Minneapolis considers allowing fourplexes citywide to relieve housing shortage

[ardecila]

Most American cities put pretty harsh limits on when and where developers can build multi-family. Even a second unit on a property - in a basement, attic, coach house, or pool house - is usually illegal in most neighborhoods. Chicago was fortunate in that many neighborhoods along the lakefront and on the West Side advanced beyond the single-family home stage before (serious) zoning was put in place in 1957. Thus we have a (relatively) huge core area where dense neighborhoods are full of small apartment buildings, and the law allows more of these buildings to be built.

In most other US cities, the list of neighborhoods that were dense pre-zoning is pretty small, and homeowners have successfully fought off any attempts to upzone their sacred low density surroundings. Thus multi-family is restricted to downtown, or places like industrial corridors where opposition is light.

Originally Posted by 10023

Steely - does Chicago have any zoned R1 within city limits? Or are places where single family homes exist that way for other reasons (ie, historical preservation)?

Both R1 and R2 districts only allow single-family homes. R1 is only intended for semi-suburban fringe areas of the city (outside the bungalow belt) where lots tend to be relatively large. It's pretty rare. The bungalow belt comprises the majority of Chicago's single-family home neighborhoods, and it is R2 or R3 zoned.

R2 is basically bungalow zoning - single family only, typically on traditional Chicago lots (3000sf). R3 allows a mixture of single-family and 2-flats, but new 2-flats can only be constructed on blocks that already have a majority of them. The preservation of the tidy, bungalow-lined Chicago block is holy and supreme.

The black areas in this image are those where multi-family is allowed as of right.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by 10023

It’s not so much the 4 units vs 6 units that I was focused on, but the use of the suffix “plex”. If the thread said 4-flats, then yeah I’d get it. But a “fourplex”, to the uninitiated, could be a number of forms - 4 attached houses, 4 apartments stacked vertically, two attached duplexes, etc.

Steely - does Chicago have any zoned R1 within city limits? Or are places where single family homes exist that way for other reasons (ie, historical preservation)?

Yes to the variety of forms for the Fourplex especially, or quadruplex as we say in Montreal. They will principally be a two story building with 4 flats but also a four story building with 4 flats.

A duplex in Montreal is a two story building with 1 flat over another. A triplex is usually 3 levels of flats, but unlike the duplex, it may hold usually one larger flat at street level (proprietor, traditionally) and 4 flats above it on two additional floors.

The vast majority of residential buildings are duplex, triplex, fourplex in the central districts of the island of Montreal.

[austlar1]

A fair number of four-plexes were built in Texas in the 1920s. Those that remain have become desirable in-town housing mostly because of the spacious layouts and relative privacy. A properly designed and well constructed(sound proofing) four-plex might prove to be a popular housing solution for young families with children. They are likely to be more affordable than a three bedroom high rise apartment and also provide more of a sense of community down at street level. I suspect the trick will be getting existing single family home neighborhoods to accept this form of housing. It should be a NIMBY battle royal.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

do a lot of people really not know what 4-plexes are?

it probably depends on the region. out west, or at least pnw, 4plex, triplex, duplex, are usually all single story, ranch style. were starting to see what i guess would be a minneapolis 6plex?? also. 2X3 shotgun style floor plans stacked on top of each other, so 3 per side.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 10023

It’s not so much the 4 units vs 6 units that I was focused on, but the use of the suffix “plex”. If the thread said 4-flats, then yeah I’d get it. But a “fourplex”, to the uninitiated, could be a number of forms - 4 attached houses, 4 apartments stacked vertically, two attached duplexes, etc.

Steely - does Chicago have any zoned R1 within city limits? Or are places where single family homes exist that way for other reasons (ie, historical preservation)?

Rs-3 is about the lowest zoning here and it allows a single family 2800 SF home on a typical 25'x125' lot. Huuuugggeee swaths of Chicago, even areas that are all 2, 3, or 4+ unit buildings, are zoned rs-3. This was done to increase the power of the aldermen who can force you to give them a campaign donation before you are allowed to get a zoning change so you can build the same thing that exists in every other lot on the block.

