7 ms·

> It’s also because their rise has been so sudden, an outcome of changing codes, improved economic fortunes, and pent-up demand in the wake of the Great Recessi

by dkarl 2y ago

> It’s also because their rise has been so sudden, an outcome of changing codes, improved economic fortunes, and pent-up demand in the wake of the Great Recession more than a decade ago. And it is true they sometimes tend toward being architecturally bland or downright ugly. They have so many other advantages that they don't need to be attractive, and developers hate to pay for anything they don't need. Also, this moment where they're breaking out and popping up like weeds to fill pent-up demand is an awkward moment, design-wise, because you need a lot of new designs quickly without a long history to look back on and draw from. Compare that to high-rise office buildings or single family homes, where you have a century and more of variations in countless different styles, where you have not only countless iconic examples but decades' worth of reaction to many of them. Some of the 5-over-1 buildings going up now will turn out to be iconic, style-defining precedents. Most will be trash, but will still serve the functional purpose. Personally, I love seeing these go up near me. It means more housing supply and more businesses near me that cater to foot traffic, in the same package.

jrochkind1 2y ago
There are plenty 50-100 year old examples (the whole range) in, say, Chicago of mid-rise 4-6 story buildings with retail on the first floor and residential or office on the remaining floors. Chicago is a mid-rise city. Examples which are considered attractive and historic and nobody complains about them... but they aren't timber frame over concrete podium, they're brick or stone on all floors. Which is of course often too expensive to do now. (Although Chicago has all-masonry examples from the past couple decades too... as well as timber-over-concrete examples I think). I guess it's the timber-over-concrete that is new and without historical example? Or regardless, the issue is that the historical examples are too expensive to build now. (Why isn't this an issue with residential too? I think it is actually?) Here's a very typical generic Chicago example, which possibly has had it's ground floor facade replaced at some point in an uninspired way, but you can see the masonry on the upper floors (only 3-over-1) which would be an absolute premium luxury build today, and the building has plenty of character even though it's not being used for especially high-rent purposes at the moment: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2.88h,111.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS3BGfbQt_wzMUdk1zWomPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2... Here's a new construction (past 20 years anyway) 4-over-1 that is all brick... pretty boring and generic. Would people hate it as much as the timber-over-concrete? I have no idea. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,262.19h,119.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv6TOZ5H83BO2hiA_L4BBSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,26... Here's a pretty delightful and typical older all masonry 5-over-1, nothing special, tons of buildings like this. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,84.49h,102.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbP-humajRslr3p4ZIKsTpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,8... There is no lack of great historical examples of mid-rise 5-over-1 residential over retail -- but they probably aren't timber frame over concrete podium.
- dkarl 2y ago
  My knee-jerk reaction is that traditional building styles are probably not cost-competitive, and modern construction mimicking traditional styles would be perceived as fake and inauthentic. But I stand corrected on the history; thank you.
  - jrochkind1 2y ago
    Aren't traditional styles of single family homes also far too expensive to build now for non-luxury-premium prices too though? I don't think it's special to 5-over-1. (And indeed, most new construction single family homes are pretty disastrous too?) I especially love the architecture of Chicago though, it is a delightful city to be in. Many parts of the city managed to have historical building booms at just the right times to leave us with some amazing infrastructure. But yeah, the OP is talking a lot about how mid-rise density residential-over-retail is great for livable cities -- and I agree! Chicago demonstrates it. 2-5 stories of residential over a retail ground floor is great for neighborhood "main roads". That isn't the issue, the issue is that we just don't like cost-competitive new construction much, whatever the layout.
    - dkarl 2y ago
      > Aren't traditional styles of single family homes also far too expensive to build now for non-luxury-premium prices too though? That's a good question. I'm not an expert, but I think what was cheap in the 20th century is still generally pretty cheap now. A stick-built bungalow or ranch house with siding was cheap then and is cheap now. I also think there's more room in the market for not-quite-the-cheapest-thing when it comes to single family homes. Like private automobiles, single family homes can be more expensive than they need to be, if the extra cost allows the buyer express their individual taste or their social status. If someone prefers a brick facade, they might pay extra for it, just like they might pay extra to drive a $60k car that has roughly the same practical utility as a $30k car that is also available in the market. > the issue is that we just don't like cost-competitive new construction much, whatever the layout Agree 100%.
- xnx 2y ago
echelon 2y ago
I wish the zoning permitted them to do more than five stories.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  Even if it did, it's not clear how many developers would take that up. Part of why the 5-over-1 is attractive is because you get a decent amount of housing (and some retail) for fairly cheap. Going taller usually means a more expensive type of building. Having been to a lot of big European cities, buildings of roughly this size of ~6 stories or so seem to typically be the norm, and they get plenty of density out of it just by having a lot of them. Much taller buildings usually aren't all that common. Hell, even in Tokyo, while there's a lot of high rises, the average building definitely isn't a high rise, it's probably still six stories or less. That said, much higher density in some areas (e.g. downtown, or right next to subway stations) definitely makes a lot of sense.
