Minneapolis considers allowing fourplexes citywide to relieve housing shortage

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

4-flats on a single lot (~25’ wide) are fairly common in certain parts of the North Side. The “first floor” is 5’ above ground, so the half-sunken basement level can either be a separate “garden” apartment or combined with the first floor in a two-level “duplex down” apartment. Ergo the 4-flat can be either 3.5 or 4.5 stories tall.

well, i live in the duplex-down unit of a gut-rehabbed vintage 3-flat on the northside (as do my parents), so i'm intimately familiar with the type. however, depsite the fact that there are 4 floors of living space in our building, i would never call it anything other than a 3-flat, because it looks like a 3-flat, ie. 3 stacked floors fully above grade.

likewise, i recently lived in a vintage 6-flat in edgewater that has a garden unit in the basement. despite the fact that there are technically 7 dwelling units in the building, i would never call it anything other than a 6-flat, because that's what it looks like.

however, some of those newer construction flat buildings that you see with 4 floors fully above grade, i guess i would call that a "4-flat", but that's not a ubiquitous, classic typology in chicago the way that traditional 2-flats, 3-flats, and 6-flats are.

semantics are fun.

and tedious

Originally Posted by ardecila

There are also 1960s style 4-flats with side entrance on a double lot in Chicago’s mid-century neighborhoods. Usually they have a hip roof.

mid-century example (note the trademark topiary )

yeah, i totally forgot about those. i don't spend a great deal of time in post-war chicago.

[eschaton]

As an aside about the Minneapolis zoning map linked to earlier - it seems like Minneapolis still has "spot zoning" which surprised me. I don't like Pittsburgh's zoning system much, and think it's needlessly complicated, but they do avoid having individual buildings zoned at higher densities just because they happen to be in the middle of SFH neighborhoods. When there's a single one, it just becomes a non-conforming use, and can survive in perpetuity without variances as long as they don't attempt to substantially expand the apartment building.

[C.]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As an aside about the Minneapolis zoning map linked to earlier - it seems like Minneapolis still has "spot zoning" which surprised me. I don't like Pittsburgh's zoning system much, and think it's needlessly complicated, but they do avoid having individual buildings zoned at higher densities just because they happen to be in the middle of SFH neighborhoods. When there's a single one, it just becomes a non-conforming use, and can survive in perpetuity without variances as long as they don't attempt to substantially expand the apartment building.

I love how spot zoning can be illegal in one place and the standard way business is done in another. I know a community (Toronto) in which nearly every development above six floors has to go through a rezoning process that would be considered spot zoning. It's a joke.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

Because those neighborhoods are small, and have architecture and an urban dorm worth saving.

In Western SF they haven’t even buried the power lines. It looks like temporary construction anyway.

Though I guess that’s the case in Noe Valley too. When are they going to get around to that? Can some tech company just pay for it please? It looks fucking hideous.

This is a very complicated issue frequently batted around. First, some of the overhead wires are not power lines but wires for San Francisco’s extensive electric trolley system (not only green, but the power comes from a city-owned hydropower dam. Second, underground utilities are subject to earthquake disruption and, in that case, much harder to fix than overhead wires (I remember when Treasure Island was rendered powerless in 1989 when all utility lines in the causeway to the island were severed).

But I’m not sure what the overriding reason is for not burying them but there seems to be one. And now they seem to be installing 5th generation cell transmitters on power poles.

[Chef]

The fourplex proposal which was leaked was part of a draft of Minneapolis' new 20 year comprehensive plan. The rest of the plan was released yesterday. It is a fairly significant departure from the standards of contemporary American urban planning and would represent a major upzoning of the city. Some of the other components of the plan:

Abolishing parking minimums city wide.
Eight story minimum for new buildings downtown.
Allowing four story buildings by right along bus and rail lines
Allowing two and a half story apartments larger than a fourplex in about half of the city.
Allowing six story buildings by right along major thoroughfares.

The Star Tribune article on the plan:
http://www.startribune.com/draft-pla...lis/477677773/

[Steely Dan]

^ excellent!

let's hope that all gets implemented so minneapolis can continue its urban resurgence with even more vigor.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Chef

The fourplex proposal which was leaked was part of a draft of Minneapolis' new 20 year comprehensive plan. The rest of the plan was released yesterday. It is a fairly significant departure from the standards of contemporary American urban planning and would represent a major upzoning of the city. Some of the other components of the plan:

Abolishing parking minimums city wide.
Eight story minimum for new buildings downtown.
Allowing four story buildings by right along bus and rail lines
Allowing two and a half story apartments larger than a fourplex in about half of the city.
Allowing six story buildings by right along major thoroughfares.

