U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-04-2014, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,657,858 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by steeps View Post
EXACTLY..... Thanks. I pointed that out with CHICAGO'S standard 25'x125' lots. I knew even with garages.... they still had a yard in back most garages. Of course, those who had no garage had bigger yards.

Here is a older Chicago neighborhoods the standard lot a side view overlooking the yards. You can see down each lot and garages⤵

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9501...eYGXIcU36g!2e0

The front street views of the Chicago grid⤵

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9521...RrFj_rPTgQ!2e0

All the electric wire poles are off the front too. In the alleys too.
But why would you want a Row instead on these lots ??? As some seem to say yes over this..⤴
If the front yard is smaller, (e.g. the small patio/garden in front of many row houses) the back yard can be bigger. Of course, detached houses can also have small front yards. But, we're talking about rows, because that maximizes the width of the house on the lot. And, the wider the house, the shallower it can be, which also maximizes the size of the back yard. This theoretical Chicago row house would have a 25 feet wide by 30 feet deep footprint. But, if we decided to make them detached houses, with just a 5 foot gap between them, the house then needs to be 37.5 feet deep to achieve the same living area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2014, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
1,070 posts, read 2,367,131 times
Reputation: 1420
^^ That.

On top of that, rows with shallower setbacks make a street seem narrower, and more on a human scale. This, in turn, slows down traffic in residential areas (making the streets a much safer place for pedestrians). And, even though the physical size of the lots would be the same, joining the houses gives it a more urban look and feel, which actually makes an area feel more walkable.

Check out these examples in Coronado, CA.. While they are SF detached, there's nothing but a narrow walkway between each unit. Granted, in this specific example, the walkway on the left of the house goes to a unit behind the house, that's built above both the garages. The walkway on the right side of the house accesses the garage for that house... But the only practical reason I can see for any separation is backyard / garage access without having to track through the house.

The problem with building detatched homes on 25'x125' lots is the homes have to be a lot smaller. A lot of these older homes have very small rooms, only 1 bathroom, etc. Modern houses have average room sizes of about 12'x12' (144 sq ft). Maximizing the width of your lot, you could get exactly two 12'x12' rooms side-by-side (when accounting for wall thickness, the extra 1' is used up). Most of these small, older homes are roughly 18' wide, giving you room for one front-facing room, and a small hallway to the side. Similar sized homes in New Orleans and Mississippi used the iconic "shotgun" style, with all the rooms in a line (the doors were all in line -- one could theoretically fire a shotgun from the back room, to the front door). Newer, wider shotgun style homes have a hallway running the length of the house on one side, with room access off the hallway. The four square layout maximizes useful space (keep in mind, hallways are essentially wasted square footage). With this layout, you can have four rooms per floor, and each room would have an exterior wall (read: window / natural light). Compared to a traditional row, a wider home feels a hell of a lot more spacious as well (though proper design / furniture arrangement can easily make a standard row feel less closed in).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2014, 09:01 AM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,465,049 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
If the front yard is smaller, (e.g. the small patio/garden in front of many row houses) the back yard can be bigger. Of course, detached houses can also have small front yards. But, we're talking about rows, because that maximizes the width of the house on the lot. And, the wider the house, the shallower it can be, which also maximizes the size of the back yard. This theoretical Chicago row house would have a 25 feet wide by 30 feet deep footprint. But, if we decided to make them detached houses, with just a 5 foot gap between them, the house then needs to be 37.5 feet deep to achieve the same living area.
We are talking Rows as in the Topic.... because the OP wants to rip whole blocks of them down. I don't think he was on their side

Did you mean.... Chicago should have built mostly Rows like Philly? Believe me...I live among Rows houses to sidewalks in PA and I know Philly's stock has much if not most with no green frontage green lawns in front unless they get creative with planters and I don't think garages are even common?

HERE IS A BETTER 360 showing ACCUAL YARD SIZE BETWEEN BUNGALOW HOME AND GARAGE then alley on standard lot near where I lived.
To me more then adequate ⤵ PICTURES SAY IT ALL AND THESE ARE NOT ONE BEDROOM HOMES LOL. I FIND IT PERFECT FOR URBAN LIVING without the true suburban sprawl.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9414...WCzpw2j4tg!2e0

From the front intersection looking down the streets⤵

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9438...FFLCnVceWg!2e0

My Aunt had a one story bungalow 2 bedrooms. The option of a third gave small livingrooms most chose the larger LR or you chose a 2-story. Kitchen open to a dinette seating area and garage of course. Many had finished basements for more play space. She also had another basement kitchen for canning. The basements had smalls window too.
My Opinion is Chicago kept density... its main streets with retail and Apartment buildings is to the curb. In the side street neighborhood they created a PER-SUBURBAN LOOK and ATTRIBUTES that AMERICA FOUND AS DESIRED and PREFERED as they rebuilt a new America surrounding our cities WITH EVEN MORE SPRAWL IN THE SUBURBS THEN.

