By Blake Chambliss, Rural Community Assistance Corporation

and

Ellen Bowyer, Council of State Community Development Agencies

July 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

Acknowledgments

Chapter 1. Summary and Overview

Chapter 2. Establishing a State Design Process

• Site Selection and Development

• Building Design

• Unit Design

• Source of Information for State Design Standards

• Determining a State Approach

Chapter 3. Evaluating Design Documents

• Preapplication Review of Design Documents

• Design Documents: Application

• Design Documents: Fund Commitment

• Important Issues in Design Review Conclusion

Chapter 4. Making a Commitment

• Balancing Design Costs and Benefits

• Setting A State Affordable Housing Design Agenda

• Conclusion

Preface

The Council of State Community Development Agencies (COSCDA) is a membership organization for executive branch state agencies that administer federal and state resources for housing, homelessness, and community and economic development. Among these programs are the Community Development Block Grant, the HOME Investment Partnerships program and the Emergency Shelter Grant. COSCDA members work extensively with local governments, nonprofit organizations and the private business community. COSCDA provides technical assistance, training, and advocacy for members concerning policy development and program practice.

This report is one of eleven reports COSCDA is preparing under a cooperative technical assistance grant funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The grant is administered through the National Affordable Housing Training Institute, a nonprofit organization composed of eight public interest groups, including COSCDA. NAHTI provides technical assistance and training support to city, county and state governments in affordable housing and community development.

Under its cooperative agreement through NAHTI, COSCDA conducts various training and technical assistance activities to help state agencies administer the HOME program in an effective, innovative, accountable manner. These activities include HOME workshops, a quarterly newsletter called HOMEnotes, on–site consultations, and demand/response technical assistance and referral. The four Technical Assistance Reports produced under this grant profile selected state programs to offer models of best practices in the development, implementation and management of effective HOME programs and viable housing development. Other Technical Assistance Reports in this series are: Using HOME for Rural Housing Development; Affordable Housing Design in the HOME Program; and Moving State Housing Policy Toward the 21st Century: A Preliminary Policy Dialogue.

HOME is a federally–funded housing program that allocates funds directly to states and local governments on a formula basis (40 percent to states; 60 percent to local governments) for the development of affordable housing. Created in 1990 through the National Affordable Housing Act, the HOME program has generated more than 200,000 units of affordable housing and provided over 28,000 low–income families with tenant–based assistance.

HOME is currently the most flexible form of housing assistance provided directly to states and local governments. The program was developed, in part, due to federal recognition of the increasing state role in affordable housing development and to prompt additional and continuing housing development by states and local governments. The program also strongly emphasizes the role of community–based nonprofit organizations (formally designated as community housing development organizations, or CHDOs) in the housing delivery system. HOME funds may be used to support a range of activities necessary to produce decent, affordable rental and homeowner housing. It can also be used for transitional or permanent housing for people who are homeless. Program activities may include new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of affordable housing, as well as tenant–based rental assistance (for an initial period of 24 months, which may be renewed) and security deposits. Funds also may be used to support project pre–development or organizational operating support for CHDOs.

Acknowledgments

COSCDA thanks Mimi Kolesar at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for her editing and insights.

'The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a cooperative agreement between the National Affordable Housing Training Institute (NAHTI) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Neither HUD, NAHTI, COSCDA, COSCDA members or Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) are responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government, NAHTI, COSCDA, COSCDA members, or RCAC."

Chapter 1. Summary and Overview

Congress authorized the HOME program under the 1990 National Affordable Housing Act; HOME received its first appropriation ($1.5 billion) in federal fiscal year 1992. In the last six years, states have used HOME to expand the capacity of the affordable housing delivery system. They have also funded housing projects, watching the completion and lease–up of increasing numbers of rental units. States often administer HOME–funded rental housing themselves. State staffs are thus often responsible for soliciting and evaluating applications for multifamily rental housing projects. This direct role gives state agencies a strong degree of oversight in the design and structure of proposed rental housing projects.

This report provides guidance to state HOME program administrators in both the establishment and assessment of design standards affordable rental housing. The state role in furthering good design has two parts. First, the state can be involved in both the development of broad design standards and the facilitation of a process to ensure that a project design "works" for the community.

Second, state staff responsible for reviewing applications must be able to provide for the consistent and accurate application of those standards to specific housing projects. An emphasis on developing high quality housing will help further the use of the HOME program for the community as a whole. The following details first the importance of good design, then outlines how this report will help support development and implementation of a strong state role in furthering good housing design.


Importance of Housing Design

State review of design is extremely important for several reasons. First, well–designed housing developments supported by public resources can help counteract "not–in–my–back–yard" (NIMBY) syndrome at the community level. As communities see the positive impacts of affordable housing, they may lessen their preconceptions against such housing, which in turn will ease the development of affordable housing. Conversely, the lack of a strong state role in affordable housing design may allow the development of unattractive or inefficient housing.

Second, higher quality building materials contribute to long–lasting, environmentally–responsive project maintenance. Attention to project specifications at the outset can help save on operating expenses and guard against future costly rehabilitation. Third, improved maintenance and marketability contribute to improved financial feasibility. If a project is attractive and designed specifically with a concern for the needs of its residents, it will be more marketable and fewer problems with project lease–up will occur.

