4 ms·

I am not a fan of adding ADUs. It’s not because it’s “ugly”, or “scared of change”. I think it doesn’t go far enough. A home upzoned to support 1 -> 2+ familie

by xyst 3y ago

I am not a fan of adding ADUs. It’s not because it’s “ugly”, or “scared of change”. I think it doesn’t go far enough. A home upzoned to support 1 -> 2+ families in the sticks still means extra amount of traffic originating from the burbs. It partially fixes one problem (increasing housing supply should result in stabilized rent and home affordability). But problems such as reducing carbon footprint through reduced use of cars, dependency on expensive highways, ban development of new SFH to preserve environment, and supporting alternative modes of transportation (bike, walking, bus, train) are left untouched. With the impending single zoned commercial building crash, I was hoping we could get a massive push at all levels (federal, state, local) to provide incentives for converting these to mixed zone properties. for what it’s worth, it’s a small step in the right direction.

zozbot234 3y ago
You need density if you want to encourage light rail or even bike infrastructure (such as dedicated bike paths or lanes). The two go hand in hand. Of course more mixed use would also help, gradually turning the suburbs into something more reminiscent of traditional villages or towns.
- namibj 3y ago
  But for that the density reachable without elevators (if you're ignoring accessibility; i.e., 4~6 floors plus basement) suffices. And yeah, having the bottom floor be commercial is often effective. Even if it's just a GP's doctor's office. Look at pre-WW1 urban core neighborhoods in Germany, for example.
mlrtime 3y ago
>ban development of new SFH to preserve environment When you say this, do you mean across the US, or localized? I'm honestly shocked that some people are in the opinion that SFH should be banned nationally.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  It’s a view that is divorced from any sort of political reality.
  - enraged_camel 3y ago
    It may be divorced from political reality, but it aligns perfectly with environmental reality. Sprawl is absolutely terrible for the environment, for a large number of reasons.
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      Go to google maps and zoom out, urban sprawl is not the problem. You are talking about ending a way of life that untold millions aspire too, I wonder what kind of affect that would have.
      - prawn 3y ago
        Note that they were saying ban development of. Not do away with. And not necessarily for the rest of time. There are obviously loads of properties that fit the bill and would go undeveloped for many years. That said, I do think banning them (even just by developers) is unnecessary if you provide zoning incentives instead. If you give developers the option to split up land because it will give them a higher return, they're typically quite quick to do that, at least in Australia. That wouldn't prevent owners or speculators from building their dream standalone house.
CydeWeys 3y ago
> With the impending single zoned commercial building crash, I was hoping we could get a massive push at all levels (federal, state, local) to provide incentives for converting these to mixed zone properties. You had me up until this point. Sadly, office buildings are constructed quite differently from residential buildings, and it really is hard to convert them over. It makes more sense to leave them as non-residential space, even if vacant for awhile before finally being reoccupied, and then to separately build brand new purpose-specific high rise residential buildings (which will be nicer than a converted office building ever could). And another problem with the conversion plan is that office buildings aren't fully vacant! Here in NYC, the office vacancy rate is just under 20% (and falling). But that means it's very hard to find a single building that's 100% vacant to convert over. Most buildings are mostly full with long-term commercial tenants on long leases. Yes, some few floors might be vacant, but many are not; you can't exactly kick out the existing tenants that are making the building mostly full in order to convert everything over. It doesn't make sense and it would incredibly costly. Plus, the buildings with the highest vacancy rates are the oldest ones with the worst conditions (i.e. not prime commercial space); these are less attractive for conversion for residential.
- michaelcampbell 3y ago
  > Sadly, office buildings are constructed quite differently from residential buildings, and it really is hard to convert them over. That may be true, but not sure why it's relevant. If someone wants to take on the cost of doing so for an ROI, why not have the regs in place that allows it? If doing so causes some other _harm_ (environmental, whatever), then sure lets address that but not allowing something because "it's hard" seems an odd take. I have lived in apartments where basic commercial needs were within walking distance, and it was fine for that period in my life. I'd love to not have to drive or be driven to do that now, even with my SFH. There are several mixed-zone communities in my area where are all booming (not in the same building, but I don't see that as anything but the obvious next step).
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >That may be true, but not sure why it's relevant. If someone wants to take on the cost of doing so for an ROI, why not have the regs in place that allows it? It's relevant because the extent of the difference has significant impact on the cost of the conversion, which determines whether the ROI is likely to be positive or negative and so whether somebody is likely to went to take on the cost without additional incentive.
therealdkz 3y ago
this is by design. cram people in, the „car ownership problem” will fix itslef

