Zero Lot Line homes?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But assuming these are prime, high-demand areas, 500k isn't a ton of money for a SFH. Wouldn't the homes be more valued if there were development restrictions?

I would be very worried to spend big bucks on a SFH with no idea what will be built on surrounding lots.

They start out at 500k. Most flirt with a million in many areas and the photo Cirrus posted, they probably average 600-700k. Again, not the Upper East Side but high enough to price most out of the area. Considering 20 years ago, the entry fee for a house in this part of town was about 150k.

There are restrictions in some areas, the very first photo (the one with buildings inches apart) is in an area (Heights) with strict deed restrictions. They require a certain aesthetic though these probably are probably towards the outskirts and not in Heights proper. Real-estate there easily averages around a million or more for newer houses. Older bungalows much less.

[badrunner]

Functionally I don't see how that neighborhood is any different than a neighborhood full of R2 and R3 lots. Similar density just less cohesive.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

user: pookrat, offtopic.com

Of course this would happen in Houston. Can't say I'm surprised.

[eschaton]

How did they even put the siding up on the homes in the first place during construction? Did they use complete wall panels which were already clad or something?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i dont know why they do stuff like this in the south...animals crawl in there and die, soils build up and shit sprouts...same with the fucking crawlspaces under BRAND NEW houses in nashville. my sister in law ended up with a snake nest, so many under the house that they bumped the floorboards when mating.

That one of the most disturbing things I've heard in a while, and considering the twilight zone times we're currently living in, that's saying a lot.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think you're going a little too far with this. Houston is affordable, overall, because there's tons of development...

Um yes that is the exact point. Houston is affordable because it has enough development to meet demand. And why is that? Because Houston's development regulations *allow* enough development to meet demand.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think Boston and SF homeowners would disagree. Their property values and neighborhood aesthetics, unlike affected homeowners in Houston, are secure. I specifically bought in a neighborhood with tough zoning rules and aggressive civic organizations because I knew my investment would be safe.

Obviously. And the selfishness of you and your neighborhoods in this regard is why SF and Boston are such expensive cities. Under our system of democracy, where the stability of existing voters is weighed as a more important priority than the needs of future voters, you of course have that right. But don't pretend this choice you are making, to jealously prevent your existing neighborhood from doing its part to meet the insanely high-and-growing demand for more housing, is not *directly* responsible for Boston's high housing costs.

And of course you benefit doubly, because not only do you get a stable neighborhood, but you also get rich in equity, as the more dire Boston's housing shortage becomes, the more your existing home is worth.

So yes, obviously there is logic behind your position, and you are allowed to like your neighborhood. Just don't pretend it's virtuous or in society's best interest.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Obviously. And the selfishness of you and your neighborhoods in this regard is why SF and Boston are such expensive cities.

If providing for my child's long-term needs is selfish I'll happily take it. My home is a seven-figure investment and a sizable portion of my net worth so I will always guard its value.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But don't pretend this choice you are making, to jealously prevent your existing neighborhood from doing its part to meet the insanely high-and-growing demand for more housing, is not *directly* responsible for Boston's high housing costs.

My choice has nothing to do with jealousy or responsibility towards high housing costs. I am very pro-development, but specifically limited my housing search to a landmark district, for which I paid a significant premium. I'm in NYC, BTW, not Boston.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So yes, obviously there is logic behind your position, and you are allowed to like your neighborhood. Just don't pretend it's virtuous or in society's best interest.

It's in society's best interest to preserve the best streetscapes in the Americas. I just happen to be fortunate to be able to afford a small residence in such a streetscape.

[Doady]

Other cities just build semi-detached houses or townhouses. I don't understand how someone can argue in favour of this Houston crap.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If providing for my child's long-term needs is selfish I'll happily take it. My home is a seven-figure investment and a sizable portion of my net worth so I will always guard its value.

While I understand it's considered "common knowledge" among homeowners, I'm not aware of any evidence that upzoning actually causes property values to drop. If your neighborhood had some more market-rate multifamily mixed in, after all, it would increase the number of pedestrians, improving the local commercial mix, and making it that much more attractive. Further, your home would not only be of interest to those looking for a single-family home, but investors looking to knock it down and build something bigger and better. In contrast, restricting the uses for an asset almost always lowers its marketable value.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

While I understand it's considered "common knowledge" among homeowners, I'm not aware of any evidence that upzoning actually causes property values to drop. If your neighborhood had some more market-rate multifamily mixed in, after all, it would increase the number of pedestrians, improving the local commercial mix, and making it that much more attractive. Further, your home would not only be of interest to those looking for a single-family home, but investors looking to knock it down and build something bigger and better. In contrast, restricting the uses for an asset almost always lowers its marketable value.

