Zero Lot Line homes?

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

The only thing I can think of is maybe there is actually a 5 ft gap but the front facade extends much further giving the visual of only a several inch gap?
Not sure what the point of that would be though, other than making a tiny fence between the two buildings unnecessary.

it's a possibility. But notice that you can see the background between the houses. And just a little above, about same height as the second floor, the gap becomes all black (no background visible).

that suggests the point where the two roofs touch each other extends all the way to the back. Due to perspective, the end of the part where the roofs touch each other is down at second floor level.

[JManc]

The Houston heights (a historic pre-war neighborhood) has pretty strict deed restrictions and they may actually forbid townhouses with shared walls (don't recall seeing any there) and only allow SFH new construction. Houston is townhouse crazy and this is a way for the heights to get in on it and still abide by deed restrictions. If this is actually the case. The lots are tiny due to the fact a tiny 1,200 s/f Craftsman once sat there. And these shitty things are replacing them at an alarming rate.

[Centropolis]

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.

theres like 1’ gaps or less between some houses in st louis in areas where the rowhouse areas messily transition to 3’ gangways...i presume that they pointed the mortar joints over the wall as it was built from the inside...

[Cirrus]

Obviously tons of cities are filled with attached rowhouses or buildings with narrow gaps. The particular narrowness of these does seem unusual and weird. I'm guessing it's allowed because Houston has the most laissez faire zoning in America, and that it gets built because they wanted to include two-car garages on those narrow lots.

Anyway, this is all part of a really fascinating but mostly unheralded experiment in urbanism going on in Houston right now. Unlike most North American cities, which lock their single family detached neighborhoods in amber, Houston actively allows theirs to gradually be converted to townhouse neighborhoods, one house at a time. You can buy a detached house in Houston and turn it into 2 townhouses, which is illegal just about everywhere else. As a result, you see neighborhoods like this that are totally unique in North America: Old low-density gridded SFD neighborhoods that have effectively become modern rowhouse neighborhoods:


Via Google Maps

It's a big part of why Houston is so much more affordable than most (maybe any) other comparably large US city. Everybody else has a housing shortage because zoning prevents much building in SFD neighborhoods. Houston doesn't.

And OK, it's Houston so they get some parts of the equation terribly wrong, like fronting every building with a gigantic garage. But they're also doing something really great that Boston and DC and San Francisco have so far been completely unwilling to even talk about.

[Centropolis]

agree with your points...though, the sidewalk starting and stopping on the above aerial is a bit hard to stomach. also, it's funny to me how ALLEYS in SUBDIVISIONS with garages facing the alley are a thing in outer sprawlburb dallas but not inner houston...

[The North One]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The thing I wonder about is how the heck do they do any maintenance? With there being a gap between there, how do they protect against water damage and subsequent mold?

I also wonder about what happens if wildlife or pets get stuck between there.

That's what I was thinking, hell how do they even put siding on it if it's not brick? How is it even sealed?

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

You can buy a detached house in Houston and turn it into 2 townhouses, which is illegal just about everywhere else. As a result, you see neighborhoods like this that are totally unique in North America: Old low-density gridded SFD neighborhoods that have effectively become modern rowhouse neighborhoods

Just townhomes? It would be interesting to see a lower density (SFH and rowhomes) neighborhood intensify with small apartment/condo buildings (3-4 stories). The neighborhood I live in densified in this way in the 1940s-60s. Pretty sure it's impossible with most zoning in the US.

[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.

[Omaharocks]

^ Yeah, it's actually pretty common in Atlanta now as well. Not to the scale that you see in Houston, but most intown neighborhoods have multiple sfh to townhome or apt complex transitions.

It doesn't happen as much (obviously) in the historic districts - about a third or half of the intown neighborhoods are designated as historic and have tighter restrictions on teardown/replacements. But sfh lots are frequently subdivided and upzoned elsewhere, like 04W, Edgewood, Kirkwood, Reynoldstown.

[austlar1]

Houses built to the lot line were pretty common until the early 20th century in east coast cities. Also in SF. Here is a street view of 10th St. NE in DC. These homes date from the late 19th or early 20th century.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8923...7i13312!8i6656

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

agree with your points...though, the sidewalk starting and stopping on the above aerial is a bit hard to stomach. also, it's funny to me how ALLEYS in SUBDIVISIONS with garages facing the alley are a thing in outer sprawlburb dallas but not inner houston...

Plenty of alley parking on Capitol Hill in DC and elsewhere in DC. It is very common. These homes were built in the late 1800s thru the 1920s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8956.../data=!3m1!1e3

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Obviously tons of cities are filled with attached rowhouses or buildings with narrow gaps. The particular narrowness of these does seem unusual and weird. I'm guessing it's allowed because Houston has the most laissez faire zoning in America, and that it gets built because they wanted to include two-car garages on those narrow lots.