 Purpose of the Report

This technical assistance report has two purposes. First, from a policy standpoint, it is intended to help state HOME administrators develop broad design parameters for HOME–funded rental housing through an interactive process. Second, from a technical standpoint, it will provide basic guidance to State agency staff in their review of design documents for HOME–funded rental housing projects.

Chapter Two discusses the establishment of state design standards. This idea includes an examination of how to structure the design to consider community needs, both for future housing residents and for other community residents. Much of the guidance in this chapter is presented as suggested principles for states to keep in mind as they begin to develop broad design standards.

Chapter Three provides an introductory guide outlining how states can assess the documentation submitted with applications to ensure valid design documents. Finally, Chapter Four outlines an approach states can use to initiate a broader policy dialogue among staff, local governments, nonprofits, and design professionals around affordable housing design. This chapter combines the ideas around the establishment of state design criteria (Chapter Two) with technical considerations (Chapter Three). It combines these ideas by outlining a public process that states can use to integrate design standards into the application review process.

Chapter Two is important for states wanting to take a more active stance toward design standards. Chapter Three is more important for states wanting an introduction on how to examine design documents more authoritatively. States wanting to integrate state design standards into the examination of rental housing applications will want to give particular attention to Chapter Four.

This report uses the term "design" as "the purposeful act of planning and arranging the physical details of housing to add to the art of community." This notion refers to the creation of a community viable for future generations. This definition is broader than the more traditional definition of "providing shelter for resident families"; it is more inclusive than just meeting the needs of the financiers and the developers. The role of state HOME staff is thus to ensure that HOME–funded housing adds value to neighborhoods and the community. Usually, states do not conduct affordable housing development with formal or extensive considerations toward design. The often–unattractive developments that result have furthered the NIMBY syndrome.

The establishment of quality housing design begins with planning. Projects must be appropriate to the needs of their anticipated residents and of their neighborhood. For example, housing developed for elderly households should differ from housing developed for families with children. The housing needs of other types of residents (such as single–headed households, the homeless, ethnic/cultural groups that include extended families, persons with physical challenges or mental illness) should be as distinctive. Attempts to standardize housing solutions deny the differences in the populations to be served which affects the long–term satisfaction of residents. Inappropriate housing may result in management problems for owners and create conflicts within the neighborhood as a whole.

Housing should be responsive to neighborhood and environment constraints such as: densities and housing patterns; lawn, trees and open space; sun and wind pathways; and climate patterns. Building materials should be designed to withstand weather and human abuse and have low year–round maintenance requirements. Good housing design addresses site development, the appearance and structure of the buildings and the individual units.

Chapter 2. Establishing A State Design Process

States interested on improving design in HOME–funded rental housing can use two methods. A direct approach is to establish state design standards and then revise application scoring systems to reflect those standards. A second, less direct approach is to encourage the use of local design processes as part of project development and to require evidence of those processes in rental housing applications. Under this approach, the state is less concerned with the establishment of design standards and more concerned with the establishment of requirements that affordable housing design is developed interactively at the local level.

This chapter provides information on both types of approaches. It first highlights broad design areas where states may want to establish standards: site development, building design and unit design. These standards provide for a basic level of measurement for housing developments. States using this approach should establish these standards as relatively broad policy that applies to a wide range of projects.

This chapter then identifies sources of information for those standards. Such sources include a state's Consolidated Plan and previously–completed HOME–funded housing developments. Finally, the chapter examines issues regarding a direct versus indirect state role; it then provides some options associated with the second approach. States should not choose one approach over the other, but incorporate elements of both. For example, a state agency may establish some broad design standards yet also establish requirements that individual projects must use a citizen participation process to ensure that a given design "works" within a community.
.

Areas for State Design Standards

Webster defines design as follows: "to assign, or set apart, as for a purpose; to intend; a plan; scheme; the arrangement of details that make up a work of art."
The term "design" as used in this report is more than aesthetics.

It encompasses the degree to which the structures are appropriate for the needs of the residents who live there. It also encompasses the degree to which structures complement the existing neighborhood housing stock and contribute to the stability of the overall community. In this sense, design is not just about what the residents need; it is also about what the neighbors need. Design affects a neighborhood's expectations, property values and quality of life.

States can develop broad design standards in three areas: site development, building design and unit design. Clearly all three areas try to insure overall attractive and efficient design. This following section raises ideas for states to consider as they undertake the very state–specific process of developing design standards.

Site Selection and Development

We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.
–Winston Churchill

Site development is the first area for which a state can develop broad design standards. Site development focuses on the structure and treatment of the site on which the housing development will be found. Site availability often drives developers, so state agencies can encourage better site selection by establishing clear preferences in this area. Accessibility, density, and site selection are all important factors.

Accessibility to Services

Project locations should be within walking distance (one–half mile or a fifteen minutes) to vital services. The necessary vital services vary depending on the population served. For families with children, such services include elementary schools, child care, and supervised recreation facilities. Access to shopping and recreation for the elderly is important. For all families with working parents, access to a variety of jobs and shopping at major grocery and department stores should be accessible on public transportation.