But Chicago Already beginning in the late 18th century in their pre-bungalow era cottage homes. that still look great today. Then the Prairie style influence of Frank Lloyd Wright came in as the bungalow era began. They gave front lawns even then. Most still had 3 bedrooms in 2 stories. Some neighborhoods have mostly 3 story homes. Some residences were 2-flats even 3-flats. There is a variety of styles there. Most CHOOSE THE OPTION of a garage. Or later built one knowing a smaller yard resulted. Some houses are longer then others too. The newest Chicago bungalows 50s 60s were all one story. Then they went to driveway alongside the home to the garage and got rid of the alleys like the suburbs had.
Smaller families today do not need 4 bedrooms or they choose a third story home. Most with school age children given big city poor schools we have....keep many in the suburbs.

What they managed to me choosing CHICAGO'S layout over tight Rows.....was a far more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood environment. To drive and walk through green lawns and pleasant homes decorated and styles as the owners pride and vanity had them do.

Few if any? I believe would give up their pleasant frontage and single home and even garage. for a Row home no matter how much bigger a yard they were promised? No doubt.

Last edited by steeps; 12-04-2014 at 09:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 12:02 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,563,164 times
Reputation: 4048
There was no "Chicago" in the late 18th century. Chicago was not founded until 1833.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 12:08 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,465,049 times
Reputation: 1483
Yes correct I did mean 19th century.

I do get a kick out of some claiming Chicago's 25'x125' lots are a problem though? ....Noting even though a garage, most chose would mean a smaller yard? They all still have room for a patio and small garden if they chose and some room alongside their garage to the alley in the rear. Where I might add the power lines were. Freeing the front for perfect front lawns and trees and shrubs of choice
RATHER THEN THE OP's challenge that it is ROWS TOO TIGHT LITTLE OR MOST WITH NO FRONTAGE that is a problem in desirability for todays preferences? We all know the quaintness and desirability of Colonial neighborhoods and Victorian, brownstones and greystone rows. But it is the wall to wall bland rows having no front separation from the sidewalk and still very narrow......as is the yards?

THESE to the OP.....i'm sure this is the kind to level if already in decay and rebuild in North Philly? Just so tight and narrow streets? Of course could be restored ?⤵

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9941...PNEz5fMWMQ!2e0

I realize these are not considered Philly's best neighborhood? But some would guess this was a third world neighborhood even when much newer? They offer little to desirability for todays preferences? But you can fix anything up?

BUT TO ME A EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE OP MEANS RIP DOWN REBUILD? I DO REALIZE ALL BIG CITIES HAVE THEIR BAD APPEARING NEIGHBOROODS. BUT THESE DO NOT INVITE GENTRIFICATION? UNLESS IN THE RIGHT LOCATION PURHAPS? ⤵

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9925...IQ!2e0!5m1!1e1


I find these Philly example rows being non-colonials. DESIREABLE as far as Rows go? Some frontage and not bland and super narrow⤵

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9565...0120901T000000

These half-doubles with nice green fronts still desirable⤵

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9616...E8ZBaMAyGg!2e0

I'M NOT TRYING TO BASH A WHOLE CITY IN MY STATE OR HATE. I KNOW PHILLY OFFERS A LOT AND HAS SEEN GENTRIFICATION OF ROW NEIGHBORHOODS.
BUT I REALIZE WHAT THE OP MEANS AND SHOW EXAMPLES
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 12:19 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Chicago has at least as much decay as Philadelphia, despite different housing stock. I don't why you keep turning this into a Chicago vs Philadelphia thread. Perhaps Philadelphia isn't popular with today's preferences. However, not everyone has these preferences.

The main objection I had with Chicago lots is in seems like a poor use of space. With all the front setback, you end with two tiny yards, front and back rather than one small one. What's the point of lots of frontage? Why not save the room for the backyard. The alley is also eating into the backyard, it could be larger if it weren't there.

Those Philly examples at the end are beautiful looking. However, these rowhomes have little setback and are in decent shape and in a good neighborhood:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9695...bMXSn4vq_g!2e0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 03:07 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,465,049 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Chicago has at least as much decay as Philadelphia, despite different housing stock. I don't why you keep turning this into a Chicago vs Philadelphia thread. Perhaps Philadelphia isn't popular with today's preferences. However, not everyone has these preferences.

The main objection I had with Chicago lots is in seems like a poor use of space. With all the front setback, you end with two tiny yards, front and back rather than one small one. What's the point of lots of frontage? Why not save the room for the backyard. The alley is also eating into the backyard, it could be larger if it weren't there.

Those Philly examples at the end are beautiful looking. However, these rowhomes have little setback and are in decent shape and in a good neighborhood:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9695...bMXSn4vq_g!2e0
My previous post was not off the Topic of Rows .The OP most likely says cities should rip down and ....Try to.....but have problems if some owners hold out? My last post WAS NOT ON CHICAGO. It was on Rows totally. I merely gave examples in Philly I saw the OP means Rip down and some not. MY 2 lower examples were to show vibrant rows. Purhaps you did not view them? I clearly noted EVER CITY HAS ITS BAD AREAS .