  - creer 2y ago
    The retail in "5+1 (retail)" is mostly a planning checkbox. In many locations it may no sense at all and is quickly taken over by (1) the leasing office), (2) the construction office, (3) a startup, (4) empty hopeful vacant space.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      Have they only fairly recently started going up in your area? There's a chicken-and-egg problem with these; on the one hand, the retail space is only useful in a relatively dense area, on the other hand, these are generally an essential part of densifying an area. In Dublin, we had a building boom which came to a crashing halt in 2008 or so with the financial crisis, and then resumed by about 2016. In the interim, street-level retail space in new apartment blocks on the advancing edge often lay empty, which kind of makes sense, because the density wasn't there yet. As building resumed, and areas filled up, so did the retail space.
      - 2y ago
mywittyname 2y ago
There's nothing stopping localities from forcing developers to make these buildings nice looking. I've been to villages where the mcdonalds is in a tutor style building because that's what code requires. Most of these buildings are the same 5-over-1 design with retail on the bottom, but with a fancy looking facade that makes it look nicer. But developers aren't going to pay for design unless they are forced to. That being said, a lot of styles we appreciate now were the cheap designs of their day. Those mid-century storefronts in towns that grew up the 50-60s were all cheap to produce.
- dkarl 2y ago
  > There's nothing stopping localities from forcing developers to make these buildings nice looking. I've been to villages where the mcdonalds is in a tutor style building because that's what code requires. That's homogeneity, not attractiveness. I think there are a very small number of places where this works, as a cool marker of identity and difference, like (maybe) Santa Fe. Even there I'm not sure if residents like it, or if it's just the tourists who think it's historic and cute. But for most places it just makes things bland and depressing. At first glance it's kinda cool when a university enforces a style guide that visually distinguishes its campus from its environs, but it quickly turns sad when you realize the art museum looks exactly like the biology building, which looks exactly like the business school, which looks exactly like the campus health services.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  How about we don’t add hurdles to building housing in a housing crisis
- creer 2y ago
  This often results in "silly" rather than "nice". The architect knows what it takes to get the project accepted and so they do THAT and not one penny more. The city staff and council are (somewhat) bound to accept what meets the rules and they do (after begging for park, low income housing, stores, sidewalk extra width, free wifi, parking, not parking, cash, cash-in-lieu, no gas stove, transit passes, police donation (I jest?), etc). And predictably the result is cliché and repetitive. There is probably even some kind of curtain wall system off the shelf for it too. Off course, there is, obviously. Around here (and likely across america) you see the same facade features again and again -probably because they are off the shelf and picked out of a catalog. (of course they are, but the degree to which they are is the silly part of it. There is ZERO creativity in them.) Actually this is to the point where one naive building here went so faaaaar out of their way to look different (while within budget) that it looks absurd. Absurdly, deliberately, gratuitously different - in a way that makes little technical sense.) Similarly another one a partner lived in, was so well thought out, it attacked your eye. I could not walk through it without seeing the attention to detail. Outstanding designers. Interesting how "interesting" is now so obvious. In a neighborhood that was otherwise boring as hell.
SoftTalker 2y ago
I'm all for more housing, but the ground-floor retail seems to sit vacant at least where I am. There's only so many coffee shops and breakfast/lunch diners that one neighborhood can support. It'd be nice if some of that space could be for accessible apartments, maybe bike storage, or anything that would actually get used instead of just vacant retail space with soaped-up windows.
- freeopinion 2y ago
  Of course you can also have shoe stores, barbers, maker spaces, furniture stores, plumbing supplies, etc. But we have moved to megastores. We want to go to a single million square meter store that stocks everything. Or we just order stuff online. I'd actually like see entrepreneurs take a run at that retail space. It would be cool to live in a place with a produce stand on the ground floor and a deli around the corner with a small DMV office in between. It would be nice to see an intelligent analysis on why your area can't seem to fill up that retail space. Ditto some initiative to change the situation. Sometimes economies of scale seem to favor three giant guitar stores versus 15 small ones. It would be fun to see people who are smart enough to make small neighborhood shops competitive.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomcam 2y ago
    > I'd actually like see entrepreneurs take a run at that retail space. Well of course. So would those entrepreneurs. Problem is that rent is usually way too high to for a shoe store or makerspace to break even. Forget plumbing supplies. There usually isn’t easy parking for a truck, and you need lots of room for a plumbing supply store. These spaces are normally mandated by local regulations, so whether or not they are economically viable is irrelevant.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Yes, the planning commissions approve these developments with the requirement for "ground floor retail" but the demand doesn't seem to be there, at least not at the rents being asked. If they would truly rent these places out at what the market will pay, that would be fine and I'd love to see what ideas people had to use that space. But seeing as how most of it remains vacant, that must not be happening.