Jobs and services accessible only by auto is expensive for low–income families: it thus erodes their economic stability and may limit their employment opportunities. The marketability and long–term economic viability of the a project can thus be affected. Sketch #1 shows an example project diagram with good accessibility.

Sketch 1 (Unavailable to view)

--Access to appropriate vital services (within fifteen minutes or ½ mile)
--Walking distance to schools
--Access to primary grocery and shopping areas
--Access to public transportation
--Proximity to churches
--Access to parks and recreational facilities

Appropriate Densities

Density, or the number of units placed on a given site, is significantly related to affordable housing. In general, lower density is associated with more expensive housing; higher density is associated with less expensive housing. Projects with high densities increase the use of public facilities and increase traffic flow. Since affordable housing is developed at higher densities, critical ameliorating design factors include layout, landscaping and use of open space. Good design of these three items often lowers project costs, since the local community may require the sponsor to provide capital or operating funds to mitigate the effects of high density housing. The local community may also require that the sponsor undertake special activities such as providing recreational programs, services or open space that is shared with the neighborhood.

Sketch 2a (Unavailable to View)

--Street public space
--Front yards semi–public space
--Porches transition between public and private space
--Rear yards private activity spaces

One issue related to density is the amount of open space in a development. Since affordable housing residents often have no alternative locations where they can find privacy, open space and recreation, the development must provide separate recreational space for younger children, older children, and adults. Good design of open space can promote a sense of community among residents by promoting inter–generational activities and providing "eyes on the street" for safer, defensible spaces.

Sketch 2b (Unavailable to view)

--Street public space
--Front yard semi–public space
--Entry court transitional space
--Rear yard private space
--Pedestrian ways semi–public spaces

Project densities should be determined by the size, makeup and needs of the designated residents. Larger families with children are generally well–served with single–family detached housing that have private yards (rear yards) and semi–public space (front yards) that are shared with the neighborhood. For families housed in townhouses, private space for each unit should be provided and semi–public spaces for clusters of units should be delineated, accessible and visible from each unit. Size and number of play spaces will depend on the ages and number of children to be served. If semi–public space is limited, public project or neighborhood play areas should be provided with supervision. Large families with children should not be located in vertical housing.

Project size is dependent on economics and the needs of the community. There are few absolute parameters for project size. Individual scattered–site housing projects and projects containing multi–hundreds of units have proven economic. Smaller projects fit more easily in neighborhoods, and the residents are assimilated more easily than those from large monolithic projects. Projects larger than 100 – 200 units require special attention to neighborhood assimilation, impacts on school systems, parks, transportation and community support programs. Larger projects which cannot be broken into smaller components in order to be made compatible with existing neighborhood scale and density should be discouraged.

Sketch 2c (Unavailable to view)

--Streets public spaces
--Front landscaping semi–public space
--Entry transitional space
--Landscaped parking semi–public
--Activity area semi–public space
--Balconies private space

Type of Site

Since proposed projects may be located on scattered sites or may utilize a single site, states need to consider site–type carefully. Many pros and cons exist for each type. For example, while single–site housing offers economies of scale (such as reduced transaction costs), scattered–site housing offers benefits also. A group of scattered sites may cost less than a single larger site, and may be easier to find. When integrating affordable housing into a community, scattered–site housing often lessens the impact on public services and facilities, saving local government funds.

In urban areas, the use of "infill development," (the development of affordable housing among existing buildings) can be used as an important tool for rebuilding and revitalizing neighborhoods: it helps stimulate other development, builds the confidence of neighbors, and encourages financial institutions to lend funds to rehabilitate adjacent properties. Using existing properties with established community infrastructure (including streets, sidewalks, sewer, water and other utilities ) is more efficient and cost effective for the community than extending new systems. For example, building housing in existing neighborhoods adjacent to businesses and commercial enterprises reduces the cost of private and public transportation. It also provides an opportunity to reinforce existing historical, cultural and social networks. Finally, it can stabilize the income, ethnicity, age and gender mix in a neighborhood.

Sketch 3 (Unavailable to view)

--Individual lot development
--Maintain street setbacks, building fronts, character
--Use compatible building materials, colors
--Preserve residential scale
--Connect to existing utilities, infrastructure
--Neighborhoods may be revitalized

When developing infill housing, special consideration must be given to the current neighborhood scale, landscaping, building materials, and housing styles, including roofs, windows and facades.

The decision of a state to establish site priorities for projects and to reinforce current land uses can be based on several factors: cultural, economic, or social. The efficient use of existing infrastructure, streets, utilities and public resources should be acknowledged in making projects affordable. Reductions in infrastructure costs and ongoing costs for infrastructure/public service maintenance and should be considered when evaluating in–fill projects. HOME staff should look at whether the proposed project adds value to the neighborhood, corrects blight, reduces neighborhood deterioration or otherwise helps stabilize the social, cultural and economic mix of the community served.

