4 ms·

I don’t care much for multi-family housing personally. I don’t want to share a wall with anyone, not even a family member and I’m willing to make some concessio

I don’t care much for multi-family housing personally. I don’t want to share a wall with anyone, not even a family member and I’m willing to make some concessions for that freedom. However, recently I became interested in adding an “accessory dwelling unit” on my property to accommodate aging relatives. Despite having the space for a small 500-750 sqft unit on my property, my city’s zoning rules killed the idea. The rules had some interesting limitations like the ADU can’t be more forward than the front of the house, can’t be in a front yard, can’t be more than 40% of viewable property for front, has to be more than 20ft away etc. Personally I’d be happy with more lax rules around ADU/mother-in-law units/etc. before everything becomes multiplexes.

epistasis 4y ago
Are you OK with other people living in multi unit housing, or does your desire for a detached unit extend to others' way of living? I ask because it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live. It's like lifting a ban on a certain type of car; it doesn't change your car, and there are still many types of vehicles on the market.
- lazypenguin 4y ago
  To me it’s replacing one problem with another. Simply changing zoning from single to multi-family doesn’t actually change core root problems in my opinion. A suburb full of single family homes or a suburb of multi-family homes are just different kinds of suburban hells. I think we need to be thinking about designing entire communities more intelligently with things like local markets, shops, parks, rest areas, schools, public transport etc. within walking distance. Unfortunately people don’t like to admit the downsides of dense multi-family housing either: no parking, increases traffic/congestion, reduction in greenery, looking straight into neighbors windows, etc. I’d personally like to see smarter zoning with mixed usage in a nice balance where all kinds of types of residences can coexist but I believe it requires proper administration. Otherwise the economic incentive for builders will result in the dominance of multi-family housing.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    While I agree that we need mixed use zoning, if you look at where the upzoning is happening, it's typically in places that allow mixed use. Ending single family zoning is also required to allow corner stores, not just allow apartments.
    - ianburrell 4y ago
      The upzoning will mostly affect walkable neighborhoods because those are the ones where there is most demand and where density will fit better. Those would be the pre-war streetcar suburbs and similar post-war suburbs. The funny thing is that there are “missing middle” apartments in my neighborhood and similar ones. The duplexes and up were just banned for decades.
  - ianburrell 4y ago
    Suburbs aren’t the problem. There are walkable neighborhoods with all that stuff. I live in pre-war streetcar suburb that doesn’t feel like post-war but is mostly single family homes. Part of increasing density is making those things you want possible. My feeling is that most of the effect of upzoning will be felt in close-in walkable neighborhoods because they are most desirable and easier to upgrade. Also, there is a wide range of multi-family housing from giant towers, mid-height apartments, and N-plexs. Most proposals are to mix “missing middle” housing in with single family. A lot of older neighborhoods already have some. A few triplexes are not going to cause problems. Around here, they are allowing 6-story apartments along major roads. They work well because there is good public transit.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    > I think we need to be thinking about designing entire communities more intelligently with things like local markets, shops, parks, rest areas, schools, public transport etc. within walking distance. Start by asking if these things you’re mentioning are literally banned. If so start there.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  > it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live No, that's not the reason at all. It's concerns over traffic, impact on already-packed schools, and overall crowding.
  - bgm1975 4y ago
    Nah, those are code words. What they mean is they’re terrified it might negatively affect their home value (or for some, its racially motivated). Most of these people only care about other people until they think it might negatively effect their perceived wealth. Ask a hope owner if they’d support a bill that would shave 25% of their home value to help…starving children (and we’ll assume the program is proven successful) and most would come up with BS reasons to oppose it.
    - khazhoux 4y ago
      Traffic, no room in schools, and other crowding issues are not code words. They are quite literal concerns. Rather than argue that people are being disingenuous, I would rather someone explain how traffic would be offset or how many more schools would be built. Or I guess we can just cry racism and greed and that’s that.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        I would say that they are red herrings because despite directly and definitively addressing these issues with people that raise them, they simply come up with a new list of reasons to oppose. I've been fighting this for years, and it's always the same, there is no way to address all the concerns because the list of concerns is bottomless. You see it in this thread, we started with concerns about someone sharing a wall and here we are... Pointing out that schools are emptying in an area due to lack of children with an agong population, and that same person that one second ago was burning with concern for school crowding now has an entirety different concern completely unrelated, and has switched gears without even acknowledging that their concern was addressed. I don't believe a single person that says these are their actual concerns, unless they continue to show interest in their concern after their objection has been addressed. These sorts of "concerns" are just stalling tactics, ways to avoid talking about their actual interest: stopping the housing at all costs.

