HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 7:06 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Suburban areas are infamous for their poor land use patterns and single-use zoning. Single-family over here, multi-family over there, commercial over here, etc. How is this surprising?
it's not surprising.

just unfortunate.

it didn't have to be that way.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 7:12 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Sometimes it's important to talk about stuff we're already aware of.

What can we do? For one, how about pressuring our states and municipal jurisdictions to at least allow urban formats, particularly around transit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 7:14 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
So it's a land use complaint. Suburban areas are infamous for their poor land use patterns and single-use zoning. Single-family over here, multi-family over there, commercial over here, etc. How is this surprising?
Yeah, the premise of the thread isn't exactly surprising. Suburban developments, especially in the US, are known for single-use zoning and tract development.

Quote:
I agree that it's better to integrate different housing typologies within neighborhoods. I live in an apartment in a neighborhood that contains a solid mix of large apartment buildings, small (4-6 unit) apartment buildings, duplexes, bungalow courts, and single-family homes. It all works together very well. But it's an older neighborhood, and not some far flung suburb full of cul-de-sacs and big box retail.

One of the hallmarks of American suburbs is that everything is separated. Apartment complexes, which were not always meant for the poor when they were built, are not special in this regard, nor are they indicative of a desire to "keep the poors contained" as has been claimed. A lot of the suburban apartment complexes that now are home to lower income people, used to be desirable, modern developments! They're cordoned off from the single family, because different uses and even different intensities of the same use, are separated in suburbs.
Whether or not they actually were by design meant to "contain" poor people (I think cases could be made for them being purposeful, but depends on the specific situation) is kind of irrelevant. The fact is that the present conditions are that poor people are limited in their housing options.

But also just saying "of course suburbia has everything separated, it's suburbia" just kind of resigns us to the idea that this is simply the way things are. My argument is things can and should be better.

Quote:
Also, the 3-6 unit, small scale apartment buildings we all love don't really get built many places these days. Not in cities or in suburbs, and it's not all because zoning prohibits them. It no longer makes economic sense, from many developers POV, to construct such buildings. They much prefer to aggregate property and build larger buildings. I think this is part of the equation, too. We just don't build the 'missing middle' housing like we used to, even in cities where such structures have been legalized citywide. Development is too expensive to invest in such product, unless it's of the luxury variety.
Would you be willing to elaborate more on this (or have links to sources)? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, as this is something I'm less versed in.

From my limited understanding, it is more economical for developers to build massively scaled developments due to things like zoning (setback requirements, parking minimums) driving up the costs that can be more easily spread over a larger development. If you remove these regulations, it is suddenly more economical.

Also, small-scale development is still built in the form of single family housing. What is so prohibitive (beyond the aforementioned zoning regulations) that a similarly sized lot can't instead hold a few rowhomes or a small apartment building?

To what extent is the drive to maximize profits as much as possible driving development away from smaller scaled development? What I mean by this is, would these developments still not be able to break even (at least), just not as much as a block long development with high-rise condos above? Surely similar economic pressures existed 100 years ago, and yet development was smaller scale. But developers could have raked in more money taking in a whole block and doing a massive development, even in 1921.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 7:28 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Sometimes it's important to talk about stuff we're already aware of.

What can we do? For one, how about pressuring our states and municipal jurisdictions to at least allow urban formats, particularly around transit?
I think that would work in older streetcar type suburbs where there is a heightened demand justifying the cost of building more urban oriented developments. Not so much in further flung areas with cheap land thus little ROI on such developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:32 PM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Also, the 3-6 unit, small scale apartment buildings we all love don't really get built many places these days. Not in cities or in suburbs, and it's not all because zoning prohibits them. It no longer makes economic sense, from many developers POV, to construct such buildings. They much prefer to aggregate property and build larger buildings. I think this is part of the equation, too. We just don't build the 'missing middle' housing like we used to, even in cities where such structures have been legalized citywide. Development is too expensive to invest in such product, unless it's of the luxury variety.
This is not a small point. Land use zoning in the majority of cities has made this extraordinarily difficult. Even in places like Santa Barbara, which is urban-esque (or pretends to be) but also highly single family, mixed use projects for developers will not pencil out without 16-24 units due to development costs. I cannot think of any city or suburban lot that we have worked on in the past 20 years where small scale 3-6 unit buildings were the program, except for two projects we did for Habitat for Humanity (low income).
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:42 PM
edale edale is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
it's not surprising.

just unfortunate.

it didn't have to be that way.
It's indicative of a time period where people thought that segregating uses and orienting life around the car was the way of the future. The latter half of the 20th century was pretty much disastrous from an urban development perspective. We all know this-- neighborhood business districts got obliterated by malls and big box stores. Urban neighborhoods, often with impressive urban forms and architecture, were abandoned in favor of ticky tacky new suburbia. The car became king.