Sketch 4 (Unavailable to View)

--Transitional neighborhood
--Eradication of blight
--Stabilizes and strengthens communities
--Preserves scale, character of neighbors
--Maintains residential appearance
--Uses similar materials, colors, profiles

Building Design

Buildings should be good neighbors.
-Paul Thiry

Building design is the second area for which a state can develop broad design standards. This concept can be defined as "the way a building appears to its residents and neighbors." The first element of building design deals with site issues: how does the building appear on the site? Other issues addressed include construction materials, and the placement and development of the building so that it is sensitive to the climate.

Site

Good building design should address the entire building site as integral to the project design. The street face, sidewalk and street comprise the public ‘front door' to the project. Since visual access to the project precedes physical access, so when properly designed, it can make the project open and appealing. The landscape amenities should provide a transition to the front yard and support the defensible entry. The parking area and its relation to both the building and the street should form a semi–public transition space. A porch or canopied entry can provide visual access to the building and can create a transition into the building.

The placement of windows in units should provide "eyes on the street" for principal entrances, parking and play space to ensure the security of residents (both visitors in and around the project). Buildings and sites should be "zoned" to provide natural separations of external functions. Separate rooms, such as a "community room" should be provided for private activities, with no ambiguous unsupervised open space. Spaces and activities should be assigned as appropriate to the needs of the residents. Such space and activities might include an active playground for youths, a protected play area for smaller children, and gardens and patios for gatherings of adults. In this way, the yards and the landscaping become a "climatically responsive extension of living space."

The location of the building(s) on the site and the arrangement of the open space and landscaping should be configured to provide a ‘hierarchy' of spaces from public spaces (the street) to one's own private space. Such ‘transitional' spaces make going in and out from a housing unit easier and more comfortable. They also provide a variety of settings that are appropriate for casual encounters with others. In those areas a resident can choose a comfortable level of interaction with others: public spaces that are impersonal (with little interaction); project activity or neighborhood spaces (where the resident is acquainted with others and the comfort level is more relaxed); and transitional areas (where the resident can talk with close neighbors at the resident's own doorstep).

The site and landscape plans should provide spaces for a variety of casual encounters for the residents. Site design, using the placement of building(s), landscaping, gardens, hedges, walls or changes in the pavement can create and separate zones of quiet and active endeavors, such as quiet sitting spaces, gardening activity spaces, or active child or adult play spaces, sports or family spaces, all tailored to meet a variety of specific resident needs.

Sketch 5 (Unavailable to View)

--Building separates public from private space
--Landscaping separates activities
--Provide a variety of activity spaces
--Buildings made accessible to the handicapped
--Transitional entry spaces
--Supervision of play spaces

Appearance

The appearance of housing should honor the traditions of the surrounding buildings. Design can build on existing themes of: material, size, and scale; plants and trees; sun and shade; window treatments, framed entries, porches and doors; roof shape, slope, silhouette, eave lines and peaks. Those elements can be arranged, at little cost, to respect, continuity of design in a neighborhood.

Keeping projects in scale with other comparable housing structures can affect community acceptance of the units. For example, a high–rise project next to town houses (or three story walk–up units adjacent to single–family homes) can create enmity between the residents and the neighbors for the life of the project. The greater the diversity of building scale, types and sizes, the greater the potential for such discord, and the proportionally greater responsibility to address those issues early in the design process.

The overall appearance of the project and the evaluation of design quality is subjective, so prescriptive design criteria is difficult to provide. The building should be composed of elements that are compatible with neighboring housing. Materials, scale and appearance should reflect the aspirations of the intended residents. Neighborhood input should guide the design. HOME staff should therefore look to the quality of neighborhood input. The building should not give the appearance of a warehouse or institution. The building, its residential character, its materials, and its shape will be permanent neighbors. The long–term quality of living for the project will substantially affect its residents and its neighbors for generations to come.

Obvious cost–cutting such as eliminating corners, balconies, porches and landscaping are shortcuts that demean the quality of life of the residents. Such measures are likely to produce projects that do no credit to the neighborhood, or HOME, and are likely to seriously undermine the program's long–term successes.


Sketch 6 (Unavailable to View)

--Building height, roof shapes complimentary
--Exterior materials, walls, roofs similar in color
--Window, door shapes and treatments compatible
--Landscaping as a unifier
--Porches reduce scale, provide transition space
--Rhythm of houses, porches enliven, humanize street

Accessibility

Accessibility increases the marketability and desirability of a project. This notion includes providing some accessible units (as established by federal requirements); it also includes consideration of specific accessibility issues for potential residents with special needs. Building designs for persons with special needs should reflect the range of existing (and expected) disabilities in the population; it should consider not only design elements within units, but elements related to the outside of units as well. For example, housing that is wheelchair–accessible requires that the full route from designated parking to designated units be accessible.

Adaptive designs (rather than fixed ones) allow greater flexibility in marketing and in tailoring units to specific disabled needs. The flexibility provided by adaptive design is a cost–effective approach: it gives residents greater choice in unit selection and gives managers greater flexibility in placing disabled persons in their projects.
Projects using public funds should be broadly accessible by the public. About ten percent of the population has some significant disability, most of which do not require wheelchairs. That ratio varies significantly among different populations. Project designs should be responsive to the forms of disability that their populations have. Projects serving the elderly (particularly the frail elderly) should provide general wheelchair accessibility, support systems for the hearing and sight impaired, and other needs when specifically identified. For other groups, a program of adaptive design provides greater market flexibility for the units, since specific adaptations can be tailored to an individual's specific needs.

