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.
[quote=brooklynborndad;21381924
Ive also lived in Jax and baltimore, and quarter acre lots were the standard for new suburban SFHs in both. [/quote]
I was born and raised in B'more.
I described my personal experience there earlier in this thread.
1/4 acre lots (and larger) did exist...
but with a very few exceptions (like Olmstead designed Roland Park)...
they were wayyyyyyyy outside of the post war suburban tract house areas.
My experience of Jax is similar.
Not that such don't exist at all... but that they are rare until way outside the City.
Similar applied to new(er) construction in both areas.
Unless they were McMansion types and/or really out in the countryside...
and using septic system that needed the drain field in order to get a building permit...
no developer is giving that much land away.
I'm actually skeptical about whether land is the largest cost. There is a 4 storey boutique condo being proposed in my suburb, and they're trying to sell a 9000 sqft of units for $9,000,000. Meanwhile, a new luxury 12,000 sqft mansion would cost about $10,000,000. The mansion would be on about 40,000 sqft of land while the condo building is on about 4000 sqft of land. Even if the condo is a bit better located, the amount of land is wayy much smaller, but the value is about the same. And land in my suburb is pretty expensive compared to other suburbs of Toronto, and land in Toronto is pretty expensive compared to other North American cities.
I haven't read the entire thread, but has anybody pointed out that the standard Chicago lot is 25 x 125 ft = 3125 sq ft which works out to roughly 14 lots per acre.
The "bungalow belt" of Chicago is probably 90%+ SFH on the standard lot with scattered 2 flats mixed in. It looks like this from the air: chicago - Google Maps
This neighborhood packs in about 8000 ppsm although that includes some industrial areas and part of Midway airport.
I haven't read the entire thread, but has anybody pointed out that the standard Chicago lot is 25 x 125 ft = 3125 sq ft which works out to roughly 14 lots per acre.
The "bungalow belt" of Chicago is probably 90%+ SFH on the standard lot with scattered 2 flats mixed in. It looks like this from the air: chicago - Google Maps
This neighborhood packs in about 8000 ppsm although that includes some industrial areas and part of Midway airport.
City data claims 20,000 ppsm for Hollis, NY. Dunno about the LA one but it looks even denser from the air...I'm not even sure if it's all SFH, it looks odd.
Yea, maybe the biggest difference between the DC metro and the other large northeast metros is that it has had large suburban population growth post-1980, while the others have been rather stagnant (and some have actually grown more in the urban core than the suburbs, like NYC). So NYC / Boston / Philly suburbs have relatively more small lots because they are older.
I think of DC as a mix between the northeast and south, with the high transit usage and walkable inner suburbs of the northeast, but with lots of very new, low-density suburbs like the south.
If you got to the west coast, you'll find that 1/4 acre suburbs are not the norm. There are low density suburbs, but there a lot of suburbs with houses that seem to me on surprisingly small lots for recent construction. Outside of the downtowns, the lots size in metro areas doesn't vary much; the density distribution feels oddly flat.
But why should I be familiar with cities and suburbs thousands of miles away? I have no connections there. I've spent more time in London than any non-Northeastern city. And London isn't much further from me than California. I feel like we ignore places in other countries a bit.
You shouldn't necessarily be familiar with places thousands of miles away. However you (collectively) should not accuse other posters of lying when they talk about their particular experiences in a particular area. Not that you personally have done so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
thats great. So if some of us encourage metro areas in the NE and south to have more houses on 1/8th acre lots, do you have an objection to that?
I am still puzzled at the hostility being expressed on this thread.
YOU accuse me of lying about lot size in Denver, and then go on to accuse me of hostility? Here are some posts from the Denver forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3Ds
I mean, when we moved out here, we thought we had a small lot! We compensate for the lack of space on both sides of our house by having our backyard back to open space...but there is a new housing development that I don't even think you can fit your lawnmower in between the houses and they have these little bay windows (that I assume are part of the kitchen window) that jut out and practically touch the neighbor's house. I am not someone who needs a huge yard. I like to walk the trails and use the parks in my neighborhood, but even with that said, the lots in the new housing community are pitiful. You can't even fit a patio set in the backyard, let alone have any space for your dog to do it's thing. Yuck. They are huge houses on them that take up all of the lot space. I suppose someone who hates yardwork would think it's ideal but you had better hope you have nice, QUIET neighbors because they are literally just a few feet away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3Ds
And, as someone who's lived all over the USA, I've never seen smaller lots than the ones in metro-Denver. They cram the houses together so that you can sit out on your deck and if you're lucky, have a nice view of open space. Ignore the fact you can hear your neighbors toilet flushing or that one side of your house will never get sun...
Interestingly, the largest lots I've ever seen were in Florida...a state that is massively "full" of people. Not a lot of open space (it's even hard to find public access to a beach), but everyone's got large yards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VALGAL222
You should see Albuquerque's west side-- they make the lots in Highlands Ranch look downright spacious!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
Have you ever lived in California? It's the same story with the lot size here.
We'd be better off building townhouses of good construction quality than cheaply built detached houses (that are so close together they may as well be townhomes), IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krish24
Thank you. Nice houses. I have written off Highlands Ranch from my search...too many houses too close to one another...