To me poor use of space OMG is to see a basic alley with wall to wall row homes? IT IS THAT as UNDESIREABLE, UNESSESSARY AND MOSTLY UNATTRACTIVE even when new? In my opinion.

Also.... in my first 2 examples in Urban planning even in the 19th century. Chicago chose a lot size as a urban plan that resulted in a more pleasant neighborhood in todays standard and taste. Living there I can attest to virtually all have a back yard. Some more the others and CHOSE GARAGES over bigger yards.
(CHOICES OF GARAGES ARE WHAT RESULTED IN SMALLER BACK YARDS....NOT LOT SIZE THAT PRE-DATED THE AUTOMOBLE AGE)
All power lines through alleys too. I gave a example of yards seeing across them from intersections and one below I will. They show clearly a yard where a patio and or small garden can be had even with garages. Narrow rows do not give bigger yards? No side yard and very narrow. In scrolling through some Philly neighborhoods in goggle. I did see wider rows WITH GARAGES and smaller yards too and no side lot? They kept desirability.

I would ask you?...
---Where is it to remain urban, keep density, realizing...with single homes as preferred today? Did Chicago fail in setting up a street grid with alleys where garages and power lines and garbage pick-up can go? Give homes set-back to provide a more open vista and pleasant walkable city? Did Chicago really fail here?and Row homes they should have went with?
The majority of the US not going with Rows says a lot too? I agree your Google 360 is pleasant enough rows. As is my 2 examples of pleasant Rows too. But clearly a lot of Philly has these narrow street rows that go too far to say it was more efficient use of space? in my opinion.

I'd rather a Apartment building with a central courtyard, Chicago also did over any too tight of rows to keep density. Even Tenement styles that still come off well in Manhattan with gentrification as do former warehouses to lofts in many cities.

Time will tell if Philly keeps.... the narrowest and tightest non-colonial row blocks and they Get gentrified as tight as they are.
My post or the OP's topic was not about any city having more decay. My use of Chicago was as having a far more planned street grid of broader streets and set-backs of housing once in the neighborhoods once off the main streets? .... It was to go up against those of mostly Rows the OP saw should be ripped down? Having lived in Chicago .... I knew its examples and gave some.

Also the very narrow street and row examples....with Rows to the sidewalk in Philly? I found difficult to find gentrified? So clearly the examples appear in degrees of disrepair? No one is saying there are no pleasant rows just a lot not when too narrow and in a alley size street? I could easily find.... I find them.. too tight as if in a third world city when some of us view them?

---If I could change cities choices?

I'd given Chicago even a bit wider and deeper street grid because of wanting garages? But not remove its choice of few Rows and would not remove or lessen their front set-backs?
I would have stopped Philly using alleys as if main streets and steered it away from Rows also by the late 19th century too? Or have kept wider Colonial Rows or a more front setback to their grid? Of course we have what we have in all our Big cities.

Just to use for examples......Philly is the best example of a predominately Row city and Chicago not? So comparisons I brought in.....but still keeping the OP's criticism of extremism in some Rows?
So bad.....as to say rip down whole blocks of them?

Again Chicago's grid still has a decent yard with their common choice of garage instead of larger back yard ⤵ Bigger on side if a one car garage instead of bigger one.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9413...jRav_JuRAg!2e0

The yard is no smaller then Rows all around me in small town PA and my yard too even with a single among some Rows.

This is one my favorite neighborhoods in Chicago (standard Lot) The Tudor Bungalow...front to above picture..... very desirable today and pricey because of it. Despite not a big back yard.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9925...IQ!2e0!5m1!1e1

Last edited by steeps; 12-09-2014 at 03:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,377 posts, read 59,836,421 times
Reputation: 54025
Why is a little buffer from the street such a bad idea? I can't wrap my head around this. I don't want to be sitting on my porch with cars buzzing by 6 feet away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 03:19 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Why is a little buffer from the street such a bad idea? I can't wrap my head around this. I don't want to be sitting on my porch with cars buzzing by 6 feet away.
I wouldn't either want to be either, but I wouldn't want to be a street with lots of traffic. On a quiet street, it's not an issue. So I don't really see any point in having a large setback, for a small lot it seems like a waste, why not have one larger backyard and little front yard. A little buffer is nice, but I like seeing the houses on a street it feels a bit cozier to me. Something like these:





Or for a more urban setting, this amount of a buffer seems fine to me.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3465...i79Fz_Z2Sw!2e0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2014, 03:56 PM
 
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,539 posts, read 2,465,049 times
Reputation: 1483
If all our cities could all be quaint SINGLE Victorians with nice green fronts like even above examples? Some trees and nice back yards with garages too. Like in the movie ....." Meet Me in St Louis " I saw last week on TV. We call could feel comfortable? Just so many parts of some ......especially in big cities, (some more the others). They failed to achieve enough of that. I won't say where a lot of the bad choices were again and kinds of bad examples?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top