Each project should provide a plan for meeting the accessibility needs of the population they intend to serve. HOME staff should evaluate that the proposed system for meeting those needs will meet the needs of project residents over the life of the building.

Construction Materials

Developers should use building systems and materials that will stand for the life of the property, with minimum maintenance and low operating costs. Heating and electrical systems should be selected based on a life–cycle cost analysis for the project and the resident population. The long–term savings that result from the selection of low–maintenance
materials and durable finishes come from two sources: lower maintenance and operating costs and greater satisfaction of residents. Both sources translate into more stable occupancy. Funding agencies should be responsive to these life–cycle costs; project underwriting should take into consideration the long–term cost savings that result from more durable materials and finishes.

Building systems and materials should be selected that will function within normal standards of maintenance throughout the life of the building. The durability of materials should reflect the kind of use the buildings will likely have. Families with many children are harder on buildings and finishes than the elderly are. The selection interior and exterior materials should reflect that use.

Narrowly engineered building systems (engineered to the limits of materials performance) may not handle the level of demand and the occasional abuse of families with few alternative outlets for personal stress. Mechanical and electrical systems should be selected that have low operation and maintenance costs. Structural systems should stand up to the use they are being called to handle.

HOME staff should be aware of the tradeoffs that developers make to ensure that projects are initially feasible. Staff should seek assurances that long–term compromises do not affect project durability, maintenance and operational viability.

Climate–Protected

Buildings should be responsive to more than minimum insulation standards: they should reflect the best design practice in using natural energy forces to reduce energy requirements. Buildings should be weatherized, with tight construction, quality materials, proper wall and ceiling insulation, double windows (or triple, depending on the climate of the site) with thermal–break frames, storm doors, and have all cracks and joints between materials weather–protected. In addition, buildings should use landscaping to mitigate the effects of the weather. Understanding the forces, mass, inertia, energy, the movement of the sun, overhangs and the seasonal microclimate surrounding the building is important for proper insulation.

The cost of energy may be expected to increase faster than other items in the economy. Energy–saving decisions are thus important, since they can make units more affordable throughout their useful life. Such projects then have the additional benefit of providing more comfortable (more even heat distribution) and healthier (with fewer drafts) housing for their residents. Such factors make projects better, more marketable and economically viable. States should require that projects be designed consistent with the Model Energy Code, Cost–Effective Energy Conservation Standards, and that existing buildings be designed and put in place after an energy audit has been performed.

Projects should be designed to: minimize north windows, maximize south windows (with properly sized and positioned overhangs to block summer sun while allowing winter sun in); use landscaping of evergreen trees to moderate winter winds; incorporate deciduous trees to shade the summer sun and bushes and plantings to steer and cool summer breezes. Such passive and low–cost design features can reduce both heating and cooling costs and increase year–round liveability of the units.

Sketch 7 (Unavailable to View)

--Life–cycle costs shape window, insulation decisions
--Passive solar – low cost considerations
--South window orientation allows natural heat gain
--Landscape selection moderates sun/wind
--Sun orientation provides natural light, ventilation
--Summer/winter window protection

Unit Design

Architecture begins when you place two bricks carefully together.
--Mies van der Rohe

Unit design is the third area for which a state can develop broad design standards. This concept relates to building design in that each of the individual units are located within an overall building. Each unit should be treated separately, however, since individual unit configuration and amenities are important considerations for long–term tenant use and preference.


Sketch 8 (Unavailable to View)

--Household composition varies
--Family size includes individuals
--Needs of households vary
--Use designs that are responsive to changing needs
--Age, relationships affect housing design
--Different households function differently

Size Units to Serve Resident Needs

Unit design should reflect the specific needs of the population to be served. Housing needs are different for traditional nuclear families (head of house works, spouse stays home, children go to school) than for single–parent families (single parent, children leave house at same time), extended family (parents, children, and grandparents, aunts, cousins) or even the new nuclear family (both parents working, children). A two–parent working family may require more baths than traditional nuclear family (all must wake, bathe, eat prepare for work and school at same the time). The specific needs of households to be served must be surveyed and addressed. Such needs include the number of bedrooms, size of bedrooms, number and arrangement of baths, space for kitchen, dining and living. Space for personal privacy (bedrooms), quiet (studying) and active (social, TV, games) needs to be provided.

Housing units should be efficiently designed specifically for the families to be housed. Single–parent families have different space and arrangement needs than standard nuclear families, or the elderly. Those needs should be documented, and verified through community meetings or resident focus group meetings. Resident input of needs should be documented and the design should be responsive to them. Housing unit layouts should provide for individual and private personal space, service space, storage, kitchen, dining and living space. Exterior spaces should be accessible and useable to expand interior living spaces.

Unit sizes and layouts should reflect the size and functional needs of family units served. Overcrowding should be avoided, and is a function of both the number of persons housed, their relation to each other, their size, age and cultural background. The use and size of furniture may affect the unit design, so it should be shown on all unit plan layouts.

