ON ABUNDANCE

7/24/25

Several years ago, our architecture practice, ONYX, was leading an apartment project through the entitlements process. The front yard setback of the project site was prescribed to be an average of the setbacks of surrounding building faces—usually between 20 to 25 feet. The problem with this particular site was that it was adjacent to a very large surface parking lot, so the "average" calculated setback was more than 50 feet from the sidewalk. This calculation was certainly not what the City of Pasadena, we as architects, or the client wanted. Yet staff decreed that a full environmental evaluation would need to take place, requiring consultants and hearings, costing many thousands of dollars and a year's time—all to confirm what we already knew. Logic could not prevail over a system that promoted high costs and scarcity.

I've enjoyed reading the book 'Abundance' by Ezra Klein and Derek Thomson; I'm not the only one- The book has gotten a lot of attention in policy circles and among urban development enthusiasts since its publication. Its compelling arguments about scarcity versus abundance mindsets have resonated with many readers across the political spectrum.

It hit home because it summarized years of frustration resulting from the battles to build and improve good cities. Klein and Thomson articulate clearly how regulatory barriers, NIMBYism, and outdated zoning and environmental laws have collectively hindered our ability to create affordable housing and vibrant urban spaces that benefit everyone, not just a privileged few.

As with anything that cuts through deeply held opinions and interests, there have been a lot of critiques on what the points Klein and Thomson try to make. Some critics argue their solutions are oversimplified, while others suggest they don't adequately address equity concerns or environmental impacts. Yet the conversation around the book has been as nuanced and complex as the issues it tackles.

An opinion piece from the Washington Post by EJ Dionne Jr. suggests the fervor the book has created- here’s a quote:

“This accounting by no means exhausts the slings and arrows that have been hurled Abundance’s way, but the energy of this debate suggests that its disciples have struck a nerve.”

Simplifying the process of building is bound to ruffle some feathers—certain groups would lose influence, and some consultants might see their fees dwindle.

Most of us in architecture and construction want to do meaningful work, yet the processes are beyond burdensome, overreaching the public good they try to achieve.

Ordinances and procedures—especially the ones that shape the communities we’re able to create—must be continually re-examined, improved, and streamlined. If not, we’re left with the stagnant, expensive ways we currently build our cities and infrastructure.

Abundance has certainly sparked conversation—which is a good thing. It may even have set needed reforms in motion. For the first time since the 1970s, California’s original environmental law, CEQA, has been amended to allow for faster housing approvals. Governor Newsom even name-checked Abundance when signing the legislation.

Regulation and process are vital for creating fair, livable places—but they shouldn’t stifle good design or overwhelm creativity. There’s a lot to do to fix this. Let’s keep these conversations alive, especially in these divisive times. How can we make it easier to build sustainable, equitable, and beautiful cities? Let’s figure out how to do more to get the great cities we deserve.

TOWER HOUSE | STUDIO OH SONG

Recently, an Urbanarium Decoding Density ‘missing middle’ housing competition in Vancouver, Canada captured our attention by presenting particularly compelling ideas for architectural innovation. This initiative sought solutions that bridge the gap between single-family homes and large apartment buildings, addressing both the greater housing needs and community-building potential.

Similarly, the growing single-exit movement for multi-story residential buildings has emerged as a catalyst for reconsidering fundamental housing design assumptions. This approach offers different pathways for architectural expression while potentially improving space utilization and construction efficiency without compromising safety standards.

This inspired us here at ONYX.

In response to these concepts, our office organized into distinct collaborative teams, each tasked with developing comprehensive designs that thoughtfully integrated both the pragmatic efficiency of the single-exit concept and the community-oriented principles underlying missing middle housing typologies.

What we’re doing here is just dipping a toe into the water, yet the teams explored, developed, and tested residential building configurations that deliberately challenge and transcend the limitations imposed by outdated prescriptive zoning practices that have dominated urban planning for decades. Our approaches prioritized adaptability, community integration, and sustainable living patterns.

THE CHARETTE

The site is 1.86 acres in northwest Pasadena. It was formerly a building supply store in a decades-old mixed-use neighborhood. Each team’s designs should contain about 100 living units, along with commercial and community spaces to support the neighborhood. Outdoor spaces are important to be included, and designed for beauty and activity that are integral to the building’s function and design.

Our participants broke into three teams. These teams have been consistent through the different charrettes we've done. We asked each team to maintain the same themes and design approaches they've used in previous charrettes, approaches such as:

PROCESSION

Along with these consistent approaches, participants were asked to use the concepts presented in the Urbanarium Decoding Density competition as integral inspirations for their designs.

The explanations and debates amongst the teams was friendly but vigorous. What do these new ways of thinking about housing really mean for our design process?

We’re learning to do more then just designing housing units and places to put people’s cars. We’re learning how to create communities to make better neighborhoods and better cities. All of us involved in the practice of designing and building places for people to live need to do a better job of thinking about how people exist and thrive in what we have provided. How do the people we are designing for get the things they need, how do they meet other people, how do they maintain a feeling of well-being and security, and how do they make a living? Our efforts suggest that we can do a better job creating individual projects that create microcosms of the neighborhoods and communities that we really want; and if this is done many times over, it would be transformative in the financial, and social well-being of the cities where we live. We at Onyx looking forward to continuing these charrettes as a means of inspiring a deeper thought process when we design in the future.