HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 5:33 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
That's why you don't see much in the 3-6-unit multifamily range even when it's allowed, unless other types aren't.
That's interesting, I've never thought it about that way before, but the bolded is probably why chicago still sees so much small unit-count multi-family construction.

It's not that developers out in the neighborhoods wouldn't build more intensely, if allowed, but because they can easily snatch up individual underdeveloped 25'/50'x125' lots and throw up a 3/6-flat as of right, as opposed to going through a costly and laborious entitlement process (not to mention all of the increased construction costs of elevators, structured parking, etc.), 3/6-flats get built around me with unsurprising regularity.

So a lot of it really is zoning.

And local building culture.

When you've got an entire cottage industry of small-time players that know how to build 3/6-flats (and make a modest profit doing so), and the path of least legal resistance is to just build more 3/6-flats, guess what?

you get more 3/6-flats.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Apr 15, 2021 at 1:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 6:01 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Tons of variables on that Jmanc.

In a region with growth management and population-growth pressures, outer suburban land won't be as cheap as in some regions. This will be particularly true in the spots that allow density -- growth will be channeled to specific areas (suburban and urban) via zoning and public investment. Those areas will generally be places with transit and retail nearby, which will also help your rents. This land won't be terribly cheap either.

But in most of these regions' suburbs that's a small part of the story. The development equation will start with maximizing units and square footage. This is almost universal in my area. If the zoning is 65', then by golly you do six floors with a retail, or 6.5 by cramming in <7' sleeping lofts on the top or bottom levels. You put the parking below-grade, and if it's rentals include as little parking as you can without impacting rents. And you use every inch of your site.
Doesn't Portland and London follow this sort of model? Controlled sprawl and encourage density and land reuse?

I would love to see what you propose implemented but the oppose would be insurmountable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 12:21 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
Keep in mind when I'm thinking of small scale apartments, I'm more thinking of stuff like this. 6-12 unit small pre-war apartment blocks. Modern iterations could easily accommodate an elevator and the costs wouldn't kill this type of development.
I can't think of a newer building of that size in my area that doesn't have an elevator, but it could simply be that the property prices justify the investment. Even the rare new construction 1-unit buildings typically have elevators. But prewar structures of this size rarely have elevators (unless added on in recent years).

So it's probably feasible, but only in areas with very high land values.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:08 PM
Nautica Nautica is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area/Austin
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
And you seem shocked that people in an urbanism forum has trouble to understand how people live entire lives glued in a car seat driving around horrible parking lots.
If you think people, who live in suburbs, are just driving around all day, you are seriously deluded. We go to the shops, get what we want, and then return to our home or apartment and enjoy our lives. There is plenty of blight, much worse than a parking lot, in cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 2:45 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautica View Post
If you think people, who live in suburbs, are just driving around all day, you are seriously deluded. We go to the shops, get what we want, and then return to our home or apartment and enjoy our lives. There is plenty of blight, much worse than a parking lot, in cities.
So you're saying people in US suburbs live confortably without a car?

You're the one that seems deluded here. First complain about people in this forum enjoying urban living, then state people don't need cars in the ultra-low density suburbs.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:41 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Doesn't Portland and London follow this sort of model? Controlled sprawl and encourage density and land reuse?

I would love to see what you propose implemented but the oppose would be insurmountable.
I'm talking specifically about Seattle, but Portland and London both have similar ideas.

In Oregon and Washington, it all begins with state policy, all voter supported. Oregon was first in 1973 and Washington followed with the Growth Management Act in 1990. It took some time for projects vested under the old rules to filter through of course.

In Washington, the state requirements filter to every municipality in urban counties. The regs have a lot of detail, much of it advisory but also tied to other state policies and funding. Part of it is (iirc) more directive: Cities (above a certain size?) and counties have to allow growth. Most choose to leave the house areas as they are, and focus their growth in nodes, generally multifamily. There's also room for limited single family, but the sites will tend to be small and expensive so the volume is limited (cost being the mechanism) and individual lots will tend to be smaller.

There's pushback in the exurbs outside the growth boundaries. We protect a lot of otherwise-developable land that's currently horse farms, forests, small agriculture, etc. King County (2.3m including Seattle) is relatively aggressive, and some people would love to split off a rural/mountain county on the east. But the state voters have spoken, repeatedly...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 4:41 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I can't think of a newer building of that size in my area that doesn't have an elevator, but it could simply be that the property prices justify the investment. Even the rare new construction 1-unit buildings typically have elevators. But prewar structures of this size rarely have elevators (unless added on in recent years).