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3Ds
This is a common problem in Denver. The lots are very small and the bigger they get, the more expensive they are. If you thought Highlands Ranch was too close together, you'll find the same problem over on this side of the city (SE Aurora/Centennial).
What I've found is that in every subdivision, there are what is considered "premium lots." Those are the ones on a corner (bigger yard), with open space behind (at least makes it "feel" bigger) or open space on the side. We have the open space behind us and it makes all the difference. Still not much space between houses (though the newer areas have even LESS space in between houses), but the backyard doesn't go right up against someone else's yard. I would hate to sit on my deck and have my backyard neighbor looking from their deck right into my yard. It would make me fell claustrophobic! But, our house is on what's considered a "premium" lot which means the original owner paid more for the spot to put his house on. Well worth it, IMHO. Anyway, it's something to consider because land is very expensive in Denver. Even in Highlands Ranch, there are houses on the "premium lots" and if I were going to commute downtown but wanted mountain views, I would start searching in HR and then look for the larger lot with a house on it.
So you can tell me that "And we have a poster reporting here that they are the norm for new SFHs in the midwest as well.", and I will say, "big deal". Who said that? (I didn't see it.) Do they mean all 12 midwestern states, or just the one they lived in? Why does that mean I'm lying about what's going on in Denver?
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 10-21-2011 at 06:49 PM..
City data claims 20,000 ppsm for Hollis, NY. Dunno about the LA one but it looks even denser from the air...I'm not even sure if it's all SFH, it looks odd.
The Los Angeles shot is the Pico-Union neighborhood, I think, 90006. There are single family homes, but they're mixed in with a lot of two story apartment structures. You can see zooming in that's the case. Its density is something like 32K ppsm. I don't think it's representative of "suburbs" for this thread.
Norwalk would be a better example, a suburb picked at random, but typical. About 15 miles from downtown. About 10K ppsm.
Anyone claiming that quarter-acre suburban lots aren't popular in California has either never been to California or they had their eyes closed the whole time. Newer developments seem to skew smaller but I still see a lot of lots that size in the high-end developments. Some of the newer projects in the "drive til you qualify" belt are smaller, as are urban infill lots.
Your mileage may vary. I have seen "skinny house" close-set row houses built to about 35 units per acre, typically spaced 3 feet apart and with a few feet of front yard and a built-in garage. The maximum density of single-family homes depends on much more than lot size: how wide are the streets? How tall can they be? What other uses are in the neighborhood?
One size does not fit all--the assumption that everyone wants a single-family home is inherently incorrect. Different family sizes, personal priorities and ability to pay means there is no perfect size. A mixture of housing types within a neighborhood (including mixed use buildings with residences above commercial/office) provides maximum choice and increases overall density without eliminating the option for a single-family house.
It is clear that in the past most Americans associate the single family detached homes with many positive things like freedom, quiet, safety and other things while shunning the "horrors" of multi-family apartments. Many people in America hate the idea of HOAs or renting from someone else, basically being under the thumb of a landlord.
However, as we all know sprawl is a very bad enviornmental problem that is very hard to solve because America is so deeply entrenched in for over 60 years. Earth simply cannot sustain this idea that every person should have his/her own plot of land and a house that stands by itself.
If people though cannot accept willingly to live in multi-family buildings because of the lack of freedom from restrictions imposed by landlords or HOA/condo associations, they will opt for single family detached homes which are non-HOA.
Can you be able to achieve a high density that could theoretically save thousands of acres of wildlands and farmlands with just single family detached homes? There is a glass ceiling as to how high the density can go with these types of housing. Multi-family apartments on the other hand can really push density far higher understandably.
Here is a PDF file that shows some good images of how there can be single family detached homes (meaning one unit per house) that can achieve up to 15 units per acre. http://www.vtpi.org/aff_acc_photo.pdf
On page 3, you can see images of single family homes which are 15 units per acre (30' x 100' lot) with 2 parking spaces, one of them being in the garage and one in the driveway.
If you take 15 units x 640 acres/square mile, you'd get 9600 units per square mile.
If you take the average family of 4 x 9600 units, you'd get 38,400 people per square mile which is a lot! Compare that with the Upper East or West side of Manhattan which has about 100,000+ people per square mile.
However, that would be if the entire square mile was just houses. If you have to consider mass transit like trains, mixed use development and wilderness preserving and other things I'll guess you'd reduce it by a good margin. Even if you got 10,000 people per square mile, it is still good compared to sprawling suburbs.
How much density do you think you can get if you wanted a mixed use type of "town" where single family detached homes are the predominant type of house, if you chose the narrow small lot homes? I think a great neighborhood would have many of these narrow lot homes but all of them are still walkable distance to a "town center" that has most amenities you need like grocery, services, mass transit to a large city, etc. so you wouldn't use a car much of the time.
Would you want to live in these single family detached homes and do you think this would be a good idea for suburbs instead of the large ones we have today where it is only like 2 homes per acre?
The obvious problem is that the more dense you get detached single family homes, the more you loose the benefits from having a detached single family home in the first place.
The solution is to re-educate people, so they stop clinging to "cartoon environments" and see the situation for what it really is. People are still trying to get "Country Manor Houses" by building McMansions on an acre of land; they need to realize they are being had by people who are selling a cleverly designed image, not the real goods.
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.
