' vision for a network of countywide BRT lines has serious flaws, it does propose improved transit service along corridors where car-free households already live, like Rockville Pike and Route 29.

Most Montgomery County households have cars, and will probably continue to for the foreseeable future. But we still have to make room on our streets for the growing number who don't.

Crossposted on the Friends of White Flint.

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Dan Reed is an urban planner at Nelson\Nygaard. He writes his own blog, Just Up the Pike, and serves as the Land Use Chair for the Action Committee for Transit. He lives in downtown Silver Spring. All opinions are his own. 

Comments

Add a comment »

there is a problem with considering any one car household to be car lite. Many of those households will single people. A single person with one car may be completely auto dependent. Conceptually, a single person household is never "car lite". They are either car free or fully "carred" A car lite households is a household of at least two adults, with fewer cars than drivers (and in theory a household with 3 drivers and two cars is sort of car lite, though few use the phrase that way) I realize that makes it harder to tease the number of car lite households out of the census data, but that needs to be done if you are going to make a case about transit or planning based on car lite households.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 13, 2013 10:23 am • linkreport

Here in Arlington County, I believe a study or census or something recently determined that a high percentage of cyclists in the county are actually people who cannot afford cars but don't live in areas easily serviced by transit. Perhaps the low-income households of Montgomery County likewise use bicycles for travel? The terrain is even flatter in Maryland, right?

by Hadur on Aug 13, 2013 10:48 am • linkreport

Nice article! I do agree with AWITC - it would be useful to know about the number of cars per capita in certain areas vs others. My brain isn't working very well this AM so I can't remember if it's possible to calculate that from the ACS or not.

My husband and I are among the "car-lite" in downtown Silver Spring (soon to be car-lite in Wheaton!). Friends and family from other parts of the country are always amazed that 1) we only have one car, and 2) that we only drive it about 3,000 miles a year. We are fortunate to have what I call an "easy" car-lite lifestyle. Many households that do not own cars are not car-free by choice, and live in areas where it's not possible to walk to the grocery store, or doing so requires crossing a six-lane highway. Unfortunately the variety of jurisdictions/agencies (M-NCPPC, SHA, MCDOT) seems to be a major impediment to a coordinated county-wide transportation plan that values people as much as it does moving vehicles quickly.

by Rebecca on Aug 13, 2013 11:04 am • linkreport

Fascinating article - thank you for this, Dan. I think your point about "car-lite" is very important - it's an important part of the spectrum between car-free and multi-car households.

by Ronit on Aug 13, 2013 11:19 am • linkreport

A problem with the article is that you don't cross-consider income. The car heavy within the beltway areas ties with income. And the transit dominant usage in Long Branch does too.

This point:

Some concentrations are in older, walkable areas with good bus service, like Long Branch, where over 1/3 of all households have no car. As a result, Long Branch has high transit ridership.

You could have said something a bit more accurate.

Some concentrations in are older, walkable areas with a large stock of comparatively affordable housing and good transit service, making these areas attractive to lower income residents less likely to own cars.

In part, it's about self-selection.

by Richard Layman on Aug 13, 2013 11:22 am • linkreport

and if your throw down a map of affordable housing, does it match with the car-free?

car-lite=usage, not ownership.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2013 11:28 am • linkreport

Seems like we need to extend the Red Line to Leisure World.

by Tom Veil on Aug 13, 2013 11:31 am • linkreport

I wonder if it would be useful to distinguish between "carless" and "car-free" -- analogous to "childless", which just means you don't have a child, and "child-free", which means that you have chosen on purpose not to have a child.

I think that probably some of the households you're calling "car-free" would love to have a car, if they could.

by Miriam on Aug 13, 2013 11:38 am • linkreport

Charlie

its very much about ownership

A. if a household can own one less car, thats a huge savings in the fixed costs of car ownership to them. Whether they run the single car 3000 miles or 20,000 miles

B. The needs for transit access and walking/biking options for, lets say, a couple with one car who drive it 10,000 miles a year, are different from those of a couple with two cars who drive them a total of 10,000 miles a year.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 13, 2013 11:45 am • linkreport

I like Miriam's distinction about "less" vs "free" although i'm not sure the data source Dan used will let him make that distinction easially.