Anyway, this is all part of a really fascinating but mostly unheralded experiment in urbanism going on in Houston right now. Unlike most North American cities, which lock their single family detached neighborhoods in amber, Houston actively allows theirs to gradually be converted to townhouse neighborhoods, one house at a time. You can buy a detached house in Houston and turn it into 2 townhouses, which is illegal just about everywhere else. As a result, you see neighborhoods like this that are totally unique in North America: Old low-density gridded SFD neighborhoods that have effectively become modern rowhouse neighborhoods:


Via Google Maps

It's a big part of why Houston is so much more affordable than most (maybe any) other comparably large US city. Everybody else has a housing shortage because zoning prevents much building in SFD neighborhoods. Houston doesn't.

And OK, it's Houston so they get some parts of the equation terribly wrong, like fronting every building with a gigantic garage. But they're also doing something really great that Boston and DC and San Francisco have so far been completely unwilling to even talk about.

This is an interesting observation, and some I've been thinking about, lately. My town is still considering changing over its zoning code to something far more heavily form-based...but it barely does a thing to the single-family-dominated neighborhoods. They've added a new zoning district, which will allow on the fringes of single-family-home-dominated neighborhoods the construction of up to six units per parcel of a certain size, but even then it's determined on the typology of roads.

Like, the neighborhoods often densify in other ways through conventional rezonings where a bunch of properties are bought, combined and rezoned to allow for multi-family, but obviously that slows down transitions. I can get folks not wanting high-ceilinged 3-story monsters next to modest ranch homes or anything, but I think you can do that without being so stringent, otherwise.

That said, I imagine Houston's transformation is probably only applicable to cities where you have existing single-family home lots that are relatively wide to begin with. I don't imagine this could really be done where you've got typical lots that are 30' wide or less. I know that in my town to zone a duplex you need at least a 60 feet of lot-width, though this was done to discourage the divison of existing homes into stacked duplexe units.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It's a big part of why Houston is so much more affordable than most (maybe any) other comparably large US city. Everybody else has a housing shortage because zoning prevents much building in SFD neighborhoods. Houston doesn't.

I think you're going a little too far with this. Houston is affordable, overall, because there's tons of development, no natural barriers to development and because that's what people are willing to pay.

It's probably true that this specific neighborhood typology has lower than expected property values, because homeowners, generally speaking, want consistency and certainty. In short, the mixed typologies probably make these areas less desirable, which isn't a good thing in my book.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But they're also doing something really great that Boston and DC and San Francisco have so far been completely unwilling to even talk about.

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.

[badrunner]

It's good cheap density but aesthetically I'd have to agree with Crawford

[toddguy]

That original pic...why? How are they going to maintain that tiny separation?

And that pic of the Houston neighborhood...it looks like they did not do anything with the infrastructure like sidewalks and such? It looks like they are missing in some areas. Some neighborhoods in cities were built on the cheap with no sidewalks, curbs, storm sewer drains (looking at you Indy). I would think that would have to be added in before this kind of development could happen? Do neighborhoods like that have any retail sprinkled in? In some ways(just some certain ways) it is not so bad I guess.

I would love to take that pic of the Houston neighborhood and show it to neighborhood groups here and say "this is what the city has planned for you, Clintonville" -you would be able to hear the screams of outrage all the way to Houston itself.

In some areas that have been heavily hit by decline with many vacant lots but are now set for gentrification, this kind of thing if done right would be the way to go. But most SFH neighborhoods would be manning the barricades in most cases.

*and this kind of infill would be best IMO in older areas that have alleys so every house front is not dominated by double garages and driveways. Reminds me of those large areas of western San Francisco that are like that...with huge wide streets, driveways, walkways, and sidewalks covering everything with barely any greenery in sight. Just row homes with nothing but various forms of pavement between them-any greenery is in the back. They can look very barren.

[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.

[JManc]

The thing is that those townhouses are not that cheap (by Houston standards) and they continue to rise steadily. The neighborhoods they are supplanting were what gave Houston's reputation as a cheap place to live. They are slowly being eaten away by these shitty things. They're thrown up overnight, shoddily made and start out around $500k.

And it is not good, yes they create density but they are destroying what little history this city had.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

The thing is that those townhouses are not that cheap (by Houston standards) and they continue to rise steadily. The neighborhoods they are supplanting were what gave Houston's reputation as a cheap place to live. They are slowly being eaten away by these shitty things. They're thrown up overnight, shoddily made and start out around $500k.

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.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

The only thing I can think of is maybe there is actually a 5 ft gap but the front facade extends much further giving the visual of only a several inch gap?
Not sure what the point of that would be though, other than making a tiny fence between the two buildings unnecessary.

No. The entire buildings are that close to one another. They go up at the same time.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

And OK, it's Houston so they get some parts of the equation terribly wrong, like fronting every building with a gigantic garage. But they're also doing something really great that Boston and DC and San Francisco have so far been completely unwilling to even talk about.

Boston and San Francisco and DC have already been through this - it just happened a hundred years earlier. As a result, they don't have any central SFH neighbourhoods to upzone. And I don't think redeveloping swaths of historic row houses & small apartments is the solution to their affordability problems - to say nothing of what that would do to their character.

That said, I still think it's great to see what's happening in Houston and wish there were less of a reticence among the rest of North America to intensify their low-density residential areas. As is the case here in Toronto, where despite the booming population (and skyrocketing housing costs), half of the city - the SFH-zoned areas - is actually losing population as household sizes shrink and these areas are not able to increase their housing supply.