Sketch 9 (Unavailable to View)

--Unit plans require flexibility
--Families have different needs, use spaces differently
--Allow for easy access to windows, around furniture
--Living space provides for conversational groupings
--Know how people use spaces
--Allow for choices in furnishing arrangements

Layout, Amenities

The layout of each living unit should be responsive to the kinds of space required by residents. Space for daily living activities should be anticipated. Focus groups(of users) or resident surveys should be a part of the planning for any project. Bedrooms should be sized to allow for convenient use of furnishings, and sized and arranged so that residents can have a choice of furniture arrangements. Livingrooms and diningrooms should be sized and arranged so the family can dine together. Privacy and quiet areas should be provided so family members may study, read or engage in personal growth activities away from siblings and parents. If extended family or alternative family arrangements are to be accommodated, special arrangements need to be provided. Exterior space should be planned as a direct extension of the interior space; it should be visible from inside the living unit.

Sketch 10 (Unavailable to View)

--Zoning of site provides for variety of spaces
--Public semi–public private progression
--Transition between exterior and interior space
--Provide buffer between separate active spaces
--Supervision of active spaces enhances safety
--Building provides visual, sound buffer

Unit views are important. For example, windows overlooking play space and entries enhance security, create a ‘sense of place,' strengthen neighborliness and help build a sense of community. The layout should be ‘zoned,' allowing quiet spaces next to each other (including unit to unit) in apartments or townhouses –– with living rooms backed to living rooms and bed rooms backed against adjacent bedrooms. Within units, the activities should be separated so that private living (bedrooms) are separated from public living (living, dining). Exterior doors, entries should pass through porch (exterior transition) to hallway/vestibule (interior transition) before entering private public living. Bath, kitchen, other mechanical and utility spaces act as barriers to separate dissimilar activities. Yards and balconies should be planned for use as outdoor liveable space, with views that visually expand the interior space.

The structure should be used as sound barrier between dissimilar spaces (in multistory units, bedroom over bedroom or livingroom, never livingroom over bedroom). In apartments, public areas (dining areas, meeting rooms, and offices) should be physically separated from living units so that public/shared activities do not disturb the privacy of individual living units. Units should be grouped so that the public activity rooms of one unit are backed against those of the adjacent unit (and bedrooms backed against bedrooms). Such grouping can eliminate the need for additional soundproofing between units.

The unit size, arrangement and organization of spaces should respect a hierarchy of spatial needs, functionally and personally. It should provide a clear delineation of; public space, shared family space and personal private spaces. Active living zones with family–shared activities, such as cooking, dining and living should be sound–separated to protect the quiet and privacy of bedrooms. Bathrooms, closets and storage make effective barriers to the noise of public corridors. Exterior spaces can be used to expand interior spaces effectively and at minimum cost.

The layout of units, clusters of units, landscaped space and the inclusion of amenities will affect the marketability and long term success of the project. The HOME administrator should require information from applicants on the comparability of the project to other housing units competing in the marketplace. Assurance of comparability with resident's other housing choices will be important to the project's success.

Sketch 11 (Unavailable to View)

--Zoning of interior spaces enhances privacy
--Public/halls buffered by utility spaces
--Quiet bedrooms adjacent to bedrooms
--Active living/dining next to living/dining
--Balconies expand living space

Sources of Information for State Design Standards

All states must prepare a Consolidated Plan governing the use of HOME, CDBG, ESG, and HOPWA. The information in those plans regarding both housing needs and the strategies set by the state to address those needs may provide valuable insights for state design standards (whether at highly specific or broader policy levels). For example, high levels of rural need may suggest that the state develop clear and specific standards for rural housing project design. Similarly, the presence of extensive distressed urban areas in the state may encourage the state to develop design standards that incorporate the use of infill for any urban projects.

A second source of existing information is housing developments completed under the HOME program. States are already collecting extensive information on these developments as part of long–term federal monitoring requirements. Site visits to projects with both high and low lease rates may provide insights into good design. Scheduled interviews with tenants regarding the quality of the development in specific areas also may provide valuable information.


Determining a State Approach

As noted earlier, states can take two main approaches to increase their emphasis on design in HOME–funded rental housing. Under the direct approach, the state develops broad design standards and then revises the scoring system for affordable housing projects to emphasize project design.

The second, less direct approach, is for a state to encourage local design processes as part of HOME application requirements. States could award bonus points to projects that met design–related public participation requirements. To initiate such processes, the state might provide additional points for applications that include with project blueprints a description of how the housing design was created. Such descriptions should answer questions such as: what considerations had an impact? How will the design further the value of the housing as a long–term addition to the community? The point of such questions is not to increase the burden on applicants, but to encourage some up–front consideration of the physical impact of the proposed development on the community and the efforts that will be taken to ensure that the impact is positive.

Note that these two approaches can reinforce one another. For example, a state may begin by encouraging more interactive processes at the local level. The types of resulting projects and the discussion generated can provide valuable information for state design standards.

