HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 6:11 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Missing Middle Density Will Take More Than Zoning Changes

What if They Passed Zoning Reform and Nobody Came?


September 3, 2020

By Daniel Herriges

Read More: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...nd-nobody-came

Quote:
At the end of 2018, planners in Minneapolis drew extensive national press for an historic accomplishment: passing a comprehensive plan update that ended both exclusive single-family zoning and mandatory parking minimums citywide. Since an implementing ordinance passed in November 2019, it is now legal to build a duplex or triplex on any residential lot in Minneapolis. — Would Minneapolis begin to sprout triplex homes in its wealthy, exclusive enclaves better known for single-family teardowns and expensive, large rebuilds? Would predatory speculators buy up affordable homes in poorer neighborhoods and replace them with triplexes built on the cheap? So far, the answer appears to be no and no.

- Eric Myers, director of government affairs for Minneapolis Area Realtors association, blames lines of city building code. He says the association “applauds” Minneapolis for ambitious, forward-thinking policies like the 2040 Plan, a clear sign the city’s hungry for more, denser, and more affordable housing. But even though new zoning laws permit triplexes, the underlying code was still written with single-family homes in mind. Height restrictions are the same, as are setback requirements. Triplexes built on single-family lots have to fit within the footprint of the original building. — “Minneapolis has a lot of 40-foot lots,” he says. “A lot of triplexes aren’t going to fit.” It’s possible to clear those hurdles by requesting a variance from the city, but that, Myers says, is a “cumbersome and expensive process” most developers would rather not bother with. Not when there’s easier money to be made elsewhere. That isn’t to say triplexes would never work in the city, Myers says. He thinks a few regulations would have to change to make it feasible or desirable on the building side of things, but the demand is already there.

- Lots of factors can add cost or complication to a project that is technically legal. We've seen this over the years, for example, with accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are legal in many cities but rare because practical considerations make them uneconomic or undesirable. And what it takes to actually open the ADU floodgates hasn't always been obvious. Los Angeles, not a place known as a hotbed of interest in ADUs, seems to have stumbled upon the secret sauce (with the help of state legislation): a stunning 1 in 5 housing permits issued in LA in 2018 was for an ADU. — I've described this phenomenon using an ecological metaphor: that of a limiting factor or nutrient. You can give a plant all the nitrogen it needs, but if there isn't enough phosphorous, rain, or sunlight, it's all for naught. The same goes with change in a lot of complex, multi-factor systems: you have to find the key factor that is actually blocking change, and fix that. In Minneapolis, it seems the zoning alone isn't it. Again, this doesn't make zoning reform pointless. It makes it necessary but not sufficient.

- Residential builders are notoriously risk-averse, and the lenders they rely on to finance their projects are even more so. Everybody with skin in the development game wants to know they have a proven model, and so I suspect it's going to take a few more gutsy entrepreneurs doing successful proof-of-concept projects in this neighborhood or that before interest begins to mount. Large, established developers tend to make it clear that they're not interested in triplexes. Large, national lenders are wary. It will take a whole different ecosystem of small-scale developers and builders and community lendersnthe kind that every city used to have to build Missing Middle housing at scale. And cultivating that ecosystem is the challenge for cities that want it back: a forest doesn't grow overnight. — The Missing Middle has a lot going for it. We know this kind of low-rise, small-lot housing, which delivers a mix of ownership and rental homes, is a scalable way to build out whole cities. Why? Just visit New York, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, San Francisco, Chicago: you'll see miles upon miles of what else but duplexes and triplexes.

.....



__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 6:37 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
“Minneapolis has a lot of 40-foot lots,” he says. “A lot of triplexes aren’t going to fit.”
That doesn't seem correct. Residential lots in urban chicago are typically around 25' wide, and the city is chock-full of 2 and 3 flats. It's the backbone housing typology of the entire city.

Our own 3-flat in Lincoln Square sits upon a 27' wide lot, so 40' is more than enough width to work with for this housing type.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 6:47 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is offline
Paradise Island
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,444
To a large degree the triplex issue was a smokescreen. It is what got the attention of all the opposition and was the headline of every article about the zoning reform. Meanwhile the city also upzoned all the transit and commercial corridors to allow midrises by right and got rid of most parking minimums. Opponents were so focused on the triplex issue that they barely noticed the rest of it. Midrises in the commercial corridors outside of downtown is where the bulk of the new housing is going to come from.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2020, 2:08 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
It’s been suggested that eliminating parking requirements would go a long way to making this more feasible, particularly if garages are integrated into the triplexes.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2020, 11:53 PM
MPLS_Const_Watch MPLS_Const_Watch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 678
Quote:
Triplexes built on single-family lots have to fit within the footprint of the original building.
This is just plain false. Where do these people come up with this crap?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 14, 2020, 12:15 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPLS_Const_Watch View Post
This is just plain false. Where do these people come up with this crap?
Here in Houston, when a SFH is replaced by a pair or trio of houses on its lot and it's just one lot, they can fill up the entire lot apart from whatever minimum distances the city requires between property line on sides/ back as well as minimum from the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:02 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.