In theory, yes, my property values could rise if there was some extreme rezoning allowing for 50 floor towers, and assuming my condo association could sell to a builder.

But, in practice, that would never happen. Within the realm of realistic alternative outcomes, within the confines of NYC zoning and politics, my values for my property type are safer under landmarks protection.

Here's my general vicinity, BTW. I don't see how there is a public policy argument that this environment needs to be replaced with new housing:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6723...7i16384!8i8192

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If providing for my child's long-term needs is selfish I'll happily take it. My home is a seven-figure investment and a sizable portion of my net worth so I will always guard its value.

Obviously. It's not your fault we have a shitty land use system that rewards selfishness and forces gigantic portions of the population into tying most of their net worth to their home values. But that is the system we have.

Except sort of in Houston, which is the point.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see how there is a public policy argument that this environment needs to be replaced with new housing:

Do you honestly not see any public policy reason why a neighborhood that is expensive because there is way more demand for people who want to live there than there is supply of housing for them to do so should have more housing? None at all?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i've never seen frame construction zero lot line homes in chicago. when we do have zero lot line homes directly next to each other, they're always brick and built right next to each other (no absurd 8" gap like that houston example).

when there is a gap in chicago (and gaps are common), it's typically 3' or so to serve as a gangway from the front to the back of the property, a fire code regulation that harkens back to the days of the great fire.

ive definitely seen some buildings with gaps of this size on occasion in the city. it seems to me they accumulate a lot of trash and theres really no way to access the slit if there is an issue with maintenance (or just like, wanting to clean up a couple decades worth of garbage).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Do you honestly not see any public policy reason why a neighborhood that is expensive because there is way more demand for people who want to live there than there is supply of housing for them to do so should have more housing? None at all?

That's not my argument, at all, which should be pretty clear. It isn't even the topic.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Here's my general vicinity, BTW. I don't see how there is a public policy argument that this environment needs to be replaced with new housing:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6723...7i16384!8i8192

Cool. Yeah, that area is dense enough and should be protected.


On a side note, you live only a few miles away from where I used to stay when I was in Brooklyn back in the 00s. How's the Flatbush area? Did it change dramatically over the years?

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by jd3189

What Houston is doing with this SFH to townhouse/ small apartment thing should be replicated in every city, especially those in the Sunbelt. Atlanta will greatly benefit from this, as well as the Big four in Tennessee and Florida and the other major towns in Texas.

Atlanta simply does not have the grid to do this on a widescale basis. I mean we're building townhomes, but it's mostly in empty lots. The Single family home neighborhoods here in Atlanta are cherished so much and NIMBYism would kill this if someone attempted to do this in a neighborhood like Inman Park.

This was a recent townhome project though that I like that was finished not too long ago in Atlanta on an entire block: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7639...7i13312!8i6656

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jd3189

On a side note, you live only a few miles away from where I used to stay when I was in Brooklyn back in the 00s. How's the Flatbush area? Did it change dramatically over the years?

Flatbush is gentrifying like crazy, especially closer to Prospect Park, but is sill a very mixed community, with a large West Indian population.

One of my closest friends just bought a brownstone in the Prospect Lefferts Gardens area of Flatbush, which is popular with families (he has three kids).

[pdxtex]

wow, whats the point? oh right, muh detached house....yeah im with trantor, either build a servicable gap or just connect it. i live in something similar but its completely cladded. our townhouses have separate load bearing wall per structure with an air gap like that but the siding in seamless. connected!

[edale]

Originally Posted by jd3189

What Houston is doing with this SFH to townhouse/ small apartment thing should be replicated in every city, especially those in the Sunbelt. Atlanta will greatly benefit from this, as well as the Big four in Tennessee and Florida and the other major towns in Texas.

Wait, what is the Tennessee Big Four? Memphis, Nashville, .... ?

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by edale

Wait, what is the Tennessee Big Four? Memphis, Nashville, .... ?

Knoxville and Chattanooga.

[edale]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Knoxville and Chattanooga.

lol I would hardly call those 'big'. By that standard, Ohio has, what, a Big 7? I'd say Tennessee has a Big 2.