Friday, June 4, 2010

Recap from May 27 Meeting: New Construction Housing SWOT Analysis

Following are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats identified by the group at its May 27 meeting. The topic of the May 27 meeting was simply the New Construction component of the housing picture facing the community, so these points were made in that context only. The June 10 meeting will focus more directly on Urban Living and the Established Housing Stock. If you are a member of the Housing Committee, please use the comments field of this post to provide any input or hold online discussions of any of the identified issues. The next post will provide the Action Items identified by the group to carry over for further discussion into what ultimately will serve as recommendations from the group for inclusion in the city's final strategic plan.


Strengths

  • Affordable compared to other markets
  • Abundance of land
  • Quality of construction
  • No dominance of large scale builders/developers (national companies)
  • Diversity of builders
  • Diversity of housing types
  • Greene County = best model for combo of market/regulatory environment


Weaknesses

  • Lack of diversity of housing types
  • Land development options
  • Lack of flexibility/options from a regulatory standpoint
  • Lack of creativity in patterns of housing (Innovation in Development Patterns)
  • Lack of creativity /flexibility in Planning/Bldg. Regs. Dept.
  • Less clarity between subcontractors (disparity in quality)
  • Lack of Consistency between City & County and between departments and individuals within city government in the building & development process
  • Segregated housing price points (lack true mixed use & interdeveloped housing types)
  • Final decision-makers (P&Z Council members) don’t inspect sites for themselves
  • Lack of builders license / standards for qualifying to pull a building permit
  • Lack of reliable data on vacancy rates/absorption rates in for-sale and for-rent new housing



Opportunities

  • Greater regulatory flexibility for mixed use & mixed housing types
  • Seek more informed & better trained P & Z/Council members
  • Provide training / orientation on the development process (from private sector perspective) to new members of council, P&Z, etc.
  • Establish transit-oriented development patterns
  • Rising fuel prices = rising density
  • Appropriate/Affordable workforce housing = economic development


Threats

  • NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) and CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) attitudes from some in community impact political will to encourage/facilitate building & development
  • Requirements that impact affordability at all levels
  • Rising fuel prices
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Tom DornanJune 6, 2010 at 2:10 PM

    Before we move on from our discussions regarding new construction, I think that any recommendations that are forwarded for inclusion in the City’s final strategic plan must include requirements for energy efficient elements. For instance, I don’t think that there is currently an inspection process for insulation. City inspectors do a rough-in and a final. Therefore, builders could completely skip insulating if they chose to do so. Should we recommend a minimum level of insulation in walls and attics? Do builders currently install 95% efficient furnaces? If not, should they be required to do so? How about if we get really radical and suggest requiring a couple of solar collectors on each new home built and perhaps a buried plastic tank to catch rainwater for irrigation. Should energy star appliances be required? We have an opportunity to be really progressive in this exercise.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)