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.
Santa Ana is a good example as was mentioned earlier in the thread. But while it does have some homes that have more have more than one family, that's not a significant amount. Mostly the density is high because the families are large. There is a "downtown" that has undergone somewhat of a gentrification, but those hipsters have one or maybe two people per household. It's lower density than the single family tract home neighborhoods that dominate the city.
Well heck, the link didn't work...let's try this again:
Here's another project back in Sacramento--three-story close set SFH homes, in an established neighborhood with mature trees:
Some of those are nice, but it's really location. Put something not so nice on a tree-lined street in spitting distance of a park with a community garden right behind it and top that off with it being located close to everything... not a bad combination. Now, take that thing and stick it at the edge of an exurb. Different story entirely.
How 'bout those new fake brownstones on 21st and T, wburg. They don't make sense to me. For the $450-600 most are priced at, who is really looking at them?
Some of those are nice, but it's really location. Put something not so nice on a tree-lined street in spitting distance of a park with a community garden right behind it and top that off with it being located close to everything... not a bad combination. Now, take that thing and stick it at the edge of an exurb. Different story entirely.
"Location, location, location!" are still the three most important rules of real estate--no matter how many people insist it's "Square footage, square footage, square footage!"
(although it must be mentioned that this neighborhood was not considered desirable at all 30 years ago--it was a notorious prostitutes' stroll, drug dealers ruled that nearby park, and the community garden was just another vacant lot. Neighborhood activism, and fixing up of nearby neighborhoods, changed that over the past couple of decades.)
Quote:
How 'bout those new fake brownstones on 21st and T, wburg. They don't make sense to me. For the $450-600 most are priced at, who is really looking at them?
People who can afford them, I imagine. As I say, it's a limited market. I kind of like the look of the Tapestri Square buildings. I like how they went for a retro look without trying to deliberately copy the styles of buildings in nearby Poverty Ridge. As to whether or not it's a "fake brownstone," nobody calls Metro Square (the first project linked) "fake Craftsman bungalows" even though they obviously take stylistic cues from that particular style. 19th century townhouse-style buildings on the West Coast were generally free-standing buildings, rather than being attached to each other, and there were even some in the old part of town (in the neighborhood of the Stanford, Heilbron and Crocker mansions) that didn't look too different--right down to the false quoins. They decided to build in intervals rather than all at once, resulting in stalled construction, but they recently started building new units, so I suppose someone is buying them now that they have dropped the prices somewhat (during the boom, the high-end units were more like $800K.)
its walking distance to the beach. My parents rented a place there part of the summer when I was a kid. Gave me that "suburban" experience. I remember it as lovely and peaceful. Perhaps the google images don't do it justice.
its walking distance to the beach. My parents rented a place there part of the summer when I was a kid. Gave me that "suburban" experience. I remember it as lovely and peaceful. Perhaps the google images don't do it justice.
Oh and the mid block walkways were totally cool.
Yes it's quite nice. My grandfather lived in an apartment near here for a while.
Lot size 1225 square feet. Houses are only 525 feet but are three bedroom(!) Must be really cramped if that's correct. Listed as "Seasonal, Cabin, Vacation Residence" so maybe doesn't count.
In Pittsburgh the smallest houses are what is typically called "two up, two down." These houses only contain four rooms, two on the first floor (typically a kitchen and a living room) and two on the second floor (bedrooms). They were typically built before bathrooms, but a bathroom is of course often retrofitted into the house in various places (off the kitchen, into one of the bedrooms, etc). The stairwell is placed at the center of the house, running from party wall to party wall.
Although these houses were typically built as attached rowhouses, they do not need to be. They are typically 12 feet wide. The overall square footage can be under 800 measured as external dimensions, and lot sizes can be under 600 square feet.
It would seem trivial to get houses of these dimensions, yet detached. Say you stick 12 by 34 foot houses onto 16 by 50 foot wide properties. This would give the houses 816 square feet (presuming no third floor or finished basement) and the properties 800 square feet overall.
Then, if my calculations are correct, you could cram 54 such houses into a single acre. Practically speaking, this is of course impossible due to the need for streets, but 40+ seems entirely doable.
Of course, lots of this size are now precluded by zoning. The highest density non-multifamily zoning in Pittsburgh requires minimum lot sizes of 1,200 square feet, which would give you 36 houses per acre. Still, that's potentially a lot of houses.
In Pittsburgh the smallest houses are what is typically called "two up, two down." These houses only contain four rooms, two on the first floor (typically a kitchen and a living room) and two on the second floor (bedrooms). They were typically built before bathrooms, but a bathroom is of course often retrofitted into the house in various places (off the kitchen, into one of the bedrooms, etc). The stairwell is placed at the center of the house, running from party wall to party wall.
I'd curious if there's a way to tell from the layout if an old house was built originally without bathrooms.
To each their own. I like it, and would consider living in a neighborhood like that--especially one of the "walks"--if it were easy to walk to amenities.
It's unfortunate that the streetview was taken during the winter. I suspect that lush green trees--instead of dormant ones--would help with curb appeal.
It has a new streetview taken in the summer. Here's one random street:
I wonder if it helps with the appeal as much as you thought it would. You can click on the clock near the upper right to get the old winter view.
I don't think the neighborhood is dreadful looking, though I'm not in love with it. The walks sound like they could be cool. I do think that Queens neighborhood with the tiny homes is dreadful looking.
This is one of my favorite "packed in" house neighborhoods I've found on streetview (look both directions). I'll admit the lack of street parking may have some practicality issues, but I do think it's cute looking. But not all (most?) of the houses aren't single family.
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.