epistasis 4y ago

Are you OK with other people living in multi unit housing, or does your desire for a detached unit extend to others' way of living? I ask because it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live. It's like lifting a ban on a certain type of car; it doesn't change your car, and there are still many types of vehicles on the market.

lazypenguin 4y ago
To me it’s replacing one problem with another. Simply changing zoning from single to multi-family doesn’t actually change core root problems in my opinion. A suburb full of single family homes or a suburb of multi-family homes are just different kinds of suburban hells. I think we need to be thinking about designing entire communities more intelligently with things like local markets, shops, parks, rest areas, schools, public transport etc. within walking distance. Unfortunately people don’t like to admit the downsides of dense multi-family housing either: no parking, increases traffic/congestion, reduction in greenery, looking straight into neighbors windows, etc. I’d personally like to see smarter zoning with mixed usage in a nice balance where all kinds of types of residences can coexist but I believe it requires proper administration. Otherwise the economic incentive for builders will result in the dominance of multi-family housing.
- epistasis 4y ago
  While I agree that we need mixed use zoning, if you look at where the upzoning is happening, it's typically in places that allow mixed use. Ending single family zoning is also required to allow corner stores, not just allow apartments.
  - ianburrell 4y ago
    The upzoning will mostly affect walkable neighborhoods because those are the ones where there is most demand and where density will fit better. Those would be the pre-war streetcar suburbs and similar post-war suburbs. The funny thing is that there are “missing middle” apartments in my neighborhood and similar ones. The duplexes and up were just banned for decades.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  Suburbs aren’t the problem. There are walkable neighborhoods with all that stuff. I live in pre-war streetcar suburb that doesn’t feel like post-war but is mostly single family homes. Part of increasing density is making those things you want possible. My feeling is that most of the effect of upzoning will be felt in close-in walkable neighborhoods because they are most desirable and easier to upgrade. Also, there is a wide range of multi-family housing from giant towers, mid-height apartments, and N-plexs. Most proposals are to mix “missing middle” housing in with single family. A lot of older neighborhoods already have some. A few triplexes are not going to cause problems. Around here, they are allowing 6-story apartments along major roads. They work well because there is good public transit.
- CPLX 4y ago
  > I think we need to be thinking about designing entire communities more intelligently with things like local markets, shops, parks, rest areas, schools, public transport etc. within walking distance. Start by asking if these things you’re mentioning are literally banned. If so start there.
khazhoux 4y ago
> it seems that where ever this happens, many people oppose merely allowing multiunit because they don't want to live in multiunit, even though it doesn't actually impact where they live No, that's not the reason at all. It's concerns over traffic, impact on already-packed schools, and overall crowding.
- bgm1975 4y ago
  Nah, those are code words. What they mean is they’re terrified it might negatively affect their home value (or for some, its racially motivated). Most of these people only care about other people until they think it might negatively effect their perceived wealth. Ask a hope owner if they’d support a bill that would shave 25% of their home value to help…starving children (and we’ll assume the program is proven successful) and most would come up with BS reasons to oppose it.
  - khazhoux 4y ago
    Traffic, no room in schools, and other crowding issues are not code words. They are quite literal concerns. Rather than argue that people are being disingenuous, I would rather someone explain how traffic would be offset or how many more schools would be built. Or I guess we can just cry racism and greed and that’s that.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      I would say that they are red herrings because despite directly and definitively addressing these issues with people that raise them, they simply come up with a new list of reasons to oppose. I've been fighting this for years, and it's always the same, there is no way to address all the concerns because the list of concerns is bottomless. You see it in this thread, we started with concerns about someone sharing a wall and here we are... Pointing out that schools are emptying in an area due to lack of children with an agong population, and that same person that one second ago was burning with concern for school crowding now has an entirety different concern completely unrelated, and has switched gears without even acknowledging that their concern was addressed. I don't believe a single person that says these are their actual concerns, unless they continue to show interest in their concern after their objection has been addressed. These sorts of "concerns" are just stalling tactics, ways to avoid talking about their actual interest: stopping the housing at all costs.