a FEASIBILITY STUDY for a FEASIBILITY STUDY for BLENDING

a FEASIBILITY STUDY for
BLENDING HOUSING and URBAN
AGRICULTURE
in LANSING, MI
PRACTICUM REPORT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
2010
PA U L B E S T, M AT T H E W E A R L S , B R A N D O N
H A D D O C K , S A R A H N A S S I R I , PA I G E S E A B R O O K ,
N ATA L I E Y O U A K I M
AGENDA
o Site and neighborhood
g
description
p
o Housing market analysis
o Potential occupants,
p
, design
g options,
p
, and
construction methods
o Agriculture and green space analysis
o Development options
o Development recommendations
o Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
o Our client,, the Cohousing
g Development
p
Co. is
partnering with the Greater Lansing Food Bank
to develop a parcel of land that will incorporate
h
housing
i and
d agriculture
i lt
o The goal of this project is to provide our client
and its partner with use alternatives that include
housing type and agricultural/open space
possibilities for their Lansing
p
g property
p p y
PREVIOUS CLIENT DEVELOPMENTS
o Cohousing
g Development
p
Company
p y (CDC)
(
)
developed three adjacent cohousing
communities in Scio Township near Ann Arbor,
Mi hi
Michigan
o
o
o
Sunward Cohousing
Great Oak Cohousing
Touchstone Cohousing
SITE and NEIGHBORHOOD
DESCRIPTION
Area is mostly
single family
residential
Near many
natural
recreational
areas
Near MSU
N
MSU, LCC
and Cooley Law
School
Near Jolly and
Mt. Hope
On CATA bus
route #7
3721 Aurelius Rd
Rd.
site basics
o 22.84 acres
o Used to be a farm but has been fallow for 30
years
o Zoning: A-residential, single
o Previously approved for an 86 unit condominium
development
neighborhood description
o City
y of Lansing
gp
population
p
is declining
g and
aging
o
Population with largest growth is 55 to 64 years of
age
o Population within one mile of site is
relatively stable
o LEAP is encouraging employment growth in
Mid-Michigan
o
Financial services, health care, life sciences,
information technolog
technology
characteristics
o Forest View Neighborhood
g
o Diverse housing stock
o 70% constructed1970-1989
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS
trends: new single-family home construction
permits
2004-2008
p
2000
Lansing
g
1800
1600
East Lansing
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
trends:
foreclosed
and
distressed
housing
Large increase in
home foreclosures
in recent years
Foreclosures drive
down home sale
prices
trends: occupancy and tenure
o % renter occupied (2000):
o One mile:
mile 57
57.5%
5%
o Three mile: 43.9%
o % change renter
occupied (2000-2013):
o
o
One mile: +.1%
Three mile: -1
1.2%
2%
o % change vacancy
(2000-2013):
o
o
One mile:
O
il +1.6%
1 6%
Three mile: + 3.9%
Year 2000 vacancy (1
Y
(1-3
3
mile)
market rate housing analysis
Lansing SE
2008
Avg.
List $
# of
sales
Avg.
sale $
Avg.
Market
Time
2009
Lansing
2008
Diff
Diff.
-19%
Avg.
List $
419
20%
# of
sales
$54,336 $43,104
-21%
Avg.
sale $
$57,978 $46,678
349
77
71 Less 6
Days
Avg.
Market
Time
2009
Diff.
