User:Ennis Architect

As a current Rice Architecture student, my research focuses on solutions for a sustainable urbanism, community engagement, low-income housing and improved quality of life. Through this platform, I hope to share useful knowledge about these topics with a wider community to spread awareness of the critical conditions of contemporary urban environments and their future possibilities. I also want to share some of the tools/ methods that are being applied to transform and address the numerous challenges of global cities.

Topics to develop:

Accessory Dwelling Units in the United States

Secondary Suites or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) are small independent infrastructures located on a property with a separate main home. These units tend to be located above a garage or in the backyard of the property. Families in the United States have built these dwellings to increase their interior space or to bring extra income from renting the units. Accessory dwelling units have been categorized as informal housing in the United States for long and thus have been heavily regulated by property laws. However, in recent years there has been a growing national dialogue on the value of these structures as possible solutions for the affordable housing crisis that the country has been struggling with. Moreover, these compact units are getting attention for their ability to increase housing density and create a more sustainable future for the growing American cities. Their adaptability and efficient size make this units ideal for traditional neighborhoods that wish to preserve their character and built fabric, while increasing density and providing extra income for the homeowners. Making this type of dwellings widely available can also help decrease the social, income and racial segregation that has been present in the country.

With the benefits established, it also important to acknowledge the challenges of these dwelling types when it comes to users’ comfort and privacy, as well as the resistance from homeowners to implement these affordable units in their neighborhoods. Accessory dwelling units should not be considered as the final or only solution for affordable housing or the need for increased density, but their potential has been shown in some American cities already and its careful documentation is key for future implementation. ­­

I would like to create a new article that focuses specifically on accessory dwelling units in the United States. For this article, I would provide a short description of ADUs, as well as some background history on housing in the United States and the use of these dwelling units. Then I would provide information on their benefits and challenges, complemented by examples of projects that have already been executed in some American states/cities.

Some supporting references:

1. Desmond, Matthew (2016), “Evicted”, B/D/W/Y (book).

2. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2013), “The Price of Inequality”, W.W. Norton & Company (book).

3. Mieszkowksi Peter, Straszheim Mahlon, “Current Issues in Urban Economics” (1979), The Johns Hopkins University Press (book).

4. Laboy Michelle, Fannon David (2016), “Resilience Theory and Praxis: a Critical Framework for Architecture, Enquiry Volume 13, Issue I.

5. Openscope Studio (2015), “sf-ADU”, San Francisco Planning Department.

6. Dahl Per-Johan (2010), “The shadows of L.A.”, Critical Planning.

7. Cuff Dana, Higging Tim, Dahl Per-Johan (2010), “Backyard Homes LA”, City Lab, UCLA Architecture & Urban Design.

8. Cuff, Dana and Dahl, Per-Johan, “Rx for the R1: Sustaining the Neighborhood”, Page 24-33.

9. Citylab, UCLA (2017), “Building an ADU: Guidebook to accessory dwelling units in the city of Los Angeles”.

10. Brown, Martin John and Watkins, Taylor (2012), “Understanding and Appraising Properties with Accessory Dwelling Units”, The Appraisal Journal.

11. Antoninetti, Maurizio (2008), “The difficult history of Ancillary Units: The obstacles and potential opportunities to increase the heterogeneity of neighborhoods and the flexibility of households in the United States”, Journal of Housing for the Elderly, Vol. 22.

12. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research (2008), “Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study”, Sage Computing.

13. Coppage Jonathan (2017), “Accessory Dwelling Units: A Flexible Free-Market Housing Solution”, R Street.

14. California Department of Housing and Community Development (2016), “Accessory Dwelling Unit Memorandum”.

15. Mukhija Vinit, Cuff Dana and Serrano Kimberly (2014), “Backyard Homes & Local Concerns: How can local concerns be better addressed?”, UCLA, City Lab.

16. Liebig, Phoebe S, Teresa Koenig, and Jon Pynoos. “Zoning, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Family Caregiving: Issues, Trends, and Recommendations.” Journal of aging & social policy 18.3-4 (2006): 155–172.

17. Ramsey-Musolf, Darrel. “Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California’s Faustian Bargain.” Urban science 2.3 (2018): 89–.

18. Alyssa Davis. “The Tiny House Solution: Accessory Dwelling Units as a Housing Market Fix.” Kennedy School review 18 (2018): 145–152.

19. Beamish, Julia. “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.” The Encyclopedia of Housing 2012: 5–8.

20. Simafranca, Christian. “Decision Support System for Development of Current and Future Accessory Dwelling Units: A Bottom-up Approach to Affordable Housing.” ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017.

21. Margaret F. Brinig, and Nicole Stelle Garnett. “A Room of One’s Own? Accessory Dwelling Unit Reforms and Local Parochialism.” The Urban lawyer 45.3 (2013): 519–569.

22. John McManus. “Betting on ADUs.” Builder 42.8 (2019): 18–.

23. Robert Dietz. “Long-Term Changes Ahead.” Builder 43.6 (2020): 44–.

24. Galassini, Louisa Mae. “Hidden Density A Proposal for Single-Family Infill Housing.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2014.