I'd say we have entered a bit of a new era, though. Mall culture has cratered, sprawl seems to have slowed as cities underwent a collective rebirth across the country, 'new urbanism' became a...thing. These are all signs that we have learned a little bit from the sins of our past, at least in some places.

Overall, though, I still maintain that the maligned suburban apartment complex provides a valuable role for bringing diversity to suburban communities and their schools, regardless of their urban form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:44 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
To what extent is the drive to maximize profits as much as possible driving development away from smaller scaled development? What I mean by this is, would these developments still not be able to break even (at least), just not as much as a block long development with high-rise condos above? Surely similar economic pressures existed 100 years ago, and yet development was smaller scale. But developers could have raked in more money taking in a whole block and doing a massive development, even in 1921.

Let's think about this one for a second. It's much more risky and costly to acquire a bunch of lots and do a major redevelopment. Yes, the potential for higher profit is there, but that's because there is a higher risk associated with these large scale projects. Plus, it limits development to just the big corporations have the capital for such an undertaking.

Smaller scale infill developments could greatly increase densities, if only they were allowed by zoning. More communities are starting to allow accessory dwellings in single-family neighborhoods, (think in law suites or laneway housing). There require minimal capital investment, would be a great revenue source for the property owner, and is going to provide housing that is naturally affordable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 8:45 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Tons of variables on that Jmanc.

In a region with growth management and population-growth pressures, outer suburban land won't be as cheap as in some regions. This will be particularly true in the spots that allow density -- growth will be channeled to specific areas (suburban and urban) via zoning and public investment. Those areas will generally be places with transit and retail nearby, which will also help your rents. This land won't be terribly cheap either.

But in most of these regions' suburbs that's a small part of the story. The development equation will start with maximizing units and square footage. This is almost universal in my area. If the zoning is 65', then by golly you do six floors with a retail, or 6.5 by cramming in <7' sleeping lofts on the top or bottom levels. You put the parking below-grade, and if it's rentals include as little parking as you can without impacting rents. And you use every inch of your site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 9:03 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
As for those 3-6-unit apartments... They're possible in many areas, but they're still very rare.

The main reason is economies of scale. You're competing with large, efficient buildings. Physically, elevators, stairs, lobbies, hallways, any amenities, etc., will need to be a large percentage of what you'd do for 50 or 100 units, and multiples on a per-unit basis. In soft costs, you're also spending far more money and time per unit.

Small apartment buildings are much easier when parking can be reduced or eliminated. But even then, the economies of scale are massive with more units.

If you zone an area for small lots an only up to six units, the results will be different. You might get a ton of these buildings. But they wouldn't be cheap. And most neighborhoods would require more parking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 10:12 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
And you seem shocked that people in an urbanism forum has trouble to understand how people live entire lives glued in a car seat driving around horrible parking lots.
What he's saying isn't even true. This bad urbanism exists in America because it's been heavily subsidized by government for over half a century and good urbanism was literally made illegal by zoning. Not because everybody just loves their soulless sprawl lives and Target.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 10:25 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. View Post
Let's think about this one for a second. It's much more risky and costly to acquire a bunch of lots and do a major redevelopment. Yes, the potential for higher profit is there, but that's because there is a higher risk associated with these large scale projects. Plus, it limits development to just the big corporations have the capital for such an undertaking.

Smaller scale infill developments could greatly increase densities, if only they were allowed by zoning. More communities are starting to allow accessory dwellings in single-family neighborhoods, (think in law suites or laneway housing). There require minimal capital investment, would be a great revenue source for the property owner, and is going to provide housing that is naturally affordable.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. Edale hasn't responded to my query on the subject and my own research on the topic has more or less pointed to zoning and something else you brought up as well. With the corporatization of urban development, with vertical integration, and everything, development has increasingly fallen into the hands of those with deep pockets, those which can afford to take the risk of a larger development.

But you're right - small-scale and "missing middle" developments can and do still occur. The push to maximize profits with a large development by those who have the budget to take a risk on such a development has shifted the focus a lot, I think. If SFH developments can occur, which are by their nature small lots (unless they're mansions), and still run a profit, then (restrictive regulations aside), the same could happen with rowhomes or small apartments and commercial spaces. And, for the municipality, they'd be more profitable than a SFH development as they'd cost less to service and maintain, and wouldn't run into debt over doing so like many sprawling developments do when things like the road need to be redone at the 25 year life mark.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 10:29 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
As for those 3-6-unit apartments... They're possible in many areas, but they're still very rare.