$57,591 $50,843
-12%
1 730
1,730
12%
$53,738 $47,275
-12%
1 549
1,549
75
71 Less 4
Days
feasibility: low income
o Lansing
g Stats
o
o
o
o
11.7% - unemployed
4.2% - receive cash assistance
17.4% - received food stamps in last 12 months
Below the poverty line
o
o
o
24% - all people
18.3% - families
33.7% - unrelated individuals 15+
feasibility: low income
o The National Low Income Housing
g Coalition
(NLIHC) reports that Lansing residents must
make $2,500 a month or $30,000 a year to access
affordable
ff d bl housing
h
i (no
( more than
th 30% off annuall
income)
o
Percent change 2000-2008
2000 2008
o
o
One mile: -12.4%
Three mile: -11.6%
Household income near site, 2000-2008
1 mile
il radius
di
2000
HH earn < $35,000
$35 000 year
2008
50 3%
50.3%
37 9%
37.9%
3 mile radius
2000
53%
2008
41 4%
41.4%
Source: US Census and ESRI Forecasts
feasibility: senior and student
Senior
Between 2000 and 2008, 55+ grew
In Lansing: 2.8%
project
j
site: 1.7%
Within one mile of p
Within three miles of project site:
1.8%
Student
Enrolled in college/grad school
One mile: 20.8%
Three mile: 20.5%
OCCUPANTS/ DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION
potential occupants
o Analysis shows that these populations should be
targeted due to stable or growing population:
o
Seniors and/or Disabled Persons
o
o
May require similar housing design (universal design)
Low to Moderate Income Families and/or students
o
May
y require
q
similar ownership
p type
yp (rental)
(
)
design strategies and
construction methods
o Cottage Communities
o Small, dense single-family
o Cohousing
o Emphasizes
p
community
y interaction
o Universal Design
o Non-exclusive, accommodates virtually everyone
oP
Prefabrication
f b i ti
o Parts of a building are made off-site and then assembled
on-site,
on
site, saves money
o Green Building
o Energy efficient, utilize natural energy, minimize footprint
URBAN AGRICULTURE and OTHER GREEN
SPACE
agriculture feasibility
o Soil is viable for agricultural
g
activities
o Soil analysis is necessary to determine which crops will
grow best
Up
A
Utb
H
n
MaB
H
n
types of urban green spaces
o Urban Farming
g
o
Production agriculture scaled down to fit the urban
form
o Community Supported Agriculture
o
“the cohousing of agriculture”
o Open
O
Space
S
o
A green third space where community members can
interact
o Urban Gardening
o
Individual; may be private or public
case studies
o Project
j
Grow: Ann Arbor,, Michigan
g
o Urban gardening, rental plots
o Troy Gardens: Madison, Wisconsin
o CSA, production agriculture
o Growing Power: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
o Intensive
I
i production
d i
agriculture
i l
o Lessons Learned:
o Fosters community interaction
o Increases education about food production
o Increases food security
y – locally
yg
grown produce
troy gardens: madison, wi
o Residential uses
o
30 units of mixed-income
cohousing
o Agricultural uses
o
o
Five acres: CSA
330 family garden plots
ANALYSIS of OPTIONS
S
W
O
T
Cohousing +
CS
CSA
Cottages +
Production
Ag
Cottages
g +
Open Space
Attached
g+
Housing
Rental Plots
Attached
Housing +
Open Space
Strengths
Weaknesses
Increases
strength of
residential
community
Agriculture can
as an interim
i t i use,
cottages are
dense
Allows for private
space without
compromising a
strong sense of
community,
y, has
wide appeal
Gardens can
easily be
configured
around housing
Niche market may Bring
be hard to sell
surrounding
community to the
site
Ag is not as
Potentially low
profitable
fit bl as
costt housing
h
i for
f
housing
Ag workers
Lower density
may be less
profitable,
maintaining open
space
p
may
y be
costly
Rental plots may
be less appealing
and practical for
short term
leasers
Open Space can
There is already
b an interim
be
i t i use, park
k space iin th
the
attached housing area
is dense
Opportunities
Threats
Does not fit with
character of
surrounding
neighborhoods
None foreseen
Third space
supplements
private property
Does not fit with
character of
surrounding
neighborhoods
Allows residents
an opportunity to
grow their own
food by leasing
outdoor space
Open space acts
as a backyard
b k d
Increased foot
traffic may make
the site less
secure
If too large, a park
may attract
tt t
unwanted visitors
DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION
y U R B A N A G R I C U LT U R E
y COMMON HOUSE
y TOWNHOMES
y PA R K I N G AT T H E
y C O T TA G E S
P E R I P H E RY
y P E D E S T R I A N PAT H S
y COMMUNITY GREEN
S PA C E
y PONDS IN LOW AREAS
y M U LT I S T O R Y U N I T
PHASE ONE
y PERMANENT
y R O A D S AT P E R I P H E R Y
A G R I C U LT U R E ( E A S T )
y T E M P O R A RY
A G R I C U LT U R E ( W E S T )
y SOME LANDSCAPING
y FIRST POND (EAST)
PHASE TWO
y P E R M A N E N T A G R I C U LT U R E
y COMMON HOUSE
y T E M P O R A R Y A G R I C U LT U R E
y M U LT I FA M I LY
SCALED BACK FOR
HOUSING
y C O T TA G E S
y TOWNHOMES
y P E D E S T R I A N PAT H S
PHASE THREE
y PERMANENT
y P R E FA B R I C AT I O N
A G R I C U LT U R E
y ADDITIONAL TOWNHOMES
A N D C O T TA G E S
y E X PA N D P E D E S T R I A N
PAT H S
y P O S S I B L E E X PA N S I O N O F
R E N TA L P L O T S
y G R E E N R O O F S ( M U LT I +
COMMON HOUSE)
y S O L A R PA N E L I N G
(HOUSING)
y UNIVERSAL DESIGN (ALL)
THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?