25. Bennett, Alysia, Dana Cuff, and Gus Wendel. “Backyard Housing Boom: New Markets for Affordable Housing and the Role of Digital Technology.” Technology architecture + design 3.1 (2019): 76–88.

26. Wasserman, Jacob L. “Evaluating ADU/Homelessness Programs.” (2019).

Feminist Urbanism

Feminist urbanism is concerned with how the built environment impacts the lives of women, as well as the ways in which patriarchal systems have shaped and continue to shape architecture and urbanism. Both the theory and the social movement of feminist urbanism explain how society has excluded female participation in urban education, decision-making, and design, resulting in a built environment that does not meet the needs of women or negatively affect their daily lives. The female gender role, the freedoms, and opportunities of women have all been impacted by the way women have been physically, socially, and politically alienated, as well as depicted in written and visual materials. From the lack of shared public space, to the spacing and development of residential neighborhoods, and even the architectural distribution of homes, women have historically been pushed away from engaging in public activities and encouraged to continue their traditional gender roles as house keepers and mothers. For this article, I would like to expand on the theory concepts, provide more examples of how patriarchy affects the built environment, outline the ways in which this affects women and society at large, and finally provide a larger list of advocates, resources and projects that have been made to improve this situation.

Some supporting references:

1. Kern Leslie (2019), “Feminist City: A Field Guide”, (book).

2. Sánchez de Madariaga, Inés and Neuman Michael (2020), “Engendering Cities”, Routledge, (book).

3. Dunckel-Graglia, A. (2013), “Pink transportation in Mexico City: reclaiming urban space through collective action against gender-based violence”, Gender and Development, page 265-276.

4. Fenster, T (2005), “The right to the gendered city: different formations of belonging in everyday life”, Journal of Gender Studies, page 217-231.

5. Sandercock, L (1998), “Making the Invisible Visible: A multicultural planning history” (book).

6. Aureli Vittorio, Pier and Giudici Sheherazade, Maria (2016), “Familiar Horror: Toward a Critique of Domestic Space”.

7. Hayden, Dolores, “The Grand Domestic Revolution : a History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities”, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1981.

8. Hudson, Christine, and Malin Rönnblom, “Is an ‘other’ City Possible? Using Feminist Utopias in Creating a More Inclusive Vision of the Future City.”, Futures: the journal of policy, planning and futures studies 121 (2020): 102583–.

9. May, Louise W, “The Feminist Reconstruction of Space”, St. Norbert, Man: St. Norbert Arts and Cultural Centre, 2000.

10. Buckley, Michelle, and Kendra Strauss, “With, Against and Beyond Lefebvre: Planetary Urbanization and Epistemic Plurality”, Environment and planning. D, Society & space 34.4 (2016): 617–636.

11. Georgina Hickey, “Barred from the Barroom: Second Wave Feminists and Public Accommodations in U.S. Cities.” Feminist studies 34.3 (2008): 382–408.

12. “FEMINIST CITY: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World.” Kirkus Reviews 2020.

13. Tankel, Yardena. “Reframing ‘Safe Cities for Women’: Feminist Articulations in Recife.” Development (Society for International Development) 54.3 (2011): 352–357.

14. McLean, Heather. “Digging into the Creative City: A Feminist Critique: Digging Into the Creative City.” Antipode 46.3 (2014): 669–690.

15. Parker, Brenda. “Feminist Forays in the City: Imbalance and Intervention in Urban Research Methods: Feminist Forays in the City.” Antipode 48.5 (2016): 1337–1358.

16. Buckley, Michelle, and Kendra Strauss. “With, Against and Beyond Lefebvre: Planetary Urbanization and Epistemic Plurality.” Environment and planning. D, Society & space 34.4 (2016): 617–636.

Developed Topics:

More information can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ennis_Architect/sandbox
 * Gentrification in Mexico City: Mexico City has undergone a massive expansion of urbanization and population density, especially in the last 50 years. The concentration of job opportunities, education, technology and entertainment in the center of the city has forced people to cram in order to have access to these benefits. However, this process has resulted in the continuous alienation of middle- and low-income communities from the city, forcing them to commute daily and posing a tremendous challenge of integration into the urban environment. The city has failed to adapt to its rapid-development and struggles to provide solutions that fight against mass concentration, traffic, lack of affordable housing, distribution of jobs and services, absence of green and public spaces, safety and much more. I’m interested in this issue because I grew up in Mexico City and I’ve seen firsthand how the city continuous to grow without an educated plan and accommodates the wealthy, without realizing how much other communities are being affected. Only recently, have urbanists pushed strongly enough to implement proposals of change, yet the vast corruption of the city plays a challenging obstacle to overcome. Perhaps by sharing the studies of numerous professionals on Mexico City’s situation can people truly grasp the issues related to its development and think of ways to tackle it.

References:

1.     de Oliveira Martins, Ivone Patrícia, and Delgadillo Polanco, Víctor Manuel. “Políticas empresarialistas en los procesos de gentrificación en la Ciudad de México.” Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, no. 58 (2014): 111–133. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5784352.

