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.
In my area, townhouses are quite common. They fulfil the individual's desire for home ownership (vs.condominiums or apartments) while maximizing the developer's ROI on expensive property. People around here seem to tolerate apartments, overlook condos, and jump in to houses when possible.
This would be great for the city, except it tends to be done piecemeal and, generally, on what farmland does remain within city limits; thus the impact on traffic is problematic, yet the impact on overall density is limited.
Any high or moderate density housing (with rules, or it will be chaotic) is good as far as I'm concerned. People need to have contact with people, not be isolated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Given the off-topic discussion in a related thread, I thought it would be worthwhile to have a concrete thread on the plusses and minuses of different forms of moderate-density housing.
By moderate density, I mean semi-detached and attached housing built in units smaller than an apartment building. In the Anglophile world, there are essentially three types.
One is the well known rowhouse, often called a townhouse when built to a higher standard, and generally called a terraced house in the UK. These are houses which are generally attached on either side to other houses. Within, although they may be narrow, each house is constructed like a conventional single-family home. The main advantage of this style is it lends itself to owner-occupiers, as an owner retains control over their own street facade and back (and possibly front) yard. In addition, even in older construction, heating costs are often lower due to sharing heated walls on two sides. The disadvantages are largely due to ventilation and lighting issues due to only the front and the back of the house having windows.
A variant on this is the semi-detached duplex. Although technically a rowhouse with only one shared wall, in practice they usually resemble single-family homes with two entrances. Their advantage over rowhouses are more natural light, more ventilation, some more privacy, and control over a side (and usually front) yard. The disadvantage is you have no control over your neighbor's remodeling, which can result in a jarring eyesore next door (if he has an ugly paint color, you probably have to follow). In addition, they were usually built at a later point, and sadly often to lower aesthetic standards, than rowhouses.
The alternative idea was to have a large structure where you have the residences spread horizontally across a single floor, but you have neighbors on the other floors. In Britain, this is where the term flat came from (which is now used as a more general apartment term), but in the U.S. they are usually called two-deckers, triple-deckers, or when they are duplexed six-packs. Natural light and ventilation are, in most cases, similar to single-family houses. However, the structure lends itself to apartments, not owner-occupiers, which led them to be more likely to fall into disrepair. As some have gentrified, owner-occupiers have taken on first floors while renting out the rest, and in some cases, they have been converted into mini-condos.
Thee's also the question of brick/stone versus wood/siding. There are pluses and minuses of each. Brick and stone keep up great with minimal pointing and cleaning, but it is all-but impossible to put on an addition without it looking jarring. It's also, generally speaking, too expensive to use as a modern construction material within most of the U.S. Wood (and some modern siding forms) can look nice, but due to painting concerns wood houses have been far more likely to be poorly remodeled with facades like aluminum siding.
Any high or moderate density housing (with rules, or it will be chaotic) is good as far as I'm concerned. People need to have contact with people, not be isolated.
There's a flipside to that coin: living in high-density areas leads to greater anonymity. Density has a tendency to weaken social bonds, not strengthen them.
Who do you think knows their neighbors better: someone living in a 58-floor Manhattan high-rise or someone living in a small town with a density of 400 people per sq. mile?
There's a flipside to that coin: living in high-density areas leads to greater anonymity. Density has a tendency to weaken social bonds, not strengthen them.
Who do you think knows their neighbors better: someone living in a 58-floor Manhattan high-rise or someone living in a small town with a density of 400 people per sq. mile?
The thread is about medium density, so how does that question apply?
I don't think medium density leads to greater anonymity.
The thread is about medium density, so how does that question apply?
Because the poster said "any high or moderate density." That's how it applies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown
I don't think medium density leads to greater anonymity.
This depends on what you call "medium density." At any rate, a person living in Goldsboro, NC is more likely to know his neighbors (and have more interaction with those neighbors) than someone living in Overbrook, Philadelphia.
Very Low: 8,000 sqft
Low: 5,000-7,999 sqft
Medium: 3,200-4,999 sqft
High: 1,800-3,199 sqft
Very High: 1,200-1,799 sqft
In all cases, there can theoretically be attached, detached, duplex, and triplex zones, however practically speaking they don't exist at the lower densities. In all cases though, individual houses cannot exceed 40 feet. There's also "multi-family" which is for apartment buildings, which can get much higher as the densities increase. Keep in mind, however, that multiple dwellings can be on a single plot. Smaller lots are also possible because they have been "grandfathered in" My own lot is 784 square feet, for example, although 1,200-2,000 is more typical of my neighborhood (our house was built near a corner, so we lost backyard to the houses on the cross street).
