Category Archives: Planning

Light rail to the rescue?

KHON’s Gina Mangieri had an under appreciated story a couple of weeks ago that explored whether Honolulu’s planned rail could be morphed into a system that includes a light rail component (“Could light rail help train reach Ala Moana and beyond?“).

Given the shaky finances of the planned system, which could result in a stunted system that ends before even getting close to downtown Honolulu, or worse could eliminate a significant number of stops in order to slash costs, Mangieri suggests that it is time to revisit the potential of light rail.

An extensive study paid for by Kamehameha Schools and supported by Hawaii’s professional organization for architects – AIA Honolulu — advised the city to go with light rail that was mostly at-grade and went up above where it had to.

“We had a nationally recognized transportation expert — a lover of trains — develop that study,” said local architect Peter Vincent. “Rail is great. We need a fixed guideway to help the traffic congestion, but it should have been light rail from the get-go.”

That study said light rail would be nearly $2 billion cheaper than a heavy-rail, all-elevated train. It also would have been just 12 minutes slower end-to-end. That means light rail was $150,000,000 cheaper per minute, and that’s was before the cost of the overhead rail system doubled in the years since.

“It was a very valid study and it was just dismissed by the authorities as being not workable,” Vincent recalled.

Light rail has been the choice of virtually every jurisdiction that has launched a rail project in recent decades, both in the U.S. and around the world.

The various arguments against implementing light rail have been relatively weak, and with the current plan now on the verge of collapsing under its own weight, this may be the lifesaver that keeps the hope for a functioning rail system alive.

Check it out.

New buildings don’t mean progress

Denby Fawcett’s column in Civil Beat this week is an essay on the trend towards remaking local neighborhoods by clearing small, older homes and replacing them with “monster homes.”

She bemoans the clearing of lots, which includes cutting down mature mango and plumeria trees, along with other tropical foliage, in order to install the maximum possible floor area, with buildings now stretching from property line to property line. Well, there is a required five foot setback between neighbors, but its surprising how small that space can feel.

Real estate agents call what I consider to be overbuilding “maximizing the value of a property.”

Honolulu architect John Black says people are building what he calls “monster houses” not just in Hawaii but also all over the country.

“It’s a new way of building,” says Black. “You build right up to the lot line and as high as you can. The feeling is the bigger the better.”

…Black says the idea of air-conditioned “monster houses” on Oahu lots where all the vegetation has been purged seems particularly sad. In Hawaii, life’s pleasure should be to sit outside in a lush garden to enjoy the sun and the natural trade winds.

Her column hits home with me.

Ten years ago, Pacific Business News profiled my parents and their WWII-era home in Kahala (“Sun sets on old Kahala homes, Long-time owners of smaller older homes now live in the shadows of gated mansions“).

The PBN article traces the real estate cycles that have produced the current crop of monster homes in the neighborhood, and comments on the passing of Old Kahala.

The backyard of John and Helen Lind’s Kahala home is seeing more shade from the afternoon sun these days.

It’s not from the large mango tree they planted behind their home in 1947, but from the two-story home being built next door, which towers over the Linds’ 63-year-old single-story house on Kealaolu Avenue.

On the other side of the Lind home, a concrete foundation awaits the frame for another two-story house. A concrete block wall erected over three days in June replaced Helen Lind’s croton hedge, which had separated the two properties for years.

Sandwiched between these two residential construction projects is the 1,200-square-foot, three-bedroom house the Linds bought in 1943 for $6,000, “less $100,” John Lind said. “There was a scratch on the floor.”

Actually, there are two trees in the back yard. One planted when my sister was born, the other when I was born. They are now large, beautiful trees, still producing lots of fruit during good years.

After my parents died several years ago, we had to make a decision on what to do with their house. And it was the thought of a new owner bringing in a bulldozer to uproot the trees and scrape up any remaining bits of greenery that convinced us to find a way to save the property. And we have managed, rebuilding mostly in the footprint of the original house so that the trees can continue to spread their shade.

