St. Petersburg needs to get its head around building more housing. The city is already struggling from a lack of affordable homes and up to 90,000 more residents are expected to move in over the next three decades. Doing nothing isn’t an option, no matter how much some people wished it so. All the more reason for the City Council to vote yes on a proposal to increase the number of residences that can be built on lots in a small number of areas around the city.

Increasing housing density is often controversial. People don’t always like change, especially the kind that can affect their neighborhood. But the modest plan on Thursday’s council agenda is not about building skyscrapers in single-family neighborhoods. The idea is to stimulate more “middle housing,” smaller units, sometimes clustered together that encourage walking, biking and transit use. The plan is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Instead, it gives property owners options. They can build more housing on their lot, or leave it as is. No arm twisting. No penalties for keeping the status quo.

The Times’ Colleen Wright published a good primer earlier this month on how the plan would work: The city identified 2,895 properties that would be rezoned to allow for up to four residences — a quadplex, if you will. Four units would be the maximum. A property owner would only be allowed to build that many if the lot was big enough. Any conversion would have to conform to design standards and could not be taller or wider than a two-story, single-family home — 24 feet high and 40 feet wide, at most. The plan does not require owners of the designated properties to build multiple residences. The plan allows them to keep their single-family home or to build a single-family home. Again, it provides options.

Opponents point to parking and the demise of neighborhood character as two main reasons for not supporting increased density. The plan, though, requires at least one parking space for each residence. The lots also must have direct access to a passable, public alley, and the owner would have to pave that alley at their own expense.

As for neighborhood character, adding newly built duplexes or small apartment blocks that aren’t any larger than a two-story home and must meet design criteria will hardly destroy a neighborhood. Just look at some of the most desirable neighborhoods in the Tampa Bay area. Duplexes, triplexes, quads, garage units, bungalow courts and courtyard apartments already pepper St. Petersburg’s Old Northeast, Old Southeast and Historic Uptown, and Tampa’s Hyde Park, Tampa Heights and Seminole Heights. Those are some of the most vibrant parts of both cities.

It’s understandable to want to protect neighborhoods, but the city must balance that instinct with the need to add housing — at least 1,035 new residences a year if the city experiences modest growth, according to city projections. As a city, we cannot say “I’ve got mine” and pull up the ladder on the next generation. To keep the city vibrant — and more youthful — younger people need affordable places to live. That won’t happen unless the city finds ways to encourage the building of more housing.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Loading...

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

Cities evolve. They cannot be dipped in amber, locked forever in one moment in time. It’s up to city leaders to make the hard choices on how best to move forward. The plan in front of the City Council isn’t drastic (Minneapolis, for instance, rezoned the entire city to allow for at least triplex). It is appropriately modest and well thought out. No plan is perfect, but waiting for perfect will only allow the housing crunch to grow worse. City Council members have a solid plan in front of them. They should support it.

Editorials are the institutional voice of the Tampa Bay Times. The members of the Editorial Board are Editor of Editorials Graham Brink, Sherri Day, Sebastian Dortch, John Hill, Jim Verhulst and Chairman and CEO Conan Gallaty. Follow @TBTimes_Opinion on Twitter for more opinion news.