by dkarl 2y ago

jrochkind1 2y ago

There are plenty 50-100 year old examples (the whole range) in, say, Chicago of mid-rise 4-6 story buildings with retail on the first floor and residential or office on the remaining floors. Chicago is a mid-rise city. Examples which are considered attractive and historic and nobody complains about them... but they aren't timber frame over concrete podium, they're brick or stone on all floors. Which is of course often too expensive to do now. (Although Chicago has all-masonry examples from the past couple decades too... as well as timber-over-concrete examples I think). I guess it's the timber-over-concrete that is new and without historical example? Or regardless, the issue is that the historical examples are too expensive to build now. (Why isn't this an issue with residential too? I think it is actually?) Here's a very typical generic Chicago example, which possibly has had it's ground floor facade replaced at some point in an uninspired way, but you can see the masonry on the upper floors (only 3-over-1) which would be an absolute premium luxury build today, and the building has plenty of character even though it's not being used for especially high-rent purposes at the moment: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2.88h,111.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS3BGfbQt_wzMUdk1zWomPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654135,-87.6587315,3a,75y,2... Here's a new construction (past 20 years anyway) 4-over-1 that is all brick... pretty boring and generic. Would people hate it as much as the timber-over-concrete? I have no idea. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,262.19h,119.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv6TOZ5H83BO2hiA_L4BBSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.962424,-87.6661565,3a,75y,26... Here's a pretty delightful and typical older all masonry 5-over-1, nothing special, tons of buildings like this. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,84.49h,102.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbP-humajRslr3p4ZIKsTpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9582377,-87.6528717,3a,75y,8... There is no lack of great historical examples of mid-rise 5-over-1 residential over retail -- but they probably aren't timber frame over concrete podium.

dkarl 2y ago
My knee-jerk reaction is that traditional building styles are probably not cost-competitive, and modern construction mimicking traditional styles would be perceived as fake and inauthentic. But I stand corrected on the history; thank you.
- jrochkind1 2y ago
  Aren't traditional styles of single family homes also far too expensive to build now for non-luxury-premium prices too though? I don't think it's special to 5-over-1. (And indeed, most new construction single family homes are pretty disastrous too?) I especially love the architecture of Chicago though, it is a delightful city to be in. Many parts of the city managed to have historical building booms at just the right times to leave us with some amazing infrastructure. But yeah, the OP is talking a lot about how mid-rise density residential-over-retail is great for livable cities -- and I agree! Chicago demonstrates it. 2-5 stories of residential over a retail ground floor is great for neighborhood "main roads". That isn't the issue, the issue is that we just don't like cost-competitive new construction much, whatever the layout.
  - dkarl 2y ago
    > Aren't traditional styles of single family homes also far too expensive to build now for non-luxury-premium prices too though? That's a good question. I'm not an expert, but I think what was cheap in the 20th century is still generally pretty cheap now. A stick-built bungalow or ranch house with siding was cheap then and is cheap now. I also think there's more room in the market for not-quite-the-cheapest-thing when it comes to single family homes. Like private automobiles, single family homes can be more expensive than they need to be, if the extra cost allows the buyer express their individual taste or their social status. If someone prefers a brick facade, they might pay extra for it, just like they might pay extra to drive a $60k car that has roughly the same practical utility as a $30k car that is also available in the market. > the issue is that we just don't like cost-competitive new construction much, whatever the layout Agree 100%.
xnx 2y ago

echelon 2y ago

I wish the zoning permitted them to do more than five stories.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
Even if it did, it's not clear how many developers would take that up. Part of why the 5-over-1 is attractive is because you get a decent amount of housing (and some retail) for fairly cheap. Going taller usually means a more expensive type of building. Having been to a lot of big European cities, buildings of roughly this size of ~6 stories or so seem to typically be the norm, and they get plenty of density out of it just by having a lot of them. Much taller buildings usually aren't all that common. Hell, even in Tokyo, while there's a lot of high rises, the average building definitely isn't a high rise, it's probably still six stories or less. That said, much higher density in some areas (e.g. downtown, or right next to subway stations) definitely makes a lot of sense.
- creer 2y ago
  The retail in "5+1 (retail)" is mostly a planning checkbox. In many locations it may no sense at all and is quickly taken over by (1) the leasing office), (2) the construction office, (3) a startup, (4) empty hopeful vacant space.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    Have they only fairly recently started going up in your area? There's a chicken-and-egg problem with these; on the one hand, the retail space is only useful in a relatively dense area, on the other hand, these are generally an essential part of densifying an area. In Dublin, we had a building boom which came to a crashing halt in 2008 or so with the financial crisis, and then resumed by about 2016. In the interim, street-level retail space in new apartment blocks on the advancing edge often lay empty, which kind of makes sense, because the density wasn't there yet. As building resumed, and areas filled up, so did the retail space.
    - 2y ago