The total honors student of an alderman in my ward is pushing to downzone the only street that isn't RS-3 in the area to b1-1 (single story retail) because it will "stop gentrification" which is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Maybe he should learn a thing or two from Minneapolis about the basics of supply and demand...

[10023]

I just can’t understand why anyone in a city like Chicago, which has massive underdeveloped areas and abandonment and is well below its peak historical population, would ever want to “stop gentrification”.

Gentrification is good. It brings in money and shores up the tax base. And it creates demand for housing to re-develop and re-populate areas that need it.

[Pedestrian]

I am NOT in favor of this without restrictions. There should be a place for people who want to live in single family homes in single family neighborhoods, however, because I do see the need for more housing, it might make sense with architectural controls and discretionary review of each proposed project. Specifically, the multifamily buildings should not overwhelm single family neighbors in size, should be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and some provision needs to be made for parking (either limiting car ownership by occupants or sufficient off-street parking in the buildings to keep occupants from monopolizing street parking in the neighborhood, especially if the existing homes don't have garages or their own).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

I just can’t understand why anyone in a city like Chicago, which has massive underdeveloped areas and abandonment and is well below its peak historical population, would ever want to “stop gentrification”.

Gentrification is good. It brings in money and shores up the tax base. And it creates demand for housing to re-develop and re-populate areas that need it.

Well, of course, San Francisco has made efforts to stop it in several areas, the best known being the Tenderloin. In the 1960s, the adjacent upscale tourist and shopping area of Union Square was inexorably encroaching on the working and lower class Tenderloin. Single room occupancy hotels were being bulldozed and replaced by high rise tourist hotels mainly. The result was essentially nowhere for lower income pensioners, immigrant families and those with some income but at the lower end of the scale to live.

Two controls were mainly applied: Height limits of 90 ft in some places, 120 ft in others were applied, and a ban was put in place on conversion of monthly rental hotels to by-the-night (tourist) rentals. This pretty much preserved the area as a place for the people already living there which is what attempts to stop gentrification usually mean to do.

I would argue, however, it has not allowed the area to deterioriate into a slum. San Francisco is fortunate to have a number of not-for-profit developers who have been building new building with "affordable" housing in the Tednerloin since the 1960s. By now most of the housing stock has been renovated or replaced by these outfits and, because of the height limits mainly, they haven't needed to compete with market rate developers for the building sites.

IMHO the intent of the law, whether or not you agree with it, has largely been fulfilled. The area remains a sanctuary for the city's lower income and working class--the retail clerks, waiters, hotel service workers and the rest--whom we need but who otherwise could not afford to live in modern San Francisco.

These are the sorts of modern buildings for limited income working people being put up by nonprofit developers. Note that at 9 floors, these meet the 90 ft height limit:

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Most American cities put pretty harsh limits on when and where developers can build multi-family. Even a second unit on a property - in a basement, attic, coach house, or pool house - is usually illegal in most neighborhoods...

In most other US cities, the list of neighborhoods that were dense pre-zoning is pretty small, and homeowners have successfully fought off any attempts to upzone their sacred low density surroundings. Thus multi-family is restricted to downtown, or places like industrial corridors where opposition is light.

This is mostly right. In my city's case the main industrial and maritime corridors are mostly protected for those uses. Density is focused on the neighborhood and regional commercial districts. This seems fairly common.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I am NOT in favor of this without restrictions. There should be a place for people who want to live in single family homes in single family neighborhoods

They do. It's called the suburbs.

Just kidding, it's a valid concern but 90% of the time restrictions on density is a euphemism and rallying call to prevent "other" people from moving in.

[C.]

So much discussion on what is a fourplex. Some pictures from around the county may help. All images from Realtor.com and some other sites.

Columbia, SC




Chicago, IL




(a lot of 3-flats but 4-unit homes are harder to find)

Jersey City, NJ

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by CIA

They do. It's called the suburbs.