So it's probably feasible, but only in areas with very high land values.
Are there many 3-story, multifamily buildings going up in NYC? Lots in NYC are tight to start with. Remove additional floor area for an elevator shaft and your already tight units are even tighter.

In Chicago, the 3 unit buildings that go up w/o elevators are generally replacing 1-2 (MAYBE 3) story buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 5:06 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
That's interesting, I've never thought it about that way before, but the bolded is probably why chicago still sees so much small unit-count multi-family construction.

It's not that developers out in the neighborhoods wouldn't build more intensely, if allowed, but because they can easily snatch up individual underdeveloped 25'/50'x125' lots and throw up a 3/6-flat as of right, as opposed to going through a costly and laborious entitlement process (not to mention all of the increased construction costs of elevators, structured parking, etc.), 3/6-flats get built around me with unsurprising regularity.

So a lot of it really is zoning.

And local building culture.

When you've got an entire cottage industry of small-time players that know how to build 3/6-flats (and make a modest profit doing so), and the path of least legal resistance is to just build more 3/6-flats, guess what?

you get more 3/6-flats.
Culture and ready teams sound like a big factor...but I bet developers would love one-acre sites in the high-demand parts of Chicago where those three-flats are happening.

But is looks like those are hard to find. I'm trying to find candidate properties on the free version of Loopnet...not seeing much, and what exists is mostly commercial, other than a sizable corner of Rosehill Cemetery (unused I hope!).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 5:29 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Are there many 3-story, multifamily buildings going up in NYC? Lots in NYC are tight to start with. Remove additional floor area for an elevator shaft and your already tight units are even tighter.

In Chicago, the 3 unit buildings that go up w/o elevators are generally replacing 1-2 (MAYBE 3) story buildings.
In Brownstone Brooklyn, these are more like 4-6 floor buildings, though they usually only have one unit per floor, and they definitely have an elevator. Infill condos on tight lots. The elevator opens directly into your unit. A new 3-floor building in Brownstone Brooklyn would be pretty rare, and almost certainly a one-family, and would have an elevator.

But I think you can find 3-4 floor newish walkups further out. Places like Bensonhurst and Sheepshead Bay have them, I'm pretty sure.

My sister lived in a newish Chicago five-floor (I think) walkup condo, in East Lakeview years ago. I'm not sure if I've seen that in NYC. It might qualify as a six-flat, as I don't know the Chicago lingo around this typology.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 5:37 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
It was this condo, in East Lakeview.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/23...1!4d-87.638367

Yeah, it was five floors, definitely walkup, and (I think) two units per floor. This exact small-building typology doesn't seem to exist in NYC, for whatever reason. At the least there would be an elevator, and boutique condos tend to be one unit per floor, as the lots are typically smaller.

Are the higher floors in walkup Chicago condos cheaper? I guess that would make sense, though the top floor probably (?) has rooftop access and at least no noise from above units. I don't think I'd want a 5th floor walkup, though (though this might technically be 4 floors if they count the ground unit as a basement level or something, as it's clearly somewhat below-grade).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 6:08 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
I live on 6 and typically walk up. But walking down gets harder with age due to joint strain. And moving would be basically impossible...the height, the various doors and turns...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 7:39 PM
Camelback Camelback is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,231
We lived in a suburban apartment complex while our house was getting built. As a kid it was a great place to live. I had a bunch of friends in the complex. School bus stop at the complex. Safe and clean, access to bike trails along a canal turned city park area. Half a mile to Intel. 1 mile to Microchip. Less than 5 miles to Motorola. The area was full of middle class families that lived and worked in the suburbs.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ch...4d-111.8412502

Bike trail along canal. That same canal is in the approximate location as an ancient canal that's been in existence for a thousand years.
https://goo.gl/maps/RBHRZmXFCbohEuhM7

That canal is either the Vista or SW Canal in this map, near the ruins of Los Muertos and Alta Vista.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 7:43 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
It was this condo, in East Lakeview.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/23...1!4d-87.638367

Yeah, it was five floors, definitely walkup, and (I think) two units per floor. This exact small-building typology doesn't seem to exist in NYC, for whatever reason. At the least there would be an elevator, and boutique condos tend to be one unit per floor, as the lots are typically smaller.

