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.
“Well-designed ‘Missing Middle’ buildings unify the walkable streetscape as they greatly diversify the choices available for households of different age, size, and income. Smaller households tend to eat out more, helping our neighborhood attract wonderful restaurants. Diverse households keep diverse hours meaning we have more people out walking our streets at more varied hours—keeping them safer.” — Ellen Dunham-Jones, professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-author of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs
Its funny to think about this style of housing being "missing" in large portions of the country, because they're ubiquitous in the urban cores of most Northeastern and Midwestern cities (although the form they take varies considerably). That said, I always did find it quite jarring how in many cities in the South and West there really was no buffer zone of moderate residential density between the CBD and detached single-family housing.
I do think that the presenters are extolling the virtues of moderate density a bit too much however. It is true that moderate density neighborhoods have unit densities which allow walkable commercial districts. But the walkable commercial districts have to be there - or at least be zoned to allow to exist. Merely plopping some townhouses or walkups into a suburban-style neighborhood won't really accomplish much of anything on its own. After all, townhouses have been the preferred "moderate density" solution in the suburbs in most parts of the country for decades now, and it hasn't helped walkability one bit.
I'm sure it's a highly variable statistic by region. Here in Seattle we're experiencing a population surge due to hiring by various tech firms, notably Amazon, but when you look at the incoming demographics - single, 20s - all of them being housed in tiny high-amenity shoe boxes with bike racks and zipcar stalls, one can't help but wonder if those people happen to be fertile and fecund. My guess is, yes, they are, and that there will be community development consequences. Does the Seattle School District have any provision in its capital development budget for school building or development in the (utterly school-less) parts of town being swarmed by Amazonians at present? Nope. Are developers building 2- or 3-bedroom rental units to be occupied by said 20-somethings and their kids? Nope. Surprise - the ROI on ten 500-SF one bedroom units is better than on six or seven 800-SF two bedroom units.
I think there's a big bubble in small rental units for which there's going to be a reckoning one of these days.
I think there's a big bubble in small rental units for which there's going to be a reckoning one of these days.
I've thought similar things before. While there is something to be said for micro-apartments adding affordability in high-cost metros, one cannot help but wonder if eventually, when small falls out of style again, we'll see low-income families shoehorning themselves into these units, because they can no longer afford anything larger in the area.
I've thought similar things before. While there is something to be said for micro-apartments adding affordability in high-cost metros, one cannot help but wonder if eventually, when small falls out of style again, we'll see low-income families shoehorning themselves into these units, because they can no longer afford anything larger in the area.
More likely you will see single seniors moving out of their 3 bedroom/2 bath with a yard into small urban apartments.
Then the young families will move out of the small apartments and into the 3b/2b w/ yard.
It will all work out.
I read recently that if builders never built another 3b/2b family home, there is enough existing to take care of future need.
That is assuming two things, people will move to where the houses are and the empty nesters and singles will move out of the big family homes.
More likely you will see single seniors moving out of their 3 bedroom/2 bath with a yard into small urban apartments. Then the young families will move out of the small apartments and into the 3b/2b w/ yard.
It will all work out.
I'm thinking more about places like NYC or San Francisco here. Areas where there is a major housing shortage, and you need to be pretty far away from the urban core to find a halfway affordable "family size" unit already.
I read recently that if builders never built another 3b/2b family home, there is enough existing to take care of future need.
That is assuming two things, people will move to where the houses are and the empty nesters and singles will move out of the big family homes.
I think it also assumes an unrealistic zero-sum scenario for many places; around here there's net in-migration, admittedly skewed to young/single, but there's a significant couples/families component to the growth too.
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.