The main reason is economies of scale. You're competing with large, efficient buildings. Physically, elevators, stairs, lobbies, hallways, any amenities, etc., will need to be a large percentage of what you'd do for 50 or 100 units, and multiples on a per-unit basis. In soft costs, you're also spending far more money and time per unit.

Small apartment buildings are much easier when parking can be reduced or eliminated. But even then, the economies of scale are massive with more units.

If you zone an area for small lots an only up to six units, the results will be different. You might get a ton of these buildings. But they wouldn't be cheap. And most neighborhoods would require more parking.
Parking requirements can be eliminated. This will push more demand for better active infrastructure for active modes of transport. This will reduce congestion, be more cost efficient, promote healthier communities, and reduce environmental degradation. Everyone wins.

To me, the only clear thing that makes these smaller scale dense developments costlier now is the requirement for elevators and ADA compliance. I do think these are important for ensuring accessibility, but depending on the development, those requirements can be creatively added for minimal additional cost. And those additional costs could be easily subsidized by other means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
What he's saying isn't even true. This bad urbanism exists in America because it's been heavily subsidized by government for over half a century and good urbanism was literally made illegal by zoning. Not because everybody just loves their soulless sprawl lives and Target.
Exactly. I don't get why this is so hard to comprehend!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 10:46 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
To me, the only clear thing that makes these smaller scale dense developments costlier now is the requirement for elevators and ADA compliance.
in chicago (and perhaps elsewhere), elevators are not required for small multi-family residential buildings like 3-flats and 6-flats. so no cost impact there.

parking also isn't an issue in chicago because every block in the city is bisected by an alley, and 3 parking spots off the alley in back of a 3-flat fit just fine. it's a zero cost issue here.

unlike most places, chicago still builds a lot of 3-6 unit "flat" buildings because they are the definitive legacy urban housing typology of the city.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 11:02 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
in chicago (and perhaps elsewhere), elevators are not required for small multi-family residential buildings like 3-flats and 6-flats. so no cost impact there.

parking also isn't an issue in chicago because every block in the city is bisected by an alley, and 3 parking spots off the alley in back of a 3-flat fit just fine. it's a zero cost issue here.

unlike most places, chicago still builds a lot of 3-6 unit "flat" buildings because they are the definitive legacy urban housing typology of the city.
Ah, good points. I didn't realize the smaller apartment buildings don't require them. I know SFH and rowhomes don't. And those can easily have ramps and such to ensure they're accessible, much like what happens now. I'm thinking even small scale apartments that have maybe 5-15 units, which may require an elevator, could secure cost savings elsewhere, too.

Chicago still building the 3-flats reminds me of Montreal still building its triplexes. For example, these were built just in the past couple years. It was also the dominant typology of the city even well into the 1950s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 11:34 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
Parking requirements can be eliminated. This will push more demand for better active infrastructure for active modes of transport. This will reduce congestion, be more cost efficient, promote healthier communities, and reduce environmental degradation. Everyone wins.

To me, the only clear thing that makes these smaller scale dense developments costlier now is the requirement for elevators and ADA compliance. I do think these are important for ensuring accessibility, but depending on the development, those requirements can be creatively added for minimal additional cost. And those additional costs could be easily subsidized by other means.
Yes, developers should have the freedom to choose zero parking or as little as they think prudent. They have the incentive to get it right. And when a resident starts thinking about parking as an extra cost, that's certainly enough push for a lot of people, in addition to those who self-select because they already don't have cars.

You might doubt the other cost factors. In the development world they're considered a given, with lots of discussion on efficiency measures like rentable sf percentage and so on.

PS, parking and elevators might be omitted, but what's required and what's expected can be very different. The average house lot might not have good enough transit for example. And the third floor without an elevator might be fine for us, but it won't be for many people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 12:10 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Yes, developers should have the freedom to choose zero parking or as little as they think prudent. They have the incentive to get it right. And when a resident starts thinking about parking as an extra cost, that's certainly enough push for a lot of people, in addition to those who self-select because they already don't have cars.

You might doubt the other cost factors. In the development world they're considered a given, with lots of discussion on efficiency measures like rentable sf percentage and so on.

PS, parking and elevators might be omitted, but what's required and what's expected can be very different. The average house lot might not have good enough transit for example. And the third floor without an elevator might be fine for us, but it won't be for many people.
So, what, beyond zoning and wanting to max-out profit on larger scale developments, are making smaller scale but dense developments prohibitive in ways that they hadn't before? What are these hidden cost factors?

Average homes may not have adequate transit... sure, but that isn't the focus of this conversation. I'm saying reproducing much of what was done before WWII is possible and would reduce the need for car infrastructure.

