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.
Seriously, if the city of Seattle wants to welcome more people, they need to 1) build more housing 2) make that housing affordable and 3) build smaller and smarter. If other people already living there don't like it, they can move. That's the con of living in a city. There's lots of people there and they all need somewhere to live.
well that is because they are knocking them down - still large swaths of pretty terrible ares unfortunately
Seems like the number of occupied units and even total units has gone up from 2000 to 2010 though, so I guess new housing is being built faster? And presumably some vacant ones being reoccupied?
The modern row house made its first arrival in Sacramento about 15-20 years ago, they were well received and now they're sprouting up all over our Downtown, Midtown and streetcar-era neighborhoods. People seem to like them just fine, although unlike the ones in the photo above, for the most part the garage is typically in back rather than in front.
Here in Seattle they are just now starting to become more common, with new ones being built and selling from $600,000.
They have already become a problem for the city, because the neighbors don't like them.
Very similar style, but just a house squeezed onto a narrow, otherwise unbuildable lot.
Here is an interesting case in Seatle where a few rowhouses might be suitable. An elderly woman refused to sell to the developers of the Trader Joe's complex, and several years later she died. She actually left the property to the project manager because he had been so kind to her during construction. I don't know what his plans are for the lot, but a you can see it's currently boarded up and has been since she passed.
\sell to the developers of the Trader Joe's complex, and several years later she died. She actually left the property to the project manager because he had been so kind to her during construction. I don't know what his plans are for the lot, but a you can see it's currently boarded up and has been since she passed.
Rowhouses still do what they have always done well, provide cost efficient living space for homeowners.
I actually think this is a bit backwards.
Many forms of attached housing were meant to be homeowner-occupied. But true rowhouses (as in, stands of identical or near-identical houses built at once), often were not. They were often built as rentals (even if grand - in the 19th century many well-to-do urbanites were renters, just like today), or sold to homowners under the curious system where the house became their property, but the developer maintained ownership of the land, for which the homeowner would pay rent.
Regardless, in distressed neighborhoods, rental rowhouses actually tend to be better kept up - particularly when a single landlord actually buys out the whole block. The issue is more often with homeowner occupied - or formerly homeowner occupied - units. Either the elderly resident ages in place, or else they move away but choose not to rent out the house, which leads to it degrading over the decades, ultimately being condemned, and the need to demolish units in the middle of a row which will never be replaced (the "gap tooth" phenomena).
IMHO the modern "condo" system actually is a better way to deal with rowhouses than the historic free-for-all, treating them as if they were detached houses in terms of property. If I were still in a rowhouse, and my neighbor decided to resize his windows, paint his brick pink, or put aluminum siding on his dormer, all of this would detract from the appearance of my house. I should have a say in this, just like he should have a say in what I do.
Many forms of attached housing were meant to be homeowner-occupied. But true rowhouses (as in, stands of identical or near-identical houses built at once), often were not. They were often built as rentals (even if grand - in the 19th century many well-to-do urbanites were renters, just like today), or sold to homowners under the curious system where the house became their property, but the developer maintained ownership of the land, for which the homeowner would pay rent.
Home ownership wasn't all that common before the introduction of the FHA in the 1930s because before that most people needed to pay cash, in full to buy a house. You don't see modern rates (40% +) of homeownership in most cities until after WWII.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,280,624 times
Reputation: 1483
Oh I hate most Row homes myself.....
Yes there are some charming Colonial Rows, Victorian Rows and Brownstones, Greystones.
But it is TRUE... so many in Philly and Baltimore are so BLAH and BLAND. I blame in part city planners making lots so small? Housing to the sidewalks... and narrow street grid.
Chicago for example..... strayed away from Rows. They made a street grid layout of 25' x 125' (standard Chicago lot) houses set back, on wider streets. The result was back to the late 19th century..... they got quaint single cottages and bungalows on wider streets with nice FRONT LAWNS.
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.