Chapter 3. Evaluating Design Documents

This chapter provides an overview of how state staff can technically evaluate design documents (no matter whether a state has established a state design process) to ensure project documentation is complete and accurate. At the point of application and fund commitment, state staff must review documents in following areas: building design; site development; and unit design. The section opens by noting the questions state staff should ask when first opening a housing design document: Is the documentation tailored to the project? Is it complete and valid? Finally, the elements of the housing design document that state staff should examine are reviewed. The assessment of whether the documentation reflects the standards developed by the state is not touched on in this chapter.

This chapter does not present a comprehensive guide to staff in the review and assessment of housing design documentation. Instead, it acts as an introductory primer. To ensure effective state staff review of projects, states will need to invest time and funding into training for state staff.

Pre–application Review of Design

The initial review process includes getting to know applicants and assessing a verbal proposal. The applicant's information should be tentative at this point, but should test the viability of a project for potential funding. The important issues and documents are likely to be verbal (rather than graphic). Initial review information should include:

• A clear description of what the applicant intends to do
• A verbal program description
• A location and site development plan
• Project idea and building design plans
• Unit design plans
• Evidence of zoning and compatibility with Consolidated Plan
• Project costs, with a simple account of projected sources and uses of funds
• Initial feasibility analysis, including a one–year proforma
• The portion of the cost requested from HOME and other public sources
• Evidence of site control

The more thorough the information, the more complete the review. The state's interest is to understand clearly the intent of the applicant's program. If the project does not match the state's goals for the program, state staff should clearly inform the applicant. The applicant must then either opt out or make the necessary modifications. The review should help assure that when the project sponsor submits the application, a match exists between the stated program and the details of the project concept plans.

Design Documents: Application

At the time of application, the applicant should show a clear purpose and need for the project; they should then outline the overall development process. The applicant may not have firm commitments from any funding agencies and the community may not have given final approvals for the land purchase, zoning changes, or building approvals. In architectural terms, building design documentation should have reached the "schematic design" phase. This phase occurs when: the basic design decisions have been made; the applicant has set program requirements, building size, project scale and building plans; and the unit plan layout has been determined.

Site Development

Design documents should include a Site Plan. This should be drawn at a minimum scale of 1"=40' and should show: adjacent buildings and land use; circulation (both vehicular and pedestrian); and recreation (play areas, use of open space). The drawings should show landscaping (trees, shrubs and garden or planting areas) with defined activity areas labeled.

Building Design

The overall building design should be presented on drawings in enough detail to define the project's size scale and appearance clearly. Staff review of the design document provides insights concerning the overall appearance of the building. Such review also gives an indication the quality of construction, building systems (mechanical and electrical), materials, and room finishes (both internal and external). HOME staff can obtain some information on the quality of the building materials and systems from the design document, but they should also examine project specifications to provide detailed information. Staff should give particular attention to the following:

Exterior Space Layout should be drawn at a minimum scale of 1/8"= 1'. The layout should show entrances; public access; defined public, semi–public and private exterior spaces; general window and door locations; and the overall organization of units.

Building Elevations should also be drawn to a minimum scale of 1/8"=1". This item should show building facades; scale; proportion of building mass; and the building silhouette (including roof pitch).

Building Sections, drawn to a minimum scale of 1/8" = 1', should show the techniques and materials intended for the construction of the foundation, floors, walls, windows and roof systems.

Unit Design

Applicants should provide unit plans with drawings containing a typical furniture layout. These should be drawn to a minimum scale of 1/8"=1'–0" and should show the layout of a typical unit by bedroom size. Review of these plans will be largely for aesthetics questions such as: does the layout of the unit appear attractive? Is it appropriate for the prospective tenants?

Design Documents: Fund Commitment

At the time of fund commitment, project design should be well established. At this point, community participation should be nearly complete. The project design should also be specific and detailed. At this point, some funding agencies will require enough detail to begin their underwriting of the project. For this, they will need reliable estimates of capital, operating and maintenance costs. The documentation will need to be at the "design development" phase in architectural terms. Those documents will require greater detail of previously presented material and some new materials. Only the new materials required are identified next.

Site Development

At this stage, the site plan should be more detailed, drawn at a minimum scale of 1"=20'. This should now also show primary landscaping and parks and sidewalks.

Building Design

Building Elevations can be drawn at the same scale but at this point should include windows and doors, and any window or door treatment (trim, awnings, shutters, projections) that may be planned for the project.

Specifications are detailed descriptions of the materials to be used for construction. The application should include detailed building specifications, which describe the quality of each building material or component to be incorporated in the project. Applicants should use the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format for the order and form of their materials descriptions.

Unit Design

Unit Plans should be drawn at a more detailed scale of 1/4"=1' and should now also show door swings, window locations and typical furniture layouts.

Important Issues in Design Review

One issue state staff need to consider is how much complexity they require for design documents at the time of application. Requirements for a high level of detail and completion in design requirements will be more expensive for applicants, making it infeasible for some smaller nonprofits to apply for HOME funds. Conversely, the state needs some level of information on proposed design at this time to ensure comprehensive review. Requiring simple design sketches and narratives at the first point of application may be most effective, if the state then requires more complex information as a project moves through the approval process.