I also consider myself 'car lite' even though until recently there were as many cars as roommates in my apartment. I just chose not to use the car except selectively. Even in a household with 1 car and two adults, they could in theory both be very auto dependent.

This data showing how many families in Silver Spring and especially Bethesda live in urban walkable areas but still chose to have 1 car with them really calls into question the demand for no-parking apartments. Do these families or better said households have cars because they can, or because they want to. If it's because they want to, then demand for apartments without parking may not materialize quickly. If the car is only around because parking is available, maybe some of these households would consider getting rid of the car if parking were not offered.

by Gull on Aug 13, 2013 11:47 am • linkreport

I do not think its possible to use Census data to determine who is car free by choice vs who is carless only due to costs. On the one hand there are people with low incomes, who nonetheless may prefer a biking focused lifestyle say (maybe not in MoCo or FFX, but Im sure some young folks in places like Portland). And there are probably people who are on paper can afford a second car, who face economic constraints (loan repayments, saving for a down payment on a house, etc) that are not going to show up in ACS income figures.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 13, 2013 11:53 am • linkreport

"This data showing how many families in Silver Spring and especially Bethesda live in urban walkable areas but still chose to have 1 car with them really calls into question the demand for no-parking apartments. "

How? it shows 26% of households in downtown bethesda are car free. If 26% of the residents wanted to eat meat, drink alcohol, or own a large screen TV, or not own a TV at all, or drive a minivan, wouldn't we consider that enough demand to warrant allowing it? For most products 26% market penetration is pretty good. Why is 26% carfree questioning the demand for parking free apartments, rather than confirming it?

Would only 90% car free confirm the demand? Thats seems like a needlessly high bar.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 13, 2013 12:00 pm • linkreport

This data showing how many families in Silver Spring and especially Bethesda live in urban walkable areas but still chose to have 1 car with them really calls into question the demand for no-parking apartments.

No, it doesn't. Unless you want to ignore more than a quarter of the people. That is a huge portion of the population!

Second, even if it did question the demand for parking-free buildings, what is the relevant public policy angle for that? If the demand isn't there, then the developer is the one left holding the bag for building something without enough parking (just as they would be holding the bag if they got the unit mix wrong, or the kind of countertops wrong, or any other bit of market demand for various elements of housing).

by Alex B. on Aug 13, 2013 12:16 pm • linkreport

"calling into question car parking requirements" .... how many times do I have to make the point about encouraging self-selection by people who are less reliant on a car cf _Nudge_.

As Fred Kent says: when you design for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. when you design for people and places, you get people and places.

2. wrt charlie's point about car-lite and Gull's response including "ownership", while this is a suburban related post, that's an important issue in the city.

Right now most of the city's transportation policies concerning cars privilege car owners at the expense of car users.

E.g., those of us who use Zipcar and car2go pay high fees in part to pay the cost of renting the spaces for the cars. The fee per car is far more than the $35 per year that a car owner pays for an RPP.

People then make the point that the firms are profit making. But I argue that's a distraction. They are serving residents who want access to cars. It's also a key form of demand and supply management. (See the article in the NYT about Hoboken and how of the 3000+ household users, 1/4 gave up at least one residential parking permit.)

And what if, like Communauto in Montreal, Philly Car Share, or the nonprofit in SF, they were nonprofits? (the problem nonprofits have is coming up with the capital to replace cars when they get old. And the SF and Philly nonprofits charge a lot more than Zipcar.)

Frankly, Zipcar and car2go should probably pay a lot less than residents using the street for storage of their cars, because the resource is used a lot more efficiently by car sharing vehicles than the typical car.

by Richard Layman on Aug 13, 2013 12:34 pm • linkreport

I'd love to see similar maps for the entire area.

by andrew on Aug 13, 2013 12:42 pm • linkreport

@Richard Layman: I think the Zipcar issue is an important point for the inner suburbs too.

I live on the edge of a mostly-SFH neighborhood that abuts the much denser downtown SS. Currently I can get a nearly-free permit to park on the street any car I own. My wife and I sold one of our cars when we moved here, and now use one sparingly.