Are the higher floors in walkup Chicago condos cheaper? I guess that would make sense, though the top floor probably (?) has rooftop access and at least no noise from above units. I don't think I'd want a 5th floor walkup, though (though this might technically be 4 floors if they count the ground unit as a basement level or something, as it's clearly somewhat below-grade).
Just wanted to say that is a GORGEOUS neighborhood in Chicago based on the streetview!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 8:24 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:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
It was this condo, in East Lakeview.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/23...1!4d-87.638367

Yeah, it was five floors, definitely walkup, and (I think) two units per floor.
We would call that 4 stories in chicago, with the finished basement level likely duplexed-down with the 1st floor units.

I can't tell if the top floor is duplexed-up with the 3rd floor units, or their own units, but it could go either way, so a total of 6 or 8 units; not big enough to require an elevator.











Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post

Are the higher floors in walkup Chicago condos cheaper? I guess that would make sense, though the top floor probably (?) has rooftop access and at least no noise from above units.
I'm not as familiar with 4 story walk-ups, but with the far more common 3-flats, the cost differential is usually a wash, all things being equal. Yeah, the third floor is more stairs to walk up, but it also comes with better light and air, and as you pointed out, no noise from upstairs neighbors.

Things like a roof top or a 1st floor unit duplexed down into the basement can obviously greatly change the value equation, so "all things being equal" is the important factor here.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 8:27 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. View Post
Just wanted to say that is a GORGEOUS neighborhood in Chicago based on the streetview!
Yeah, that's a very nice block. One of the nicest blocks in E. Lakeview.

Also, very quiet, despite being very close to Belmont station and that whole Belmont/Broadway area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 9:23 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. View Post
Just wanted to say that is a GORGEOUS neighborhood in Chicago based on the streetview!
Yeah, I could easily see myself living in neighborhood like that. That building too in particular with the Art Deco design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2021, 7:24 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Doesn't Portland and London follow this sort of model? Controlled sprawl and encourage density and land reuse?

I would love to see what you propose implemented but the oppose would be insurmountable.
Yep suburb-wise London is a mixed bag in a good way, but it faces the same obstacles Stateside. They can be circumvented though.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6117...1!1e3?hl=en-GB

This is the most suburban place I ever lived - where suburbia was invented, on the outskirts of London, with endless streets of SFH. A few miles further and you'll enter the carcentric Green Belt, a vast patchwork of development and protected greenery that is the city exurbs. But here at the end of the line (about 11 miles from the centre) it still has 3 local tube stations, around which are apartment blocks and parades of shops (that from the air look like terrace homes), and usually a big suburban supermarket.




www.cjbphotography.co.uk


Higher density developments are built on brownfield sites, or fallow ground -my block was on a swamp.




https://static.gridarchitects.co.uk


These apartments replaced an ugly garage block that the owners didn't use (the spaces built in the 60s became too small) and disguise themselves among the SFHs. Note the existing homes on the left are actually also apartments, they did the same thing decades earlier -more on that later



Meanwhile the rest of the shops and non-sfh buildings were built alongside the historic suburb. They've always been there, by luck of timing.


https://cdn.eigpropertyauctions.co.uk


One stop away we had another two 'high streets', already you can see things are getting denser and more mixed



Okay so far, so successful, via traditional tropes set up decades before, and predating many of the single family homes. However the mentality is still staunchly nimbyist (note the golf courses), with green ground and every garden sacred, plus high car usage. Cannily though, any development that does go up is on the industrial estates, that the local nimby's have little to moan about, unless they have a hard on for 1950s warehousing:

From this blot on their good lady gardens:


http://d3e1m60ptf1oym.cloudfront.net...62347_uxga.jpg


To this:


https://prod-www-redrow-co-uk.azureedge.net



Note in the development below, the allotments on the left. Council land given over to people to plant vegetables, and a likely source for new ground to build on. Although highly in demand these allotments are owned by the council, and can easily be rescinded. There are so few allotments now the waiting list is 40 years.




This is pretty much happening around every tube and rail stop on the network, no matter how far out. The city is densifying like crazy to accommodate the extra 100,000 per year growth (and another 120,000 per year in the exurbs), pre-Covid.

Last edited by muppet; Apr 16, 2021 at 9:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2021, 7:53 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Philly -> Osaka -> Tokyo
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The biggest city on earth. Literally
Posts: 5,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
That's interesting, I've never thought it about that way before, but the bolded is probably why chicago still sees so much small unit-count multi-family construction.