But walking or driving through Kahala today does make you wonder about the architectural profession. There are remarkably few newer homes that seem to give any thought to their surroundings or pay homage in any way to the island community they are part of. Neither the choices of materials nor the designs reflect anything of Hawaii.

“Sense of place” is apparently just a slogan, not something we encourage in practice.

There are the almost ubiquitous walls. Not fences to keep the dogs in, but walls to keep out the prying eyes of neighbors, which effectively prevent neighbors from eventually becoming friends. It’s hard to say hello and exchange a few words with those living nearby when they hide behind the walls of their suburban fortresses.

My mother hated the walls. She seethed when the new owners on one side dug out the panax hedge that had separated their home from my parents for more than 60 years, and replaced it with a concrete block wall. I suppose they gained some privacy. What they lost is far more precious.

There are too many homes that look like suburban bank buildings, with massive, out of place columns marking their entries, in case you happen to miss the oversized doors. It looks like those columns were almost required during certain time periods. Large homes, and larger ones, almost all sport their version of the column look. No trees, because they were cut down, but columns to trigger some dim primal memory of solid tree trunks.

The empty but well maintained mansions of the 1/10th of 1% that line the shoreline are sort of offensive, if truth be told. We often try to imagine what kind of a staff it must take to keep the inside of one of those monsters clean. It’s not pretty.

Meanwhile, by today’s standards, the homes next door that a decade ago seemed to dwarf my parents’ old house are starting to look less unreasonable.

New analysis looks at San Francisco housing costs

Here’s a great article about a very innovative bit of digging into the causes of high housing prices in San Francisco (“A guy just transcribed 30 years of for-rent ads. Here’s what it taught us about housing prices“).

The article, by Michael Andersen, tries to summarize a detailed analysis in a blog post published over the weekend by Eric Fischer.

Read through Andersen’s summary, then wade through some or all of Fischer’s original.

It’s really very interesting to see the data for housing and rents charted over a long period of time. These data allowed Fischer to calculate how changes in employment or rates of new construction would impact rents in the city.

Here’s Fischer’s own conclusion:

San Francisco is an expensive city because it is an affluent city with a growing population and no easily available land for development. Sonja Trauss is right that building more housing would reduce rents of both high- and low-end apartments. Tim Redmond is right that building enough housing to make much of a dent in prices would change the visual character of most streets, although the result could be more like Barcelona than like the Hong Kong that he fears. The unsettled question is which of these is the higher priority.

Building enough housing to roll back prices to the “good old days” is probably not realistic, because the necessary construction rates were never achieved even when planning and zoning were considerably less restrictive than they are now. Building enough to compensate for the growing economy is a somewhat more realistic goal and would keep things from getting worse.

In the long run, San Francisco’s CPI-adjusted average income is growing by 1.72% per year, and the number of employed people is growing by 0.326% per year, which together (if you believe the first model) will raise CPI-adjusted housing costs by 3.8% per year. Therefore, if price stability is the goal, the city and its citizens should try to increase the housing supply by an average of 1.5% per year (which is about 3.75 times the general rate since 1975, and with the current inventory would mean 5700 units per year). If visual stability is the goal instead, prices will probably continue to rise uncontrollably.

Andersen boils it down to a couple of simple sentences:

For the love of god, keep adding homes. Keep adding homes so things don’t get any worse and you’re not trapped in a lose-lose-lose shitstorm like San Francisco.

You can download Fischer’s data if you want to mess with the numbers yourself.

Continuing airport woes

We stepped off a United Airlines fight from SFO yesterday afternoon and made the walk to baggage claim area “H” where I believe all United flights disgorge their bags.

As we made the turn from the main lobby over to the escalators that go down to baggage claim, Meda exclaimed that both escalators were actually working!

We’re used to one or the other being out of service. It seems to happen quite often. But today, they were working. Maybe things are looking up at HNL!

No such luck.

As we headed down the escalator and looked ahead, more same-old, same-old.

There are two automatic doors into the baggage claim.

You can see this coming. One door has a prominent “Out of Order” sign.

Maintenance apparently a continuing problem at Hawaii’s flagship airport.

[text]