Jackson, Wyoming is one of my favorite places on the planet. (Here is a ski/snowboard video that my friends and I made a few years ago in Jackson.)
Earlier this year, Eagle Point Hotel Partners and the Brooklyn-based design firm Studio Tack completed a renovation of the Anvil Motel in Jackson – it’s now the 49-room Anvil Hotel.
Apparently reclaimed motels are the new hospitality trend.
What I appreciate about their approach, is the emphasis on creating something that feels local and contextual. Here are a couple of snippets from Surface Magazine:
The designers wanted to avoid a rustic feel, or what Ruben Caldwell, one of Studio Tack’s four partners and an avid backcountry skier, calls “Mountain Modern,” referring to architecture, common in places like Vail, Colorado, and Lake Tahoe, California, that excessively uses reclaimed wood and Cor-Ten steel. “We knew we didn’t want to steer anywhere near that,” says Chou, a long-time snowboarder who more recently got into skiing. “It takes a bit of familiarity with ski towns to know what you don’t want to do.”
The vibrancy of Jackson’s local culture impressed the design team—and Caldwell so much so that he moved there full-time last year. “As a design team,” Caldwell says, “we’re hyper-aware of the need for projects to be deeply embedded into the local scene.”
It’s easier to copy and paste. But the results are always better when you take a bit of time to understand a place.
Image: Anvil Hotel
Oftentimes when I visit a city I like to ask myself: Which neighborhood would I want to live in if I were to move here?
Today I spent much of the afternoon hanging around Venice. After we got there, I told my friend that if I moved to LA, I would probably want to live there. I told him that, relative to the rest of the city, I liked the compressed scale of the neighborhood. There are many pedestrian-only lanes and streets beyond the boardwalk. And I told him that I thought it was interesting how the neighborhood seems to combine both bohemians and yuppies (though many people seem to hate the yuppy part).
But I’m obviously not alone in my thinking. My friend quickly informed me that Venice is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in LA and that it’s been adding essentially no new housing supply. Here’s an excerpt from an LA Weekly article published at the beginning of this year:
Anti-development activists like to argue that development fuels gentrification, that the construction of new, high-end apartment buildings makes the whole neighborhood more expensive.
But the case of Venice is a counterpoint. For the last 50 years, Venice has successfully fought developers to a stalemate. The housing supply stayed constant, while demand grew. As a result, the value of property in Venice has soared.
In 1996, according to data provided by Zillow, the average home value in Venice was $251,000 — more expensive than Silver Lake and Encino but cheaper than Westwood, Studio City, Mid-Wilshire and Los Feliz. Today, Venice’s average home value is nearly $1.6 million, more expensive than all of those neighborhoods — more expensive, in fact, than its historically tony neighbor to the north, the city of Santa Monica, which, according to Alvarez’s research, added more than 10,000 dwelling units between 1960 and 2010.
Perhaps I should give this some more thought.
Jackson, Wyoming is one of my favorite places on the planet. (Here is a ski/snowboard video that my friends and I made a few years ago in Jackson.)
Earlier this year, Eagle Point Hotel Partners and the Brooklyn-based design firm Studio Tack completed a renovation of the Anvil Motel in Jackson – it’s now the 49-room Anvil Hotel.
Apparently reclaimed motels are the new hospitality trend.
What I appreciate about their approach, is the emphasis on creating something that feels local and contextual. Here are a couple of snippets from Surface Magazine:
The designers wanted to avoid a rustic feel, or what Ruben Caldwell, one of Studio Tack’s four partners and an avid backcountry skier, calls “Mountain Modern,” referring to architecture, common in places like Vail, Colorado, and Lake Tahoe, California, that excessively uses reclaimed wood and Cor-Ten steel. “We knew we didn’t want to steer anywhere near that,” says Chou, a long-time snowboarder who more recently got into skiing. “It takes a bit of familiarity with ski towns to know what you don’t want to do.”
The vibrancy of Jackson’s local culture impressed the design team—and Caldwell so much so that he moved there full-time last year. “As a design team,” Caldwell says, “we’re hyper-aware of the need for projects to be deeply embedded into the local scene.”
It’s easier to copy and paste. But the results are always better when you take a bit of time to understand a place.
Image: Anvil Hotel
Oftentimes when I visit a city I like to ask myself: Which neighborhood would I want to live in if I were to move here?
Today I spent much of the afternoon hanging around Venice. After we got there, I told my friend that if I moved to LA, I would probably want to live there. I told him that, relative to the rest of the city, I liked the compressed scale of the neighborhood. There are many pedestrian-only lanes and streets beyond the boardwalk. And I told him that I thought it was interesting how the neighborhood seems to combine both bohemians and yuppies (though many people seem to hate the yuppy part).
