Not living in a place with many rowhouses, I wasn’t sure what was unusual about the pictures without being told. A mix of elevations seems natural enough.
Excellent piece and prompt. I’m responding before reading the linked material, but your main point is in the right direction. New infill developments should point to the way forward — up.
What's interesting is DC's response to the flurry of pop-ups and pop-backs that occurred in the 2010s: RF-1 zoning was changed so that maximum lot coverage is 60% (I can't recall what it was previously), meaning anything more than that requires a Board of Zoning Adjustment action.
I know this because I'm trying to replace a deck at the back of my house — which has always had a landing/stairs to the backyard. We also have a rare detached garage (not original, probably added in the 1950s). The flipper we purchased the house from had not permitted the larger deck they installed, so a replacement couldn't be grandfathered in — the zoning change occurred after we purchased. But with the house and the garage we are already over 60%, meaning we need a BZA action just to build a small elevated deck and stairs — the same process someone looking to create an ADU, expand their structure, or add a garage would have to go through.
Wow, great example. This is stuff that nobody who doesn't run into is ever aware of. Trying to be a small business owner or small builder in America is almost like being a political dissident in some rich authoritarian country. Like, you don't feel the limits on your freedom until something you want to do runs into them.
I live around the corner. Looked weird for a while, but the ends of the block got taller, and the next block over got taller and everyone is happy.
That little section of town is pretty interesting, old development and footprints but is just outside the historic district. You get some pretty interesting infill development as a result.
I much prefer this to the wholesale razing/redevelopment of the block by corporate developers looking to extract maximum value per square foot. As Braulio's comment partially illustrates, my concerns center around how do we make this a viable process, both in a regulatory way, and by making financing instruments available to individual property owners to insure that these neighborhoods don't simply fall victim to the same redevelopment interests that keep bulldozing us into "towne centres" as we currently experience?
In my neighborhood, most lots are 40' wide, with single-family houses on them. My neighbor has an 80' lot with his house on one half. He applied to the city to split the lot, so he could build a house on the empty lot. But, he was denied, because the current minimum lot width to build a house is 50'. I'm not sure when this down-zoning occurred, but it's dumb. I wrote a letter to support his appeal, arguing that our 40' lots are serving us well - we really should re-legalize them!
Not living in a place with many rowhouses, I wasn’t sure what was unusual about the pictures without being told. A mix of elevations seems natural enough.
Excellent piece and prompt. I’m responding before reading the linked material, but your main point is in the right direction. New infill developments should point to the way forward — up.
Thank you!
Example 1: "missing middle (finger) housing," lol. https://dcist.com/story/13/03/29/v-street-pop-up-is-a-big-middle-fin/
What's interesting is DC's response to the flurry of pop-ups and pop-backs that occurred in the 2010s: RF-1 zoning was changed so that maximum lot coverage is 60% (I can't recall what it was previously), meaning anything more than that requires a Board of Zoning Adjustment action.
I know this because I'm trying to replace a deck at the back of my house — which has always had a landing/stairs to the backyard. We also have a rare detached garage (not original, probably added in the 1950s). The flipper we purchased the house from had not permitted the larger deck they installed, so a replacement couldn't be grandfathered in — the zoning change occurred after we purchased. But with the house and the garage we are already over 60%, meaning we need a BZA action just to build a small elevated deck and stairs — the same process someone looking to create an ADU, expand their structure, or add a garage would have to go through.
Wow, great example. This is stuff that nobody who doesn't run into is ever aware of. Trying to be a small business owner or small builder in America is almost like being a political dissident in some rich authoritarian country. Like, you don't feel the limits on your freedom until something you want to do runs into them.
I live around the corner. Looked weird for a while, but the ends of the block got taller, and the next block over got taller and everyone is happy.
That little section of town is pretty interesting, old development and footprints but is just outside the historic district. You get some pretty interesting infill development as a result.
I much prefer this to the wholesale razing/redevelopment of the block by corporate developers looking to extract maximum value per square foot. As Braulio's comment partially illustrates, my concerns center around how do we make this a viable process, both in a regulatory way, and by making financing instruments available to individual property owners to insure that these neighborhoods don't simply fall victim to the same redevelopment interests that keep bulldozing us into "towne centres" as we currently experience?
I’m all for more housing but I wonder if this is creating more housing units or just larger units.
Also one all buildings on these streets are this height, is there still good sunlight etc.
This video (at about 4.5 minutes in) has a good discussion of ideal street width to height. I wonder how these fit.
https://youtu.be/xov7Ao_fPwQ?si=6ddGhDcdPlgKjlIB
We need more housing. But we also need great spaces.
In my neighborhood, most lots are 40' wide, with single-family houses on them. My neighbor has an 80' lot with his house on one half. He applied to the city to split the lot, so he could build a house on the empty lot. But, he was denied, because the current minimum lot width to build a house is 50'. I'm not sure when this down-zoning occurred, but it's dumb. I wrote a letter to support his appeal, arguing that our 40' lots are serving us well - we really should re-legalize them!
(I'm in Saint Paul, Minnesota.)
I'm pro 5over 1 but this definitely looks more welcoming and intimate.
Classic incremental development! The way it was always done. https://www.facebook.com/groups/676361072414143/permalink/7230734786976706/