The Star Tribune article on the plan:
http://www.startribune.com/draft-pla...lis/477677773/

That's a plan the whole country should follow. It will be nice to witness the results in Minneapolis.

[mhays]

If it can be pulled off politically I'll be surprised, impressed, and jealous.

[The North One]

An 8 story downtown minimum is ridiculous, also this plan isn't really mixed-use friendly.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by mhays

If it can be pulled off politically I'll be surprised, impressed, and jealous.

It has the backing of the mayor and the city council president so that is a positive start. Lisa Bender, the city council president is an urban planner.

Originally Posted by The North One

An 8 story downtown minimum is ridiculous, also this plan isn't really mixed-use friendly.

How so? The city already allows mixed use on all parcels zoned commercial or office.

[mhays]

Some cities allow housing to be much denser than commercial uses -- different height limits and no FAR for example. Does Minneapolis, or would it?

[Chef]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some cities allow housing to be much denser than commercial uses -- different height limits and no FAR for example. Does Minneapolis, or would it?

On paper no, but a lot of the mixed use built in the last 15 years has been done with variances for height or FAR, typically for four or five story buildings in C1 which is zoned for two and a half stories.

[MPLS_Const_Watch]

For anyone interested, the draft land use and built form maps are available online here: https://minneapolis2040.com/topics/land-use-built-form/.

Chef did a good job highlighting a lot of the biggest points above, but one other thing I'd like to point out is that the plan aims to greatly reduce the "development by variance" phenomenon where the existing plan is pretty vague and often conflicts with the current zoning such that very significant variances and conditional use permits are routinely granted. An extreme example is the Alatus tower on Central, which received a conditional use permit to increase height from 4 stories to 42 stories, and an FAR variance of over 600%! The result is not very transparent to neighbors or the development community, which creates additional risk for investors, especially new or out-of-town developers, and also feeds NIMBYism by making people feel disenfranchised. The proposed plan would be much more transparent, and hopefully would allow by-right most of what would be supported by the plan. Not only is this reflected in the huge increase in areas guided for 4 and 6 story mixed-use (as Chef noted above), but also in the areas guided for 10, 15, 20, and 30 stories outside of downtown. Currently, only the downtown core allows anything above 6 stories by right.

[Chef]

The fourplex idea got a positive write up in the editorial pages of the Star Tribune today. It is a good read and the columnist touches on a lot of the issues facing urban housing nationwide. If this line of thinking becomes part of the political dialogue in the city I think some version of the comprehensive plan and citywide upzoning may pass.

Demand-driven supply? Minneapolis fourplex proposal is new old idea
It evokes some nostalgia for me, and for everyone else it offers a better shot at affordability.
By D.J. Tice MARCH 23, 2018 — 7:03PM

The ambitious young transformationists who lately have taken power at Minneapolis City Hall seem on the verge of rediscovering a basic truth that has long eluded many public policymakers.

The insight they’re flirting with is this: If you want to see more of a certain thing in a community, a good first step is to stop prohibiting it.

Legalization — or even, egad, deregulation — is the basic breakthrough idea behind a much-discussed proposal to henceforth allow the creation of new or converted fourplexes more or less anywhere in Minneapolis. This fourplex free market is being pushed by newly installed Mayor Jacob Frey and City Council President Lisa Bender, among others, as part of an update to the city’s comprehensive plan that was released in draft form last week and will be hotly debated.

The hope is that relaxing limits on fourplexes would help ease a shortage of affordable housing, often deemed a “crisis,” that, at least in part, public policy created.

Today, new four-unit rental buildings are outlawed for about 80 percent of Minneapolis lots — a state of affairs largely resulting from 40-plus years of “downzoning” in the city, a movement through which advocates for quality of life, homeownership, the deconcentration of poverty and other fashionable objectives have made it more and more difficult to provide small-scale rental housing.

Duplexes, fourplexes, small apartment buildings, and even rooming houses with shared kitchens and baths proliferated more freely in Minneapolis through much of the first three-quarters of the 20th century, despite many shameful racially discriminatory policies. Smaller rental properties still provide much of the city’s reasonably priced housing, because hundreds of such buildings from bygone days were grandfathered in under the increasingly restrictive zoning codes.

more:
http://www.startribune.com/demand-dr...dea/477796643/