by xyst 3y ago

zozbot234 3y ago

You need density if you want to encourage light rail or even bike infrastructure (such as dedicated bike paths or lanes). The two go hand in hand. Of course more mixed use would also help, gradually turning the suburbs into something more reminiscent of traditional villages or towns.

namibj 3y ago
But for that the density reachable without elevators (if you're ignoring accessibility; i.e., 4~6 floors plus basement) suffices. And yeah, having the bottom floor be commercial is often effective. Even if it's just a GP's doctor's office. Look at pre-WW1 urban core neighborhoods in Germany, for example.

mlrtime 3y ago

>ban development of new SFH to preserve environment When you say this, do you mean across the US, or localized? I'm honestly shocked that some people are in the opinion that SFH should be banned nationally.

whimsicalism 3y ago
It’s a view that is divorced from any sort of political reality.
- enraged_camel 3y ago
  It may be divorced from political reality, but it aligns perfectly with environmental reality. Sprawl is absolutely terrible for the environment, for a large number of reasons.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    Go to google maps and zoom out, urban sprawl is not the problem. You are talking about ending a way of life that untold millions aspire too, I wonder what kind of affect that would have.
    - prawn 3y ago
      Note that they were saying ban development of. Not do away with. And not necessarily for the rest of time. There are obviously loads of properties that fit the bill and would go undeveloped for many years. That said, I do think banning them (even just by developers) is unnecessary if you provide zoning incentives instead. If you give developers the option to split up land because it will give them a higher return, they're typically quite quick to do that, at least in Australia. That wouldn't prevent owners or speculators from building their dream standalone house.

CydeWeys 3y ago

> With the impending single zoned commercial building crash, I was hoping we could get a massive push at all levels (federal, state, local) to provide incentives for converting these to mixed zone properties. You had me up until this point. Sadly, office buildings are constructed quite differently from residential buildings, and it really is hard to convert them over. It makes more sense to leave them as non-residential space, even if vacant for awhile before finally being reoccupied, and then to separately build brand new purpose-specific high rise residential buildings (which will be nicer than a converted office building ever could). And another problem with the conversion plan is that office buildings aren't fully vacant! Here in NYC, the office vacancy rate is just under 20% (and falling). But that means it's very hard to find a single building that's 100% vacant to convert over. Most buildings are mostly full with long-term commercial tenants on long leases. Yes, some few floors might be vacant, but many are not; you can't exactly kick out the existing tenants that are making the building mostly full in order to convert everything over. It doesn't make sense and it would incredibly costly. Plus, the buildings with the highest vacancy rates are the oldest ones with the worst conditions (i.e. not prime commercial space); these are less attractive for conversion for residential.

michaelcampbell 3y ago
> Sadly, office buildings are constructed quite differently from residential buildings, and it really is hard to convert them over. That may be true, but not sure why it's relevant. If someone wants to take on the cost of doing so for an ROI, why not have the regs in place that allows it? If doing so causes some other _harm_ (environmental, whatever), then sure lets address that but not allowing something because "it's hard" seems an odd take. I have lived in apartments where basic commercial needs were within walking distance, and it was fine for that period in my life. I'd love to not have to drive or be driven to do that now, even with my SFH. There are several mixed-zone communities in my area where are all booming (not in the same building, but I don't see that as anything but the obvious next step).
- thfuran 3y ago
  >That may be true, but not sure why it's relevant. If someone wants to take on the cost of doing so for an ROI, why not have the regs in place that allows it? It's relevant because the extent of the difference has significant impact on the cost of the conversion, which determines whether the ROI is likely to be positive or negative and so whether somebody is likely to went to take on the cost without additional incentive.

therealdkz 3y ago

this is by design. cram people in, the „car ownership problem” will fix itslef