mywittyname 2y ago

There's nothing stopping localities from forcing developers to make these buildings nice looking. I've been to villages where the mcdonalds is in a tutor style building because that's what code requires. Most of these buildings are the same 5-over-1 design with retail on the bottom, but with a fancy looking facade that makes it look nicer. But developers aren't going to pay for design unless they are forced to. That being said, a lot of styles we appreciate now were the cheap designs of their day. Those mid-century storefronts in towns that grew up the 50-60s were all cheap to produce.

dkarl 2y ago
> There's nothing stopping localities from forcing developers to make these buildings nice looking. I've been to villages where the mcdonalds is in a tutor style building because that's what code requires. That's homogeneity, not attractiveness. I think there are a very small number of places where this works, as a cool marker of identity and difference, like (maybe) Santa Fe. Even there I'm not sure if residents like it, or if it's just the tourists who think it's historic and cute. But for most places it just makes things bland and depressing. At first glance it's kinda cool when a university enforces a style guide that visually distinguishes its campus from its environs, but it quickly turns sad when you realize the art museum looks exactly like the biology building, which looks exactly like the business school, which looks exactly like the campus health services.
rangestransform 2y ago
How about we don’t add hurdles to building housing in a housing crisis
creer 2y ago
This often results in "silly" rather than "nice". The architect knows what it takes to get the project accepted and so they do THAT and not one penny more. The city staff and council are (somewhat) bound to accept what meets the rules and they do (after begging for park, low income housing, stores, sidewalk extra width, free wifi, parking, not parking, cash, cash-in-lieu, no gas stove, transit passes, police donation (I jest?), etc). And predictably the result is cliché and repetitive. There is probably even some kind of curtain wall system off the shelf for it too. Off course, there is, obviously. Around here (and likely across america) you see the same facade features again and again -probably because they are off the shelf and picked out of a catalog. (of course they are, but the degree to which they are is the silly part of it. There is ZERO creativity in them.) Actually this is to the point where one naive building here went so faaaaar out of their way to look different (while within budget) that it looks absurd. Absurdly, deliberately, gratuitously different - in a way that makes little technical sense.) Similarly another one a partner lived in, was so well thought out, it attacked your eye. I could not walk through it without seeing the attention to detail. Outstanding designers. Interesting how "interesting" is now so obvious. In a neighborhood that was otherwise boring as hell.

SoftTalker 2y ago

I'm all for more housing, but the ground-floor retail seems to sit vacant at least where I am. There's only so many coffee shops and breakfast/lunch diners that one neighborhood can support. It'd be nice if some of that space could be for accessible apartments, maybe bike storage, or anything that would actually get used instead of just vacant retail space with soaped-up windows.

freeopinion 2y ago
Of course you can also have shoe stores, barbers, maker spaces, furniture stores, plumbing supplies, etc. But we have moved to megastores. We want to go to a single million square meter store that stocks everything. Or we just order stuff online. I'd actually like see entrepreneurs take a run at that retail space. It would be cool to live in a place with a produce stand on the ground floor and a deli around the corner with a small DMV office in between. It would be nice to see an intelligent analysis on why your area can't seem to fill up that retail space. Ditto some initiative to change the situation. Sometimes economies of scale seem to favor three giant guitar stores versus 15 small ones. It would be fun to see people who are smart enough to make small neighborhood shops competitive.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tomcam 2y ago
  > I'd actually like see entrepreneurs take a run at that retail space. Well of course. So would those entrepreneurs. Problem is that rent is usually way too high to for a shoe store or makerspace to break even. Forget plumbing supplies. There usually isn’t easy parking for a truck, and you need lots of room for a plumbing supply store. These spaces are normally mandated by local regulations, so whether or not they are economically viable is irrelevant.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Yes, the planning commissions approve these developments with the requirement for "ground floor retail" but the demand doesn't seem to be there, at least not at the rents being asked. If they would truly rent these places out at what the market will pay, that would be fine and I'd love to see what ideas people had to use that space. But seeing as how most of it remains vacant, that must not be happening.