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.
Here in California most cities including mine have changed zoning requirements to make it much easier to add ADUs, Additional Dwelling Units, in almost all formerly SFH only zoned areas. Not quite as drastic but I think a very good way to increase density. There still are the same FAR limits as well as some parking requirements for larger units unless close to transit so it is not something every home owner is going to necessarily take advantage of - that and the cost of developing them.
Actually, if you look at the full impact of all the zoning changes that have been made in California, every single family zoned lot can now hold a triplex. The first house, plus the now state mandated option of adding a second house, plus the Accessory Dwelling Unit.
I'm not 100% on this, but it's possible that you could build all 3 units and only supply 2 parking spots.
"Free market" nonsense. Continuing that line of thought - are builders supposed to be able to omit restrooms, sewer hookups, grounded electrical, etc. for "free market" housing? Demand does not dictate that as claimed. The demand is for housing. Consumers have to choose from what is available. You might think it's great when a place is growing and there is insufficient housing stock (currently) to fulfill demand. However, when the market experiences a downturn good luck selling the crappy cramped housing with no parking.
Minneapolis is not the first city to do either, so it’ll probably work out fine.
Do you think people are big on living in housing without restrooms, sewer hookups, grounded electrical, etc.?
Minneapolis is definitely not the first city to abolish parking requirements. The free market comes into play here, as it does for abolishing SFH zoning requirements, in that demand will dictate how much housing and parking is built.
M decades long experience with developers has taught me that they'll only do what they're forced to do in relation to amenities. No free market involved.
Maryland Department of Planning has been trying to force jurisdictions to reduce parking requirements for the last several years, usually using grant awards as the carrot. The aim is to force people onto public transit. The problem is that most areas either don't have transit or has a system that's unworkable.
In addition to parking, or lack of it, other infrastructure like electrical supply, water/sewer, trash services has to be taken into account. Sewer and, to an extent, water capacity is a hard wall that limits increased density in many areas.
Minneapolis is not the first city to do either, so it’ll probably work out fine.
Do you think people are big on living in housing without restrooms, sewer hookups, grounded electrical, etc.?
As someone who has lived in a growing community for ~35 years and has done a lot of city council watching for the League of Women Voters (per their rules I have to say I'm speaking only for myself here), I can tell you NBP is right, developers will try to cut corners wherever possible. They'll push for more units, fewer amenities, come up with "creative" ways to get around building codes, etc. They often manage to convince people that certain services are even unnecessary.
To those who think this is a bad idea, how can we expect to reduce our dependency on the automobile, (for those of us who want to do so) if we insist on maintaining that dependence, even in our zoning?
Minneapolis is not the first city to do either, so it’ll probably work out fine.
Do you think people are big on living in housing without restrooms, sewer hookups, grounded electrical, etc.?
Does it really matter whether they are "big" on it?
People have to choose from what's available - and that was the point undermining your "free market" claim.
I don't think people as a whole are keen on half of what's promoted in this forum. Sure there are zealots on the forum but statistics indicate much more movement and activity in and towards "suburbs" as opposed to city cores. I don't think people as a whole are interested in living in the forms of housing touted in this forum either. As for the code revisions, it matters not when they haven't resolved the restrictive covenant issues.
To those who think this is a bad idea, how can we expect to reduce our dependency on the automobile, (for those of us who want to do so) if we insist on maintaining that dependence, even in our zoning?
The latter clause is a non-sequitur to the first clause. But if you want an answer to the latter clause: the answer is that for those of you who wish to create barriers to independence for everyone else, perhaps you should focus on different life goals?
Increasing density in neighborhoods isn't likely to reduce vehicular traffic. Also the very paradigm you utilize - "car dependence" is not the way most car drivers view the independence and freedom offered by individual transport.
I find that those promoting elimination of cars under the pretext of "eliminating dependence" are in fact usually trying to impose a dependency/reliance on public transit and and expanded tax base to pay for it (including a tax on those it will not serve at all).
Last edited by IC_deLight; 12-18-2018 at 08:47 PM..
Does it really matter whether they are "big" on it?
People have to choose from what's available - and that was the point undermining your "free market" claim.
I don't think people as a whole are keen on half of what's promoted in this forum. Sure there are zealots on the forum but statistics indicate much more movement and activity in and towards "suburbs" as opposed to city cores. I don't think people as a whole are interested in living in the forms of housing touted in this forum either. As for the code revisions, it matters not when they haven't resolved the restrictive covenant issues.
perhaps most people aren't interested in higher density neighborhoods, but that doesn't matter; Minneapolis is <20% of the metro, it only needs to appeal to some people who prefer that. Many cities have little growth because there's little allowed to build legally due to zoning; hopefully this will result in more units in city. As for restrictive covenants, doubt they're much of an issue in an old city, could be wrong.
perhaps most people aren't interested in higher density neighborhoods, but that doesn't matter; Minneapolis is <20% of the metro, it only needs to appeal to some people who prefer that. Many cities have little growth because there's little allowed to build legally due to zoning; hopefully this will result in more units in city. As for restrictive covenants, doubt they're much of an issue in an old city, could be wrong.
Portions of downtowns are routinely torn out to build condo towers in cities all over the U.S. so it's not really true that they can't have growth. There is also usually ample room for growth on the outskirts.
In a truly growing area, an ADU here and there isn't likely to keep up with the need. People pursuing many of the jobs causing the growth aren't likely to be satisfied with ADU housing anyway. It's not really a solution. I have no problem with ADUs per se - just with meritless excuses and rationales used to try to justify them. A city needs to have some rationale basis for a zoning restriction - if there is a reason for lower density then so be it.
Whether there is a "market" for something does not inherently mean commerce in that something will be or need be tolerated.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 12-18-2018 at 10:22 PM..
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.