Another important issue is staff training. For state staff to read, assess, and evaluate design documents, states must commit to staff training. Depending on the other trained staff available to review applications (some state agencies have staff architects) staff responsible for reviewing HOME applications may need more or less intensive training.

State staff may obtain other training and architectural design advice through their state society or local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Most AIA chapters have a housing committee and can provide a list of members with specific expertise in the development and construction of affordable housing.

Chapter 4. Making a Commitment

The preceding two chapters looked at design both from a broad policy perspective and a more specific technical standpoint. One clear implication from the preceding chapters is that better affordable housing design will increase cost, both at the state staffing and project levels. Another clear implication is that greater state involvement in the housing design process will require a commitment from the state. Such a commitment should involve public participation, whether under through the Consolidated Planning process or through another mechanism. This section briefly examines costs versus benefits in design, then examines issues around a broader public debate on housing design.

Balancing the Costs and Benefits of Design

Often, improved design will increase project costs. State agencies may see some increase in staff costs due to increased training and application review time. From a long–term perspective, however, good housing design may help save money in a few different ways, many of which can be quantified on a project basis. For example, clear cost–benefit tradeoffs exist in the selection of building systems and materials that can be made an integral part of the design process. Simply stated, well–designed buildings are likely to have lower vacancy rates and will be easier to maintain. Over time, a better–designed portfolio is likely to be a strong one, which translates to fewer financial problems throughout the terms of affordability.

The financing of affordable housing projects comes from multiple sources. Each source has its own set of criteria for participating in the project. Well–designed projects provide multiple reasons for financing agencies to participate. The image of financial institutions can be enhanced through the support of well–conceived and executed projects. Housing that attracts residents is more stable and is a better risk.

Well–designed projects will attract mortgage lenders to neighborhoods for additional lending opportunities if those neighborhoods are stable and healthy. Projects that stabilize neighborhoods increase their business; such projects also strengthen the security of their other loans. Residents that pay affordable rents have more disposable income to support other neighborhood businesses, furthering the community's economic well–being.

Setting a State Affordable Housing Design Agenda

States interested in a greater focus on design in HOME–funded housing may find that public meetings are an effective way to initiate discussion. States can hold these meetings in the following ways: (1) as part of the Consolidated Plan development process; (2) as a session in HOME application; or (3) or as standalone sessions. Potential participants include nonprofit and for–profit developers, local housing authorities, local government staff, affordable housing residents, mortgage bankers, architects, and construction managers. Other participants might include economic development agencies, chambers of commerce, historic preservation officers and city planners. Many participants might be those who had been involved in the development of the Consolidated Plan. While each state should design its own agenda, meetings will be more effective if the state clarifies the following issues.

Session Goals

The meeting goal determines the level and nature of participation, and helps ensure results. A well–defined goal will clarify for the parameters of the debate –– what is and isn't on the table –– which in turn keeps participants from thinking that their contributions were not accepted or that their input was being solicited but not used. Session goals can be to collect ideas on the general issue of a broader state role in design, or can be to gain feedback on a proposed state approach to affordable housing design.

Participants

The state HOME administering agency needs to think carefully about which staff should be involved in the discussion. Involvement by high–level state decision makers within the public debate will send messages as to the state's commitment. Involvement of line staff may send messages regarding the state's concern that the resulting process will be used within the State HOME program. Representatives of design professionals also should be involved in these meetings, as should residents and housing developers.

Conclusion

In the next few years, federal funding for affordable housing will very likely become increasingly scarce. State governments must take the lead in identifying resources for, ensuring public support around, and structuring dynamic programs for affordable housing development. Failure to take on this role with vision and energy will have an impact on economic development and self–sufficiency. In short, well–designed affordable housing can act as the bedrock of other economic initiatives by the state; the quality and availability of such housing may have direct impacts on the state's overall economic health.

In that type of environment, design becomes more critical for three reasons. First, states will have increasing control over resources, and the appearance of affordable housing may be seen as a visible reflection of the quality of state management. Second, as the federal role decreases, states will find themselves working to house some of its residents who are the most difficult to serve. Housing that is attractive and high quality can help alleviate community concerns about housing assistance for very poor people or for people with special housing needs. Finally, states need to continue and expand their role in affordable housing development. Their withdrawal from this area will have serious impacts on strategies to alleviate poverty. Given the importance of this involvement, states must carefully decide whether they can afford not to give serious consideration to community–oriented design in HOME–funded housing.

ABOUT COSCDA

Vision

COSCDA is the premier national association advocating and enhancing the leadership role of states in holistic community development through innovative policy development and implementation, customer-driven technical assistance, education and collaborative efforts.

Mission

• Advocate for the common development goals of the states.
• Develop policies and recommendations on community development issues.
• Keep members informed about federal and state administrative and legislative developments that affect members.
• Enhance the capacity of states to deal effectively and comprehensively with community development issues.
• Ensure the availability of community development expertise to members.
• Encourage and assist states in the development and implementation of effective community development programs.
• Facilitate the exchange of information about programs and achievements among states and act as a clearinghouse for community development organizations.

Back to Publications Home Page
Back to COSCDA Home Page