A recent editorial on high-rise development called for explicit urban standards and implementation tools (“Don’t let towers overwhelm city,” Our View, Dec. 2).

There already is too much “low density, low rise” (sprawling single-family subdivisions) on Oahu, and too much of “high density, high rise” (towers too tall, above 12 stories) in urban Honolulu. A third way is available.

“High density, low rise” is the desirable building typology consistent with the principles of “new urbanism,” “smart growth” and “transit-oriented development” (TOD). This concept of “high density, low rise” realizes the human scale of livable cities.

Human scale is implemented by building heights between four to 12 stories, with six to 12 apartment per floor; and with densities of 45 to 85 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for an average of 65 du/acre.

The larger the building floor area ratio (FAR) is, the larger the open space requirement in its proximity should be, and not the other way around.

Local contractors can erect these buildings cheaper than the luxury towers of mega developers that do not even serve the local residents.

These standards for human scale, defensible space, affordable maintenance and open space facilitate livability, neighborliness, sense of community, and attendance to children and seniors.

Instead, residents of high-rise apartments above 12 stories are not even reachable by the fire ladder trucks. In case of a fire, these residents are on their own. Children and elderly are in danger. This is a compelling argument.

Big towers of more than a dozen apartments per floor hinder sociability, as residents might not easily know each other. Big towers are much more expensive to build, afford, maintain and keep safe.

As for TOD development, city planners should not “give away the store” to the landowners via added density bonuses in exchange for affordable housing; landowners already obtained land value increases through rezoning, infrastructure upgrading and proximity to TOD stations.

Affordable housing can be provided in TOD areas by helping people in need of rent or of owning an apartment to organize as an effective demand-by-category, like teachers, firemen, hotel worker or credit union members. Elderly neighborhood residents would also be able to “age in place” without displacement. These people could organize creatively like housing consumer groups with local contractors who build affordable units on serviced land supported by government.

The planning tools exist: Neighbors and developers, facilitated by government, could formulate “community benefits agreements” that address affordable housing, labor and jobs provisions, community participation in project designs, as well as in services, facilities and infrastructure provisions. Neighborhoods could obtain from the city “participatory budgeting” to support these apartment improvements.

Property values go up because of urban growth, rezoning to higher uses and public infrastructure provision to accommodate population’s increase. To repay for government expenditures, the county should implement “land value recapture” because this is the “unearned increment of land value” that accrues to the landowner who happens to be in the path of development. This tool is called “public benefit zoning” (PBZ).

The City and County should recapture land value, without giving away excessive density bonuses. Further: Affordable housing provisions via TOD will not meet the entirety of the homeless, rental, owner-occupant crisis on Oahu that business as usual gifted to us. Additional tools like land readjustment, transfer of development rights, limited equity housing cooperatives, and self-help housing could also be used.

Luciano Minerbi is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii-Manoa.