Just kidding, it's a valid concern but 90% of the time restrictions on density is a euphemism and rallying call to prevent "other" people from moving in.

Well, if you notice I'm not so much calling for restrictions on density as on design. The main density issue has to do with parking in neighborhoods that are typically (for single family home districts) far from the city center and with poor transit and where existing residents may have to park on the street.

I just don't think somebody's little house should be allowed to be overwhelmed by an apartment house next door in the middle of a single family neighborhood (it's easier to design appropriate multifamily if the houses are multi-story). Usually these neighborhoods have a commercial street or several where there are enough sites available to put multifamily housing, usually over first floor retail (or the first couple of floors commercial with floors 2 through, say, 4 being offices). When those sites are all gone we may need to talk about moving the development to adjacent streets and so on.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Well, if you notice I'm not so much calling for restrictions on density as on design. The main density issue has to do with parking in neighborhoods that are typically (for single family home districts) far from the city center and with poor transit and where existing residents may have to park on the street.

If parking is the real concern, that's easily fixable by requiring off-street parking requirements, as many cities already do.

I just don't think somebody's little house should be allowed to be overwhelmed by an apartment house next door in the middle of a single family neighborhood (it's easier to design appropriate multifamily if the houses are multi-story). Usually these neighborhoods have a commercial street or several where there are enough sites available to put multifamily housing, usually over first floor retail (or the first couple of floors commercial with floors 2 through, say, 4 being offices). When those sites are all gone we may need to talk about moving the development to adjacent streets and so on.

I don't disagree with you, but it can work. I much prefer (and currently do) live in a neighborhood with a range of housing types with 1-4 units than a cookie cutter subdivision where every house is the same. But that's just my preference.

On my street, there are single family homes with 1-3 units along with 10-20 unit 4-story apartments at the main intersections.

Some examples of single-family homes and duplexes, maybe even some triplexes with basement conversions.




Change is always opposed and there is this fear that allowing more than one unit in a neighborhood that is exclusively single-family is a bad thing, but in the long-run it may lead to a more diverse and vibrant community. Not saying forcing it on neighborhoods that is staunchly opposed is the goal here, but it should be should be allowed in areas where there isn't neighborhood opposition.

[Pedestrian]

^^I would NOT oppose what your photos show.

If you know San Francisco, you may know it's pretty well divided into the older eastern half that tends to be multistory--even the single family houses are usually 3 floors and many of those have long ago become flats. Putting new multifamily in these neighborhoods is no thing.

But the western half of the city ("west of Twin Peaks") consists of a lot of post-war suburban style neighborhoods. The houses are often 2 floors (commonly one floor over a garage). The people who live out there like that sort of thing. I am not among them. Tourists never go there--it's not the San Francisco of their image. But I don't want to destroy what the people living there want. Like I said, each of these areas has at least one shopping street where larger multifamily buildings could be built, would be appropriate and would not be disruptive of the lifestyle that exists there now for the people who want it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

But I don't want to destroy what the people living there want. Like I said, each of these areas has at least one shopping street where larger multifamily buildings could be built, would be appropriate and would not be disruptive of the lifestyle that exists there now for the people who want it.

I think that, in general, this is not something that should be given priority.

These people don’t have some right to maintain half a city in stasis because they moved into a neighborhood before a certain cutoff date. We’re not at the end of history in that regard either.

Some neighborhoods and architecture are worth preserving because they are objectively so, like those brightly painted Victorians on Alamo Square. Those western SF neighborhoods are not among them.

[Pedestrian]

^^The consequence of threatening so many peoples' lifestyle in such a way, of course, is to stir up even more and lounder NIMBYism.

In SF, whenever the folks come down from Pacific Heights or the Haight or the Castro of Noe Valley to protest some new skyscraper or condo downtown or South of Market, the rejoinder always is, "Look, nobody wants to start building these buildings in your neighborhood." But if someone demonstrably did (even if it's not quite so dramatic as skyscrapers in the old Victorian 'hoods)? There'd be H*ll to pay.