2.    Delgadillo, Víctor. Patrimonio urbano de la Ciudad de México : la herencia disputada / Víctor Delgadillo. Primera edición. Ciudad de México: UACM, Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México, 2016.

3.    Delgadillo, Victor. “Selective Modernization of Mexico City and Its Historic Center. Gentrification Without Displacement?” Urban Geography 37, no. 8 (November 16, 2016): 1154–1174. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02723638.2015.1096114.

4.     Vicente Moctezuma Mendoza. “The Displacement of the Possible: Popular Experience and Gentrification at Historic Center of Mexico City.” Íconos 20, no. 56 (September 1, 2016): 83–102.

5.     Gabriel Gómez Carmona. “Contemporary gentrification and the right to the city: The defense of the urban space in Ciudad de México.” Revista de Urbanismo, no. 39 (December 1, 2018): 1–14.

6.    Laura Solano. “Empresarialismo urbano. Procesos de gentrificación en la Ciudad de México. Entrevista a Luis Alberto Salinas Arreourtua.” RevistArquis 6, no. 2 (July 1, 2017): 110–116.

7.    Mcdermott, Joshua. “Towards an Icon Model of Gentrification: Global Capitalism, Policing, and the Struggle for Iconic Spaces in Mexico City.” Urban Studies (February 28, 2019).

8.      Dieleman, Hans. “Mexico-City, Sustainability and Culture: A Plea for Hybrid Sustainabilities for a Baroque and Labyrinthine City.” City, Culture and Society 4, no. 3 (September 2013): 163–172.

9.     Moreno Carranco, Maria, and AlSayyad, Nezar. “The Socio/spatial Production of the Global: Mexico City Reinvented through the Santa Fe Urban Megaproject”. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2008. http://search.proquest.com/docview/304697009/.

10.  Delgadillo, Víctor. “Ciudad de México, quince años de desarrollo urbano intensivo: la gentrificación percibida.” Revista INVI 31, no. 88 (2016): 101–129. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-83582016000300004&lng=en&tlng=en.

11.  Moctezuma Mendoza, Vicente. “El desplazamiento de lo posible: experiencia popular y gentrificación en el Centro Histórico de Ciudad de México.” Íconos: Revista de Ciencias Sociales, no. 56 (2016): 83–102. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5619719

12.   Salinas Arreortúa, Luis Alberto. “Transformaciones urbanas en el contexto neoliberal. La colonia Condesa en Ciudad de México: un proceso de gentrificación.” Cuadernos de investigación urbanística, no. 93 (2014): 1–69. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5218672.

13.  Davidson, Justin. “Learning From Mexico City.” New York (May 5, 2014): n/a. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1521118324/.

14. Kim, Yoonhee, and Zangerling, Bontje. Mexico Urbanization Review : Managing Spatial Growth for Productive and Livable Cities in Mexico / Yoonhee Kim and Bontje Zangerling, Editors. Washington, D.C: World Bank Publications, 2016.

15.  Aguilar, Adrian Guillermo. “Peri-Urbanization, Illegal Settlements and Environmental Impact in Mexico City.” Cities 25, no. 3 (2008): 133–145.

16.   Masoumi, Houshmand, Roque, Daniela, and Masoumi, Houshmand. “Evaluation of Urban Sprawl Speed and Intensity Based on International Urbanization. Example from a Mexican City.” Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning 6, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): 27–27. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1701481790/

17.  Connolly, P, and Connolly, P. “Observing the Evolution of Irregular Settlements- Mexico City’s Colonias Populares, 1990 to 2005.” International Development Planning Review 31, no. 1 (January 1, 2009): 1–36. http://search.proquest.com/docview/21209562/

18.  Peralta, Oscar, Ortínez, Abraham, Alvarez-Ospina, Harry, Espinosa, María L., Saavedra, Isabel, Adams, David, and Castro, Telma. “Urban Sprawl and Ozone Episodes in Mexico City.” Urban Climate 27 (March 2019): 384–387.

19. de La Luz Hernández-Flores, M., Otazo-Sánchez, Elena M., Galeana-Pizaña, Mauricio, Roldán-Cruz, Edgar I., Razo-Zárate, Ramón, González-Ramírez, César A., Galindo-Castillo, Eric, and Gordillo-Martínez, Alberto J. “Urban Driving Forces and Megacity Expansion Threats. Study Case in the Mexico City Periphery.” Habitat International 64 (June 2017): 109–122.

20.  Cifuentes, Enrique, and Rodriguez, Sandra. “Urban Sprawl, Water Insecurity, and Enteric Diseases in Children from Mexico City.” EcoHealth 2, no. 1 (March 2005): 70–75.

21. Méndez-Lemus, Yadira. “Urban Growth and Transformation of the Livelihoods of Poor Campesino Households: The Difficulties of Making a Living in the Periphery of Mexico City.” International Development Planning Review 34, no. 4 (January 1, 2012): 409–437. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1112224556/

22.  Luis Salinas Arreortua. “Neoliberal urbanism in the sprawl of cities. The case of Mexico City.” Bitácora Urbano Territorial 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2018): 117–123. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1994037290/

Category:About