Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing wrong really, I don't feel like they belong the same as an area where the homes were designed to be multi-unit.
I think two family homes are nicer (almost a third to a half of the housing is two family is here). Good compromise between having greenery, space and density. I like the semi-detached variety better than a unit on each floor.
In my neighborhood, a lot of properties were converted from single-family to multi-unit during World War II, but there were already multi-unit apartments, and more were built after the war. Some folks built "mother-in-law" units along alleys, above garages or in backyards. They add density without demolishing existing neighborhoods, and help populate a neighborhood. In some cases, property owners have converted these ersatz duplexes back to single-family use.
In a car-centric neighborhood, big "McMansions" sometimes get shared by multiple families, and I think that the trend is likely to continue. This can become a problem for those neighborhoods, as these households require a lot of cars, since cars are often the only way for people to get around, and if originally intended for one family, may not have enough parking spaces. Traffic and parking on those neighborhood streets could become a problem.
I think it would be good to have accessory apartments. But I think it is better to have them outside like if you have a small backyard, or one located above a garage. There aren't many examples of that but if done right they can help. I know that even in Hollywood, the actress Kirsten Dunst lives in one such accessory apartments next to the main home where her mom, grandma and brother live.
The outdated conventional planning wisdom I was taught in college says that this is a definite negative for a neighborhood. This is based on the idea that owners are better than renters, single family is better than multi-family, and higher density means less affluent. I personally believe they are a good thing as long as parking doesn't become a problem. It adds density and residents who support the neighborhood businesses and culture.
Parking cannot help but become a problem if there is no alternative, or if street patterns are not practical for walking/cycling/transit. In a place where such alternatives exist, it can work really well.
There is a nice example of this in my neighborhood. The house closest to the street was built in about 1910, and is a bungalow style. There is a two-car garage with a one-bedroom apartment above, that was built in the 1920's. So, there is sheltered parking for both residences, and enough room for an additional car, if the owners of the house need it. But, the second car may not be necessary, as the house is a 5 minute walk to mass-transit, a 5-10 minute walk to a convenience store, and about a 15 minute walk to the grocery store.
It's a nice setup, and with the brick street and mature trees, is quite charming. I was considering buying it myself, but really don't want to become a landlord.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