[C.]

San Francisco is such a unique case. The nation's highest cost of living and intense NIMBYism towards the creation of any new housing.

How do attitudes change? There may be a zoning code that forbids basement apartments, "granny lofts", accessory dwelling units, or whatever they're called on a single-family home in a R1 district. At what point does the community revolt and realize there is an advantage to the homeowner. These could include using the second unit for rental income or housing an elderly parent or other family member. The city may view it as a way to allow more affordable housing without a direct public investment. But why is it seen as a negative to some people. It's like you first have to be in a situation where it will personally benefit you before some folks will support anything.

I think Prop 13 lays some of the blame in California. Long time residents on a middle or modest income would be begging for city permission to convert extra space into a second unit for the rental income to help offset the taxes.

[Chef]

In Minneapolis, the zoning map was, for the most part, drawn in the early '60s. The Twin Cities were a metro of a little over a million and a half people then. They have more than doubled in size since. What makes sense for a city in one era does not necessarily make sense in another era. At what point do the interests of the incumbents in a city outweigh the rest of the people? Doing nothing also has consequences, just for a different set of people.

Minneapolis has been finessing its zoning around the edges for around 15 years now - getting rid of parking minimums in transit corridors, allowing mixed use projects in commercial areas, being generous with variances when the end result is density. It hasn't been enough to halt the rising cost of housing. This proposal was born out of the idea that to really fix the problem the city needed to do something big.

Now that this idea is out in the public it is drawing mixed reactions. Older, wealthier homeowners seem to be very opposed, while renters and younger and poorer residents are more open to it.

There was some more coverage in the Star Tribune today:
http://www.startribune.com/fourplex-...ate/476464693/

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by CIA

San Francisco is such a unique case. The nation's highest cost of living and intense NIMBYism towards the creation of any new housing.

How do attitudes change? There may be a zoning code that forbids basement apartments, "granny lofts", accessory dwelling units, or whatever they're called on a single-family home in a R1 district.

There used to be. That was changed a couple of years ago

I think Prop 13 lays some of the blame in California. Long time residents on a middle or modest income would be begging for city permission to convert extra space into a second unit for the rental income to help offset the taxes.

No, actually they were just doing it . . . illegally. There are thousands of these units in the city (the official city estimate is 40,000), many of them built without building permits which would have been denied. The recent legalization included a process for making existing illegal units legal.

To some degree Prop 13 may have facilitated more of them than otherwise to the degree it incentivizes people not to move because when property is sold it has to be inspected--which means discovering the illegal creation of the "in-law unit", the illegality of which (and code violations associated therewith) has to be disclosed to buyers. If somebody holds onto the property for a long time, their illegal unit isn't likely to be noticed (unless they get into a dispute with a tenant who tries to withhold rent on the grounds he is living in a unit that isn't legal).

But in actuality, the new legalization program has been something of a bust: Just 23 in-law units built after two years as SF seeks to iron out approval process I suspect that's mostly because it remains cheaper and simpler just build the units without bothering with the cumbersome legalization process (the 2 articles I linked explain a lot of the process and its "issues").

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^The consequence of threatening so many peoples' lifestyle in such a way, of course, is to stir up even more and lounder NIMBYism.

In SF, whenever the folks come down from Pacific Heights or the Haight or the Castro of Noe Valley to protest some new skyscraper or condo downtown or South of Market, the rejoinder always is, "Look, nobody wants to start building these buildings in your neighborhood." But if someone demonstrably did (even if it's not quite so dramatic as skyscrapers in the old Victorian 'hoods)? There'd be H*ll to pay.

Because those neighborhoods are small, and have architecture and an urban dorm worth saving.

In Western SF they haven’t even buried the power lines. It looks like temporary construction anyway.

Though I guess that’s the case in Noe Valley too. When are they going to get around to that? Can some tech company just pay for it please? It looks fucking hideous.