Eugene zoning laws sacrifice livability.

Byline: Paul Conte, Esther Foss and Matt Purvis For The Register-Guard

Eugene cherishes livability, but our zoning promotes blight.

Eugene hates sprawl, but we're unwittingly pushing people away from the urban core by our indiscriminate approach to density.

Trusting too much in catch-phrases such as `higher density reduces sprawl' rather than embracing a pragmatic sense of how housing markets really work, Eugene may have done more harm than good over the past 20 years, allowing deterioration of core neighborhoods and stimulating population flight to the fringes.

For two decades now, we've ratcheted up the density allowed in many established, close-in neighborhoods so that three, four and even more rental units can be added on modest-sized lots.

Imagine a longtime resident family's surprise when a looming duplex or triplex arises next to what had previously been their relatively private and quiet backyard. These `infill' structures can be 35 feet high or higher and can extend across the entire lot, except for five feet of setback on each side. With the additional units come mandatory on-site parking, meaning that a significant portion of the lot usually gets paved.

Take a walk through Eugene's west side, where we live, to see this blight taking hold - overbuilt, badly designed and poorly sited duplexes and triplexes jammed in the backyards and alleys of what had been for decades a healthy, stable, compact neighborhood.

Take a walk on the wild side, the West University neighborhood, to see the end result.

Cute `granny cottages' are a common image of infill, but what's actually being built is typically poorly designed, cheaply constructed, and sited so there's no longer adequate open space to support the large trees and extensive `greenscape' that are characteristic of mature neighbor- hoods.

While thoughtless infill degrades older, core neighborhoods, development burgeons near the urban growth boundary and in satellite communities. Not surprisingly, low-grade infill doesn't appeal to economically mobile families, so such development doesn't lessen the pressure for Eugene to grow outward. And each time another looming multiplex arises in an established neighborhood, more families leave to regain in some other area the attractive environment that infill has destroyed. Some of these families end up resettling farther away from the city's core.

The problems caused by inappropriate infill don't arise from lack of sensible land use policies. Woven throughout the governing Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan and local refinement plans are policies to protect established neighborhoods while encouraging higher overall density. These policies reflect Eugene residents' often-stated desire to slow urban sprawl while fostering livability in the neighborhoods they call home.

Where we've gone astray is by treating neighborhood protection and higher density as conflicting goals, rather than recognizing that policies to protect established neighborhoods should guide land use decisions so that increased density is done sensibly and has a better chance of accomplishing the real objective, which is to slow residential development at or beyond the city's edges.

Simply trying to dictate higher density will fail in the face of market-driven realities. Instead, for Eugene to achieve the overall objective of compact growth, people must perceive value in living closer to the city center. People must want to live there; no one can force them to live there.

To attract investors, owners and tenants to higher-density residential development in the urban core, we need to see our charming, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods as essential assets, not to be squandered. Two simple and immediate changes in zoning regulations are necessary to protect these assets: Limit the number and size of dwellings based on each lot's size so infill is compatible with the established character of the neighborhood.

In conjunction with these protections, we should create incentives that target new apartments, townhouses and other higher-density projects to specific, appropriate sites within or adjacent to established neighborhoods so new housing provides the attraction of a safe, walkable neighborhood with a verdant natural environment, including a canopy of mature trees.

Well-designed, higher-density developments sited this way can offer an attractive alternative to families who would otherwise look farther out, truly lessening the pressure for sprawl. Such projects can add many more dwelling units to the core urban area than piecemeal injection of duplexes and triplexes into neighborhood backyards.

Thoughtful, appropriately sited medium- and high-density developments also can help stabilize established neighborhoods, especially when sited along neighborhood boundaries where residential streets make a transition into commercial areas. Well-designed, stabilizing developments can serve a variety of income levels, too, as demonstrated by the low-income Aurora apartments downtown.

Preventing the decline of established neighborhoods and promoting high-quality, multifamily residential development on appropriate sites is especially important for the areas the city of Eugene hopes to develop as `mixed-use centers' (MUCs), such as the potential Chambers MUC in our area. Planners have dreams that MUCs will evolve into bustling, pedestrian-friendly mixes of fairly dense housing and neighborhood businesses.

But the envisioned neighborhood businesses will spring up only when there's a sufficient nearby population to buy the businesses' goods and services. In many of the contemplated MUC areas, developers will have to build new medium- to high-density apartments, condos or townhouses. Otherwise, the existing neighborhood population - even with piecemeal, backyard infill - won't be enough to support new business.

And this leads again to the importance of protecting established neighborhoods. If the neighborhoods in and around an MUC are healthy and attractive, both developers and potential owners and tenants will be more willing to invest in them. In contrast, if a neighborhood is blighted or unstable, developers, owners and tenants will look for a more attractive environment elsewhere - in many cases, farther from the city core.

With major government subsidies unlikely, the market will ultimately determine how potential MUCs and other core urban areas develop. The crucial role of local government is to do all it can to foster conditions that improve the chances that such areas will be attractive markets for high-quality residential and commercial developments.

By nurturing our established core neighborhoods, we increase the chances that the heart of Eugene can thrive as a healthy social and natural ecosystem of medium- and high-density apartments; safe, walkable blocks of single-family houses; appropriately scaled infill; and a variety of dynamic local businesses, all under the canopy of a flourishing urban forest.

Protecting neighborhoods and increasing overall density are not conflicting goals that must be traded off in planning for mixed-use development and other elements of our growth management efforts. They are both essential elements for success.

So, as the slogan says: `Grow up, Eugene, so you don't grow out.' But let's grow up in our thinking about density, too. From now on, let's target the right locations and promote thoughtful designs so we achieve compact growth wisely.

Paul Conte is a software systems developer. Esther Foss is an architect. Matt Purvis is manager of U.S. Bank's Eugene main branch. All three are members of the steering committee for the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (www.cnrNeighbors.org); the viewpoints expressed here are endorsed by CAFHN.