I don't know that it would even be possible for Zipcar to get an on-street parking permit from MoCo for our neighborhood, but I'm pretty sure that if it were it would cost a lot more than what we would pay even for our third or fourth car. This is pretty absurd.

Of course nobody could have envisioned that being a problem a few decades ago. It seems like now would be the time to change things.

by Gray on Aug 13, 2013 1:01 pm • linkreport

If we lived in a perfect world of supply and demand, then the laws of economics would say a parking-less apartment building would be filled with that 26% of people who don't own a car, and the remaining 74% who have one or more cars would occupy the buildings that do have parking. Of course, we're not in a perfect world, and it's likely that some of the people who chose to rent in the parking-less building will have a car because the apartment was available at the time, and some people without cars will still live in buildings with parking because they liked the apartment, or likewise, it is what was available at the time. What happens to those people who do have cars who rent in the parking-less building? I don't depend on street parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, but I hear plenty about residents who complain they've become the overflow parking blocks for people who either don't have access to, or can't afford to pay for the parking in the CBD.

Maybe what i'm saying is I like the idea of the parking lot districts that MoCo has, to the point that i'd prefer that no apartments provide exclusive parking for their residents only and that all parking be provided 'to the public' at the cost of a parking permit. I just predict the imbalance of where parking is available and where the demand is will not balance.

by Gull on Aug 13, 2013 1:09 pm • linkreport

@Gull:
If we lived in a perfect world of supply and demand, then the laws of economics would say a parking-less apartment building would be filled with that 26% of people who don't own a car, and the remaining 74% who have one or more cars would occupy the buildings that do have parking.
So . . . that's not what the "laws of economics" would say at all. The decision on which apartment to rent is based on a variety of factors. Maybe some people value the location (or some other amenity) of a building that happens to have parking enough that they're willing to pay a premium for it. Maybe some buildings with parking are actually charging enough for those spaces to make car-free people indifferent.

There are plenty of reasons why--even in equilibrium--your statement wouldn't be true. And there are even more reasons why a market is never actually in equilibrium.

by Gray on Aug 13, 2013 1:15 pm • linkreport

" hear plenty about residents who complain they've become te overflow parking blocks "

the failure there, is to price onstreet parking. Either meter it, institute RPPs with market price, or institute cheap RPPs with the parking free buildings excluded.

Im still not clear how 26% carfree households means a lack of demand for carfree living.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 13, 2013 1:17 pm • linkreport

It's very interesting that MoCo sells monthly residential parking permits in the structures in Bethesda and Silver Spring for about $100/mo. (there is a slight discount for certain structures in South Silver Spring to discourage overflow parking into DC, but I don't think there really is that so much, more it's a faulty perception by DC residents.)

Granted that's for structured parking, but it does communicate more about what the value of such parking is.

Gull -- you make choices, our choices are bounded, constrained. If you are looking for a place to live and you have to have a car, then your choices are from the universe of options that meet that need.

The problem in development is lack of differentiation, in making every place capable of accommodating maximal automobile use. It makes every unit more expensive, even for the 26% or more who would rather walk, bike, or transit.

The point is to "maximize" choice by making more places suitable for people who don't want car-reliance.

This is especially important in congested places, because while you can add density, for the most part, you can't add roads. If you use your available transportation network better, especially by shifting trips to modes other than the auto, everything works better.

Unfortunately, in non-theoretical "economics" of the every day, the cost of accommodating automobile dependent people is inadequately captured in the cost of using the auto (providing roads, providing parking spaces, not to mention other externalities concerning the environment and health) so people get more cues that automobility is preferred and required.

It's like what Charlie says in comments about schooling in the city.... let the families move out to the suburbs for school (because kids are damn expensive to educate, $15K/year each).

More buildings not focused around enabling automobility enables people and places and more optimal decisionmaking from a community standpoint about mode choice.

by Richard Layman on Aug 13, 2013 1:28 pm • linkreport

It would be great to have a map showing the estimated total numbers of zero car households as opposed to just proportion of households that don't have cars.

@ AWalkerintheCity: I understand what you're driving at with RPP exclusion but I have several issues with it.