But I’m obviously not alone in my thinking. My friend quickly informed me that Venice is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in LA and that it’s been adding essentially no new housing supply. Here’s an excerpt from an LA Weekly article published at the beginning of this year:
Anti-development activists like to argue that development fuels gentrification, that the construction of new, high-end apartment buildings makes the whole neighborhood more expensive.
But the case of Venice is a counterpoint. For the last 50 years, Venice has successfully fought developers to a stalemate. The housing supply stayed constant, while demand grew. As a result, the value of property in Venice has soared.
In 1996, according to data provided by Zillow, the average home value in Venice was $251,000 — more expensive than Silver Lake and Encino but cheaper than Westwood, Studio City, Mid-Wilshire and Los Feliz. Today, Venice’s average home value is nearly $1.6 million, more expensive than all of those neighborhoods — more expensive, in fact, than its historically tony neighbor to the north, the city of Santa Monica, which, according to Alvarez’s research, added more than 10,000 dwelling units between 1960 and 2010.
Perhaps I should give this some more thought.
The Supreme Court of the United States may soon consider whether inclusionary zoning is in fact unconstitutional.
A pending petition by the developer of an 11-unit condominium project in the City of West Hollywood is asking whether a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” – which is being imposed as a mandatory approval condition – is “subject to scrutiny under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine” set out in previous cases.
The petition is supported by a collection of researchers and academics from Yale University, George Mason University, as well as many other institutions.
More specifically, the question asks whether a “mandated permit condition” satisfies the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests established by the following decisions: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
To put it crudely, the nexus and proportionality tests essentially state that for an exaction to be constitutional, there needs to be a reasonable relationship between the ask and the adverse public impacts that can be directly attributable to the project in question.
Here is an excerpt from the petition:
Together, the nexus and proportionality tests hold that the government cannot condition approval of a land-use permit on a requirement that the owner dedicate private property to the public, unless the government can show that the dedication is necessary to mitigate adverse public impacts caused by the proposed development.
In the case of 616 Croft Avenue, the argument is that this 11-unit condo project is not directly responsible for the lack of affordable housing in the city. In other words, the need for affordable housing exists independently of this project. So it fails the test.
Another excerpt:
Accordingly, the City provided no evidence of nexus and proportionality, admitting on the record that the in-lieu fee was not “intended to mitigate impacts caused by development.” Instead, the City explained that the fee was designed to meet “needs for affordable housing that exist independently of the Applicants’ residential development project.
The petition also gets into the fact that, irrespective of this test, inclusionary zoning has not necessarily been shown to have a meaningful impact on affordable housing supply. And it may actually increase housing prices because of a reduction in overall supply and because the cost burden typically gets shifted over to the market rate units. More reading here.
What do you think of this argument? It will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.
The Supreme Court of the United States may soon consider whether inclusionary zoning is in fact unconstitutional.
A pending petition by the developer of an 11-unit condominium project in the City of West Hollywood is asking whether a $540,393.28 “affordable housing fee” – which is being imposed as a mandatory approval condition – is “subject to scrutiny under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine” set out in previous cases.
The petition is supported by a collection of researchers and academics from Yale University, George Mason University, as well as many other institutions.
More specifically, the question asks whether a “mandated permit condition” satisfies the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests established by the following decisions: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
To put it crudely, the nexus and proportionality tests essentially state that for an exaction to be constitutional, there needs to be a reasonable relationship between the ask and the adverse public impacts that can be directly attributable to the project in question.
Here is an excerpt from the petition:
Together, the nexus and proportionality tests hold that the government cannot condition approval of a land-use permit on a requirement that the owner dedicate private property to the public, unless the government can show that the dedication is necessary to mitigate adverse public impacts caused by the proposed development.
In the case of 616 Croft Avenue, the argument is that this 11-unit condo project is not directly responsible for the lack of affordable housing in the city. In other words, the need for affordable housing exists independently of this project. So it fails the test.
Another excerpt:
Accordingly, the City provided no evidence of nexus and proportionality, admitting on the record that the in-lieu fee was not “intended to mitigate impacts caused by development.” Instead, the City explained that the fee was designed to meet “needs for affordable housing that exist independently of the Applicants’ residential development project.
The petition also gets into the fact that, irrespective of this test, inclusionary zoning has not necessarily been shown to have a meaningful impact on affordable housing supply. And it may actually increase housing prices because of a reduction in overall supply and because the cost burden typically gets shifted over to the market rate units. More reading here.
What do you think of this argument? It will be very interesting to see how this one plays out.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