It's not that developers out in the neighborhoods wouldn't build more intensely, if allowed, but because they can easily snatch up individual underdeveloped 25'/50'x125' lots and throw up a 3/6-flat as of right, as opposed to going through a costly and laborious entitlement process (not to mention all of the increased construction costs of elevators, structured parking, etc.), 3/6-flats get built around me with unsurprising regularity.

So a lot of it really is zoning.

And local building culture.

When you've got an entire cottage industry of small-time players that know how to build 3/6-flats (and make a modest profit doing so), and the path of least legal resistance is to just build more 3/6-flats, guess what?

you get more 3/6-flats.
This is a major point that needs amplification. In older cities where traditional housing typologies never really died (though they did come close), like Philadelphia and Chicago, there is still a great deal of local expertise on how to build to these typologies, which makes pro formas for building new ones easy because the parties involve know how to do it. In cities where knowledge of how to build to these typologies is lost, the lack of knowledge makes attempts to build them seem risky to lenders who are unfamiliar with their economics...which then makes it impossible for these projects to pencil out because they're low-margin to begin with.

Which creates another problem. If a medium-sized developer specializing in this kind of housing (think How Properties in Philadelphia) wanted to decide to diversify to another city where local knowledge of how to produce it has been lost, would they be able to get the money to do so? If not, would it not be amazingly risky for How's backers to lend them money to expand into a market the backers know nothing about? The only real way to transplant this knowledge might be to see developers specializing in this type of housing become large enough to finance entry projects in new markets entirely out of their own savings.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2021, 8:07 AM
muppet's Avatar
muppet muppet is offline
if I sang out of tune
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,185
In other words London capitalises a lot on existing fabric, laid down by the original rail lines that led to the suburbia. It's pure luck a lot of this housing went up before the rise of the automobile, and London's biggest building boom was in the 1930s, just before auto use became full-blown. Although a lot of roadage was laid out, everywhere was still connected up by rail and tube.
New Towns that dot the country, that went up postwar and didn't enjoy the historical luck suffer the exact same suburban monoculture as the States. Property rights are paramount, and until last year nimbys had the ball, easily (nowadays new developments can slip under the radar just by using posters as consultation, rather than door to door leafleting).


Milton Keynes is notorious -its centre is a series of shopping malls


https://c8.alamy.com/comp/f3ft03/an-...-uk-f3ft03.jpg



However even here things can change. Where they do have to build in the midst of the suburban housing -den of snakes that it is -they get around by burying unused roads and building on verges. Of existing homes nearby it's easier to build in the midst of apartment dwellers who already live with the density, and renters who don't care. Everything surrounding the devlopments below were apartment blocks (though from the air they look like SFHs).




and you get positively urban


www.movingcity.co.uk



In effect it goes from this (1930s):




to this (1980s), raising the height subtly, stocking renters, apartment dwellers and businesses while keeping to the suburban vernacular




A decade or two later up the ante, and maybe the odd tower, in the right places.




and at the end you start building dense urbanity, slipped under the noses of the nimbys


www.dutchanddutch.com


Also any tube/ railway/ bus stations sit on a large amount of dead land, used up in verges, approaches and car parks. Building on these areas often start the inroads to developing the wider area as more people move in for the convenience to the network, and demand more urbanity and shops.




In short, build in the ugly spots -car parks, verges, factory yards, warehouses, 1980s business parks. Site them near existing shops and public buildings that dot suburbia (eg schools, gyms, suburban offices), and renters. Never touch a golf course, church or park.

Last edited by muppet; Apr 16, 2021 at 8:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2021, 1:13 PM
Nautica Nautica is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area/Austin
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
So you're saying people in US suburbs live confortably without a car?

You're the one that seems deluded here. First complain about people in this forum enjoying urban living, then state people don't need cars in the ultra-low density suburbs.
You need to check your reading or comprehension skills. I never said suburbanites don't have cars. What we don't do is drive around all day to parking lots. Catch this; we drive to the stores where we need things, buy those things and then drive home or to the lake or anywhere we damn well please. Here's another thought, we also order on-line so we can enjoy our suburban life-styles even more. I love cities. I lived in NYC, San Francisco, Dallas, and San Diego. There are advantages to both lifestyles. Its disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If you think everyone on this forum lives exclusively in cities, well......., I'll just let you fill in the blank.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 9:39 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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