I'm also not suggesting a third floor without an elevator is good. I like the accessibility requirements as it ensures everyone can, well, access a building adequately. The lack of an elevator is fine IMO for a rowhome type development much as it is for a SFH. Any staircases in these situations can be retrofitted to ramps. In small apartment buildings it is a bit different. I'm not sure what the perfect solution is, but I've highlighted some in my previous posts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 12:57 AM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,172
Probably the last lot to develop and by then the single family homeowners didn't want the through traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 1:55 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post

I'm also not suggesting a third floor without an elevator is good. I like the accessibility requirements as it ensures everyone can, well, access a building adequately. The lack of an elevator is fine IMO for a rowhome type development much as it is for a SFH. Any staircases in these situations can be retrofitted to ramps. In small apartment buildings it is a bit different. I'm not sure what the perfect solution is, but I've highlighted some in my previous posts.
If the city flipped a switch tomorrow and required elevators for 3-flats, I can guarantee you that there would never be another 3-flat ever constructed in chicago again.

Like, never. That housing type would be killed off forever with an elevator requirement.

The EXHORBITENT expense of elevators (the product itself, the installation, and most especially the ongoing maintenance and certification) simply does not pencil for a building with only 3 moderately-sized residential units.

In a perfect world, elevators would exist everywhere there is a level change, but the math involved simply does not allow for that.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Apr 15, 2021 at 2:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:12 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
If the city flipped a switch tomorrow and required elevators for 3-flats, I can guarantee you that there would never be another 3-flat ever constructed in chicago again.

Like, never. That housing type would be killed off forever with an elevator requirement.

The EXHORBITENT expense of elevators (the product itself, the installation, and most especially the ongoing maintenance and certification) simply does not pencil for a building with only 3 moderately-sized residential units.

In a perfect world, elevators would exist everywhere there is a level change, but the math involved simply does not allow for that.
Yeah, that's fair. Elevators are expensive. I'm guessing for the majority of triplexes they aren't needed, seeing as they are utilized anyway. I don't know how they are in Chicago, but in Montreal they do have room in the back for an elevator capsule. I could see a system in place where triplexes are built as normal but there is a government-funded program to install such services if someone with reduced mobility needs the housing on that 3rd level. But such developments are small scale enough that they can be treated ad hoc, sort of like SFHs and rowhomes.

Keep in mind when I'm thinking of small scale apartments, I'm more thinking of stuff like this. 6-12 unit small pre-war apartment blocks. Modern iterations could easily accommodate an elevator and the costs wouldn't kill this type of development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2021, 3:41 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
So, what, beyond zoning and wanting to max-out profit on larger scale developments, are making smaller scale but dense developments prohibitive in ways that they hadn't before? What are these hidden cost factors?

Average homes may not have adequate transit... sure, but that isn't the focus of this conversation. I'm saying reproducing much of what was done before WWII is possible and would reduce the need for car infrastructure.

I'm also not suggesting a third floor without an elevator is good. I like the accessibility requirements as it ensures everyone can, well, access a building adequately. The lack of an elevator is fine IMO for a rowhome type development much as it is for a SFH. Any staircases in these situations can be retrofitted to ramps. In small apartment buildings it is a bit different. I'm not sure what the perfect solution is, but I've highlighted some in my previous posts.
First, the goal isn't just to "max-out profits." It's more basically to allow the project to get built at all. Projects with shaky pro formas have a hard time getting equity or lenders. Even if they're marginal and manage to get funded, the terms won't be good. And another goal is for the developer to avoid losing money (common in 2008 and 2020).

I tried to address your first question already, maybe not clearly enough: "Physically, elevators, stairs, lobbies, hallways, any amenities, etc., will need to be a large percentage of what you'd do for 50 or 100 units, and multiples on a per-unit basis. In soft costs, you're also spending far more money and time per unit."

In other words, a building with six units won't have that much less common space as a building with 60, and it'll have far more on a per-unit basis. Same with myriad other costs from utility hookups to the front door. The effort required for finance, design, entitlements, construction management, etc., won't be that much less either, and will be far more on a per-unit basis. And no bulk buying...everything from the architect's and contractor's fees to material costs will be higher per unit. Not to mention your own time as developer.

You can make all of that work in a vacuum. But when someone else can offer substantially lower rents by building on scale? That's why you don't see much in the 3-6-unit multifamily range even when it's allowed, unless other types aren't.

As for townhouses, yes they can avoid a lot of costs. In some areas they have the added advantage of avoiding most of the condo liability issue as each might be treated as a single house under defect law. Each home is protected, but you don't get the frivolous association suits that plague some states, or the various process and insurance costs that go into making sure the suit won't be too damaging.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:32 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.