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.
The blog Brownstoner occasionally show the gradual evolution of NYC over time: small wooden house is replaced by larger big row houses, which is then replaced by an apartment building.
NYC is the most extreme example, but this used to happen in all of our traditional dense urban cities before the advent of modern zoning. This gradual densification allowed NYC (and European cities) to develop dense urban cores suitable for walkable retail, efficient public transit, grand civic space, etc. Modern zoning has ended this process. For a long time, it didn't matter since cities were in decline and people were leaving. But, now that people are moving back to cities, zoning is severely limiting their potential (and contributing to soaring prices).
Under current zoning, we will never again be able to build urban cores to rival the grand European cities or even SF or Boston. Sure we allow infill development. But, the reigning orthodox is that it must conform to the existing neighborhood. One-story commercial strips and vacant lots on commercial streets and downtown districts can be redeveloped. But, residential streets are off limits to anything that doesn't match it's neighbors. Replacing a couple houses with an apartment building is basically illegal in most city cores.
US cities were so depopulated by 50 years of decline, that this wasn't an issue until recently. Modest opportunities for development was enough to satisfy demand in most cities. But, in cities were it wasn't (Bos, SF, NYC, DC, LA) prices have been soaring as demand far exceeds supply (and this will eventually be an issue as the sunbelt fills in its empty lots).
Long term, this isn't sustainable. We need to go back to redeveloping neighborhoods. I'm not saying we need to destroy all our history. But, in cities like DC with around 120,000 single family or row houses, we could redevelop 20,000 (16%) of them in the walkable/transit friendly core as small apartments at 5x the density (+80,000 new units). Central rowhouse neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Shaw, and Bloomingdale would become like Dupont currently is. (A mix or rowhouses and low rise apartments, Not exactly Hong Kong). SFH neighborhoods could gradually become quiet rowhouse neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and Bloomingdale are today.
If we want cities to become more than just little niches for the affluent, we need to get back to building up cities en masse. Better to build up true urban cores than little walkable TOD nodes across the sprawling suburbs. TODs and suburban downtowns have their place and are better than traditional sprawl, but are no replacement for dense urban cores and will never really support car-free urban living.
I don't think this is a yes or no question. I think it all depends on who owns the place and what they wish to do with it, and the historical factor of the place. I am all for historical preservation, but it is a fine line when one is also pro development and growth.
I don't think this is a yes or no question. I think it all depends on who owns the place and what they wish to do with it, and the historical factor of the place. I am all for historical preservation, but it is a fine line when one is also pro development and growth.
Good point, it is yes or no relative to the current zoning regime. Should zoning be made more flexible to allow denser development?
I'm not advocating for no zoning or to permit 20 story buildings in SFH areas, but to permit low-to-mid rise (4-5 story) apartments in row and single family home areas. Similar to what was done in the 1920s in Seattle and Minneapolis. With maybe Parisian style 6-7 story buildings in denser cities like DC, SF, NYC, BOS.
permit low-to-mid rise (4-5 story) apartments in row and single family home areas
A developer in my suburb was looking to build some attached rowhouses (only slightly higher density than single family) and almost every existing single family house in the subdivision it backed up on wrote a protest letter, and the P&Z commission denied it. On land that had been useless and empty for 40 years. The same land the same owners complained about being a haven for trash as the owners didn't mow often enough.
Every single apartment constructed is fought by property owners and HOAs because of the concept of 'apartment people', code for poor and black.
In short, densifying cities is going to be an amazingly difficult process.
A developer in my suburb was looking to build some attached rowhouses (only slightly higher density than single family) and almost every existing single family house in the subdivision it backed up on wrote a protest letter, and the P&Z commission denied it. On land that had been useless and empty for 40 years. The same land the same owners complained about being a haven for trash as the owners didn't mow often enough.
Every single apartment constructed is fought by property owners and HOAs because of the concept of 'apartment people', code for poor and black.
In short, densifying cities is going to be an amazingly difficult process.
You'd probably have more luck in areas that are already pretty socioeconomically diverse.
I think one thing that might help is if the existing residents have something to gain that's less abstract than density = more amenities (which is only true if well planned, and there can still be some disadvantages). One way of doing that would be for example:
In order to increased the allowed built density from what is currently allowed to x, property owner needs to negotiate a price to pay to anyone that will have a shadow cast on their property between 9am and 5pm on Mar 21 as a result of increasing density to x.
If the locals are willing to turn away significant amounts of money to avoid density increases, and only willing to allow it for a very high price, the allowed density will probably not increase.
If the locals would prefer lower densities, but are willing to allow higher densities if they have something to gain (even if it's not that much), then development can probably still proceed.
When accessory dwellings are allowed the density can double without affecting the character of the neighborhood. Less likely to have problem renters when they are in the owner's back yard.
Plus a city without "organic" neighborhoods is very sterile indeed. Are there not abandoned industrial sites where denser infill can occur?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57808
This is a common practice in Seattle now, old, small homes replaced by rowhouses, apartments and condos. They are still providing parking garages, however, or causing neighborhood problems with parking, because the buyers/renters all still have cars. There are just too many activities available that cannot be reached by public transit, which is mostly used by commuters from farther out areas to save themselves from gridlocked traffic.
I'm not convinced that outside of a few cities (mainly San Francisco) this is a huge issue yet, because there is still so much underutilized old commercial/industrial space within most urban cores. It will become a growing issue over the next few decades though.
There are also big regional differences here. West Coast cities besides San Francisco (notably, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles) are very friendly to upzoning. Southern cities are also - the neighborhoods fringing the CBD are often shotgun houses which are poor shape (and historically black) and the business community is eager to clear them out. In contrast, in the Northeast (and to a lesser extent Midwest) there are established communities of middle-class homeowners in the "old urban" neighborhoods who mostly stop change from happening.
There are also big regional differences here. West Coast cities besides San Francisco (notably, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles) are very friendly to upzoning. Southern cities are also - the neighborhoods fringing the CBD are often shotgun houses which are poor shape (and historically black) and the business community is eager to clear them out. In contrast, in the Northeast (and to a lesser extent Midwest) there are established communities of middle-class homeowners in the "old urban" neighborhoods who mostly stop change from happening.
Source for both? Not trying to argue, I'm curious to see more concrete details on that.
Source for both? Not trying to argue, I'm curious to see more concrete details on that.
Seattle was mentioned upthread by another already. I know we have a poster who speaks about upzoning in Portland. As for Los Angeles, the upzoning in the core (particularly Hollywood) has made national news.
As for the South, I remember reading a chapter in The Great Inversion which focused on densification in Houston. The old Fourth Ward was largely cleared in the 1990s - there were 530 historic structures in 1984, and less than 30 today. The neighborhood looks like this now, or in less dense areas, like this. Now the Third Ward is beginning to be redeveloped, with areas like this which are brand-spanking new.
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.