I really question the fairness (and sometimes constitutionality) of mandating some new developments be excluded from an RPP. There's some legal ways of doing this, for instance, if new large development is inside a parking benefit district instead of an RPP district, than new development can be RPP excluded without treating some residents differently than others. However, I have a hard time understanding how excluding new developments that are within an RPP zone can be constitutional; what is the public health, safety, or welfare benefit of excluding new development from RPP but not including older development in the RPP? If you say excluding new development from RPP is justified in order to preserve parking access for the existing residents, you are merely assigning a benefit to one group over another without any health, safety, welfare justification. I understand an argument that excluding new development from RPP is necessary in order to mitigate congestion. However, excluding buildings from RPP is really about mitigating neighborhood opposition - because of lost parking. And, if the real motivation of exclusing some buildings from RPP is to reduce congestion, why haven't we adopted some better methods of parking management, such as charging for on street parking? I think it's clear that, where RPP exclusion has been considered by planning boards, it's been considered mostly as a means of addressing controversy as residents want to preserve private access to public on street parking in the face of development that threatens to take away their parking. I think a good lawyer could make an issue out of this, depending on the testimony in the record of decision.

As for fairness, people have said excluding new developments from RPP is not unfair because people in these RPP excluded developments choose to go without RPP. In truth, some housing units (particularly older units) will get free RPP inclusion, increasing their monetary value. Incorporating RPP exclusion into the redevelopment process gives a windfall benefit to existing residents over new residents and does so at the expense of new residents. For example, existing residents who are RPP eligible can park for free on the street and merely have to pay the annual RPP program fee (35$ or so which pays for the cost of administering the program but which is not payment for parking). RPP excluded residents may have to rent off-street parking at much higher cost. Even worse: someone with a row-house and a backyard parking space could use his/her RPP permit to park on the street and rent the backyard parking space to an apartment building resident who lives in a newer building that is RPP excluded. Now the resident of older housing stock has capitalized access to on-street parking by converting his private backyard into a revenue stream. His inclusion in RPP increased the value of his private parking space in his backyard by excluding a large group of residents from on street parking. Rather than paying a market price for street parking, which would make renting out his backyard space less attractive, his inclusion in RPP also allows him to use the public-owned on-street spaces at far lower cost than someone who is RPP excluded. Does anyone really think this is fair? I don't. But existing home owners hold a lot of cards. So, class privilege = parking privilege?

I understand DC has a hard time getting around this issue because redevelopment is mixed into neighborhoods and spread throughout residential areas. Secondly, DC has huge RPP zones which include parcels on metered blocks.

However, in suburban jurisdictions development near metro (or the purple line if it's ever built) can create parking benefit districts (PBDs) with metered parking only and focus large redevelopment in those areas. Since these PBDs are can often be contiguous commercial areas and areas where redevelopment is targeted, this strategy could be used to exclude most redevelopment from the RPP areas. This avoids the problem of treating people within an RPP zone differently. However, the RPP neighborhoods are still getting free parking, and since RPP neigborhoods are typically adjacent to downtowns or metros (why else establish parking restrictions), redevelopment at the edge of the PBD would be adjacent to parcels that are RPP eligible. You would still get people living practically next door to one another will have differential access to free on street parking.

Ultimately you end out with a similar problem, but it seems a little less unfair if new developments are actually not in the RPP area in the first instance, as opposed to just excluding them for political expedience.

by Solution Giver on Aug 13, 2013 3:34 pm • linkreport

IANAL and this kind of discussion reminds me why Im not one. Geez. The folks who would move to the new buildings are clearly better off if its possible for developers to build without parking. Parking minimums mean higher prices, which means some people can't afford to move to the area in quesetion - which means they get NONE of the local amenities or services. Thats bigger discrimination to me.

And no, parking is not equivalent to education or whatever, and the benefits to such an arrangement are clear.

There has to be some way to allow parking free buildings. You tell me what it is. Don't tell me its impossible because of alleged constitutional issues. Arlington County manages parking free buildings.

I dont care if its metering all spaces, auctioning RPPs or excluding select buildings from the RPP program. But it seems that whatever is proposed, someone says thats not possible politically or constitutionally, its bad for the poor or inequitable to not give everyone RPP access equally. meanwhile we keep building buildings with huge amounts of parking, next to metro stations, and we continue to have more cars on the road, and more GHGs, and more places where transit is hard to justify because its mode share isnt high enough, and of course the rent remains too damn high.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Aug 13, 2013 3:54 pm • linkreport

If we lived in a perfect world of supply and demand, then the laws of economics would say a parking-less apartment building would be filled with that 26% of people who don't own a car, and the remaining 74% who have one or more cars would occupy the buildings that do have parking.

