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.
I think the problem with such infilling is when off-street parking is lost, especially with garage conversions, and there is no attempt to make room for not just the lost parking for the main house, but the additional vehicles brought in by the ADU.
It potentially doubles the zoned population of traffic, without increasing the infrastructure to support it. This includes, but isn't limited only to affecting traffic... it may have affects on other utilities including power and water and sewer/septic capacities as well.
That's the argument against.
In lots and areas where this can be accommodated and corrected and people are crying for more affordable housing, I think it should be allowed and even encouraged.
I think the problem with such infilling is when off-street parking is lost, especially with garage conversions, and there is no attempt to make room for not just the lost parking for the main house, but the additional vehicles brought in by the ADU.
It potentially doubles the zoned population of traffic, without increasing the infrastructure to support it. This includes, but isn't limited only to affecting traffic... it may have affects on other utilities including power and water and sewer/septic capacities as well.
That's the argument against.
In lots and areas where this can be accommodated and corrected and people are crying for more affordable housing, I think it should be allowed and even encouraged.
I think there are a lot more arguments against chopping up single family houses into apartments than just the matter of parking.
I would assume across the country, the idea from the thread title - turning single family homes into multi-unit apartment buildings - has been proven problematic at best.
It's otherwise known as a boarding house. Makeshift walls, code violations, safety concerns abound. You can't easily take a 4 BR single family home w 1 kitchen and 1-3 bathrooms and turn it into safe living quarters for 4 different tenants.
Now, if you want to allow upzoning that says any residential lot of sufficient size within X feet/miles of transit can have a quadraplex built on it, completely different matter.
A goodly portion of CA's housing problem is legislated costs and regulations that really increase the cost of building, as well as a decade(s)-long philosophy of less building vs more.
To add to your list you also can include the stress on infrastructure from water supply to sewer treatment to roads to electric grid when you start doubling and tripling density. Adding another 250 gallons of water per unit out of the supply and then adding it to the treatment plant. Then each additional unit gets at least one more car (and parking) to put on the roads and each unit adds its electric load to the grid. I forgot schools have to add seats, for which there is a cost for physical plant as well as staff.
These "planners" who advocate for this need to look at both sides of the equation.
I'm saying that parking is not "the" problem but rather "a" problem, and honestly, compared to the neighborhood degradation that ensues when single family houses are chopped up into apartments, it's one of the lesser one.
I think the problem with such infilling is when off-street parking is lost, especially with garage conversions, and there is no attempt to make room for not just the lost parking for the main house, but the additional vehicles brought in by the ADU.
It potentially doubles the zoned population of traffic, without increasing the infrastructure to support it. This includes, but isn't limited only to affecting traffic... it may have affects on other utilities including power and water and sewer/septic capacities as well.
That's the argument against.
In lots and areas where this can be accommodated and corrected and people are crying for more affordable housing, I think it should be allowed and even encouraged.
I agree with you about the utility capacity and the parking. Relatives of ours converted their garage into an ADU. Met all the requirements, but now they and their tenants are competing with the neighbors for parking. Visitors are on their own to find a place and hike.
But it's more than increasing the utility capacity and sufficient off-street parking, it's the increase in people.
Ten years ago, their home was a nice, quiet street with neighbors gardening and chatting with one another.
Now that everyone has added a "granny flat" in the backyard, converted the garage into a studio apartment, etc., there are people coming and going on six inch centers.
Apartment tenants move in and out. There's always a moving van on the street. Several are airbnb places.
It's a street of strangers now.
I'm all for high density, affordable housing. However, that needs to be planned for, in areas with adequate infrastructure, parking, schools, ...
When I move into a neighborhood zoned for single family homes, that's what I want. I don't want to buy into a neighborhood where in three years there's no place for folks to park on Thanksgiving. Where the schools are using trailers for classrooms because the population has doubled. I don't want to live next to an airbnb apartment with who knows who coming and going.
I realize this is selfish of me. I won't argue that.
Seems to me increasing supply is the only way to tackle the problem. What is the reason for the opposition? I don't really get it from the report, even though someone attempts to indirectly explain it.
Are homeowners afraid of property value going down? Or are non-homeowners afraid of property value going up (thus giving homeowners a windfall)?
What would allowing such building do to property value anyway? And to housing supply?
I don't know why San Fran said no, but in some cities it's because there's not enough parking/already too many cars for the city to handle. 10 units of 2 bedroom condos might be 20 or more cars as opposed to 4 or 5 for two single family homes. Multiply it all over the city.
I don't know why San Fran said no, but in some cities it's because there's not enough parking/already too many cars for the city to handle. 10 units of 2 bedroom condos might be 20 or more cars as opposed to 4 or 5 for two single family homes. Multiply it all over the city.
Plus, the two single family homes may well have garages, driveways, and/or other off street parking.
When apartment and condos are built, typically the plan must include parking. Ideally at least one spot per bedroom and a few extra for visitors.
However, when current single family homes are converted, this is not the case.
I would assume across the country, the idea from the thread title - turning single family homes into multi-unit apartment buildings - has been proven problematic at best.
It's otherwise known as a boarding house. Makeshift walls, code violations, safety concerns abound. You can't easily take a 4 BR single family home w 1 kitchen and 1-3 bathrooms and turn it into safe living quarters for 4 different tenants.
Now, if you want to allow upzoning that says any residential lot of sufficient size within X feet/miles of transit can have a quadraplex built on it, completely different matter.
A goodly portion of CA's housing problem is legislated costs and regulations that really increase the cost of building, as well as a decade(s)-long philosophy of less building vs more.
I know what you're referring to, but I interpreted it to refer more to a large house that's broken into a duplex or triplex. I've seen a lot of that in older housing stock in cities. I've lived in such a dwelling myself.
While I'd feel somewhat NIMBY-ish about it personally, in places like San Francisco I think it's called for.
The place is a peninsula and a huge amount of the city has rules prohibiting building above three stories and housing costs are out of control.
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.
