"There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential. It’s really hard not to see something of an ideology in the notion of single-family zoning."
"There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential. It’s really hard not to see something of an ideology in the notion of single-family zoning."
Another book, which I am re-reading now because I did not understand it the first time, is At Home in the City by Betsy Klimasmith. It's a dense work of literary criticism, but I am finding it helpful the second time around.
How interesting, I was just writing a comment on the same quote!
On "There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential.":
Absolutely, almost to the point of the original meaning of the words being lost. Even on developers' websites I've seen projects be split up into "residential" and "multifamily" categories. It's fine to categorize them separately, as it's fairly uncommon for one developer to do both, the approval process is so different, etc., but it's interesting to me that someone can put them under those terms and not have it feel weird.
Related to this are phrases like "multifamily/commercial/etc. doesn't belong in neighbourhoods", with "neighbourhoods" referring to areas of single-detached housing, as if a place that has apartment buildings is some other thing.
As much as early planners were imagining themselves as applying scientific principles to social problems of dense settlements, they are better understood as implementing a moral reform movement of Victorian origin. This was a moral reform movement centered on the "home," which was an ideal for family and household structure as much as it was an ideal for the environments in which they would thrive. While American planning has evolved, it is still in the business in legislating household structures. Here is another reading: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/zoned-out
"There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential. It’s really hard not to see something of an ideology in the notion of single-family zoning."
You should read Brave New Home by Diana Lind.
https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-Home-Smarter-Simpler/dp/1541742664
Another book, which I am re-reading now because I did not understand it the first time, is At Home in the City by Betsy Klimasmith. It's a dense work of literary criticism, but I am finding it helpful the second time around.
https://archive.org/details/athomeincityurba0000klim/page/240/mode/2up
How interesting, I was just writing a comment on the same quote!
On "There really is an idea—maybe not even an idea, but a (wrong) understanding—that multifamily housing isn’t really residential.":
Absolutely, almost to the point of the original meaning of the words being lost. Even on developers' websites I've seen projects be split up into "residential" and "multifamily" categories. It's fine to categorize them separately, as it's fairly uncommon for one developer to do both, the approval process is so different, etc., but it's interesting to me that someone can put them under those terms and not have it feel weird.
Related to this are phrases like "multifamily/commercial/etc. doesn't belong in neighbourhoods", with "neighbourhoods" referring to areas of single-detached housing, as if a place that has apartment buildings is some other thing.
As much as early planners were imagining themselves as applying scientific principles to social problems of dense settlements, they are better understood as implementing a moral reform movement of Victorian origin. This was a moral reform movement centered on the "home," which was an ideal for family and household structure as much as it was an ideal for the environments in which they would thrive. While American planning has evolved, it is still in the business in legislating household structures. Here is another reading: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/zoned-out