Uh, no. This is not even what happens now. You are asserting two outcomes: 1) have a car, park it on-site, off-street; or 2) no car.

Now, we get people who live in buildings without on-street parking, often in buildings built prior to DC's '58 zoning code that 3) have a car and park it on street. Additionally, there are folks that 4) have off-street parking available, but still park on-street; and 5) folks that have off-street parking available but do not have a car at all.

I just predict the imbalance of where parking is available and where the demand is will not balance.

So what? This is what markets are for.

by Alex B. on Aug 13, 2013 4:03 pm • linkreport

Another potential parking practice:

6) Have off-street parking, but not on-site (perhaps rented at a nearby building)

by Alex B. on Aug 13, 2013 4:10 pm • linkreport

@Alex B
Uh, no. This is not even what happens now. You are asserting two outcomes: 1) have a car, park it on-site, off-street; or 2) no car.

Now, we get people who live in buildings without on-street parking, often in buildings built prior to DC's '58 zoning code that 3) have a car and park it on street. Additionally, there are folks that 4) have off-street parking available, but still park on-street; and 5) folks that have off-street parking available but do not have a car at all.

But don't you think the fact that some buildings have no parking skews the car-ownership rate of the people who live there? Or do you think it doesn't matter at all and people don't take parking into account when choosing a place to live?

by MLD on Aug 13, 2013 4:13 pm • linkreport

But don't you think the fact that some buildings have no parking skews the car-ownership rate of the people who live there? Or do you think it doesn't matter at all and people don't take parking into account when choosing a place to live?

Of course it does, it's a far more complicated relationship than the original assertion of "yes car, yes parking OR no car, no parking."

My point is that if you look at a snapshot of the current conditions, you'll see a lot more ways people deal with parking than that. When you get into the dynamics of how places change, that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

But yes, people adjust to what's available. The assumption that cars need parking spaces does not hold if people can adjust their use of the car. And people can and do adjust their car use!

by Alex B. on Aug 13, 2013 5:09 pm • linkreport

I recently visited Charlotte for the first time. I was expecting suburban hell, but found a surprising number of walkable neighborhoods and new TODs on the Blue Line. Unfortunately, if you want to live in a neighborhood where you can go car free/lite, you'll be paying near-DC prices. Any halfway decent condo or apartment with walkable amenities nearby is insanely expensive for Charlotte. If you're not working in banking or senior MGMT, it's tough.

After my visit I realized this is the point in history where the suburban trend reverses. I saw the real world consequences of those Census urban/suburban poverty graphs. Those who can actually afford a car now have the luxury of living in a place where one is optional. Those who struggle just to pay for gas are increasingly pushed to outer suburbs - the former "American Dream".

Either the supply of affordable walkable neighborhoods w/ local jobs needs to dramatically increase, or we'll need a revolution in how we think about suburban transit. Something has to give.

by Mark R. Brown, AICP on Aug 13, 2013 11:42 pm • linkreport

"the supply of affordable walkable neighborhoods w/ local jobs needs to dramatically increase, or we'll need a revolution in how we think about suburban transit."

That about sums it up.

by Thayer-D on Aug 14, 2013 8:21 am • linkreport

@Mark Brown

That's exactly the problem. You don't just see that in new Sun Belt cities that just "found" rail transit either. Its an apt description for the San Francisco Bay Area, Queens (NY), and nowadays the part of NE DC near the Red Line.

There's actually a pretty easy, but not problem-free, solution that already happened back when zoning codes weren't so restrictive -- soft-story housing. Simply let the small landowners who own the 1-2 story commercial buildings in urban areas and suburban downtown build 3-4 stories of apartments. The noise, smell, and/or size of the places will keep them affordable, especially if the commercial area isn't particularly fashionable. (Crappy service industry) job market appears the second you leave home, too.

by Vinnie on Aug 16, 2013 8:53 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or