In my experience, high and very high, when restricted to single-family dwellings, contain the type of building I'm talking about. Medium-density areas are usually streetcar suburbs. Low and very low are suburban-esque in character. So I guess I'm saying anything from 14 units per square acre on up.
Okay then--most of the "detached row house" houses where I live are just at that threshold, houses about 30x30-30x40 feet on 40x80 foot lots, just bigger than 14 units per acre. The other examples are all denser, up to the higher end of "dingbat" apartments which can reach 100 units/acre.
This is the kind of unit that I'm talking about when I say "bungalow courts":
Aerial view: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...00603&t=h&z=21
Street view: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...=12,21.84,,0,0
There's another unit next door: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...2,31.83,,0,1.7
Each sits on a lot of about a quarter-acre, and has four small one-story duplex buildings of about 800-1000 square feet, and a fifth two-story building along the alley. That one has parking on the ground floor facing the alley and apartments on the second story. Some other examples have six one-story buildings and the parking is in a small lot along the alley. So generally they add up to a density of 32-48 units per acre, even though they register like a one-story house from the street.
Nothing too lovable architecturally (but check out the tree canopy and some of the architectural treats down the street!) but they provide compact and affordable housing for students and working folks in a neighborhood that is biking distance from tens of thousands of jobs ranging from fast food to high finance.
Finally, here's a link to what may be the ultimate "apartments above the store" in my city:
This is a conversion of a former auto dealership--the ground floor is restaurants, above are apartments. One of the tenants is California Governor Edmund G. Brown! He is a big advocate of walkability and not a fan of suburbs--last time he was governor he lived in a one-bedroom apartment across from the Capitol (this one is about five blocks from the Capitol, making for a nice short commute) and he rejected the then-new mansion built out in the suburbs for previous governor Ronald Reagan.
Again, it's probably just confirmation bias because I live in a neighborhood like that, but the sort of housing forms we're talking about here are like the "goldilocks density" cartoon I posted in another thread: not too sparse, not too dense, but just right!
This depends on what you call "medium density." At any rate, a person living in Goldsboro, NC is more likely to know his neighbors (and have more interaction with those neighbors) than someone living in Overbrook, Philadelphia.
Sorry, but I disagree. That's not been my experience. Has it been yours?
Although I've never lived in one, I can see how large apartment buildings might not be the best for befriending neighbours. I have an easier time imagining myself dropping by someone's how if it involves walking down the street to their door than taking an elevator to their floor and walking to their door, and the part of the apartment that faces the hallway is often pretty generic/blank, unlike with a house where there would be windows, landscaping, decorations, etc. You also don't hang out in an apartment hallway like you do on a front lawn, porch or balcony. However, most condos still have some sort of common ammenity space (pools, rooftop terraces, party room, lobby, gym, etc) where you can meet neighbours, as well as condo association meetings.
Overbrook doesn't seem to have many apartments though, mostly various ground oriented homes, so what makes you say they're less likely to know their neighbours?
Sorry, but I disagree. That's not been my experience. Has it been yours?
Absolutely.
Cities can't (and don't) have every single advantage. There are costs that come along with higher density just as there are costs that come along with lower density. For all of the "amenities" that higher density areas offer over lower density areas, those amenities generally come at the price of weaker social relationships. Particularly in transient cities (DC, NYC, Boston, SF) where people shuffle in and out like a revolving door.
Cities can't (and don't) have every single advantage. There are costs that come along with higher density just as there are costs that come along with lower density. For all of the "amenities" that higher density areas offer over lower density areas, those amenities generally come at the price of weaker social relationships. Particularly in transient cities (DC, NYC, Boston, SF) where people shuffle in and out like a revolving door.
But does higher density create transiency? Transients often prefer to live close to the center of city, but if you had an outlying neighborhood composed of say, row houses (but no high rises) I'd expect people to see / know their neighbors just as much and likely more as a spread out outlying neighborhood of low density single family homes.
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.
Love this thread.
