Can we still build low slung, urban neighborhoods (Greenwich Village, North End, etc)

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The photos clearly show a building with above-ground parking, and multiple buildings with no street-level retail.

You then changed your post to add a second building, but I'm still not getting the point. Every city has random infill buildings. What reasonably urban city doesn't have such infill buildings?

What the hell are you talking about?

I didn't change my post, there were two buildings included from the very beginning. You even quoted both of them. It's not my fault if you're posting while drunk.

Do you see any footnotes saying I edited my posts? No? That's because I didn't.

And you're wrong. Both those buildings have ground floor retail. And where do you "clearly" see above ground parking? That blank wall along at the back of one of the buildings, along an alleyway? How do you know that's not a mechanical/utilities/laundry room or some such? And we know for a fact that one of the buildings has no parking at all, let alone an above ground parking deck.

Further more, the post is about those two buildings. Not their neighbors...many of which DO have ground floor retail anyways, unlike what you claim. Just because crude renderings don't clearly show the retail doesn't mean it's not there.

And again, like I said: this is NOT the typical infill in SF.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'm trying to imagine the average homeonwer taking a crack at being a developer. It doesn't sound pretty!

Leading the design process, dealing with contract language, dealing with entitlements, understanding what renters value, timing the market, and so on.....all over most people's heads.

Their only hope would be to hire owner representatives to manage the process. Even then they're paying money and deferring some control. The end result would be paying a lot more money for worse product in most cases.

Yet plenty of people do it, in just about every city in the world. Huge swaths of Toronto's 1940s-50s bungalow belt have been redeveloped house by house over the past decade or so, for example. These can be built either by developers (both big & small) and then sold to individuals, or commissioned directly by the owner, but either way, they're an example of small-scale, individually-owned new development. Now this isn't something quite within the reach of the average middle-class homeowner - anyone doing this is certainly wealthy - but point being that it's a lot easier to raise the capital to build one of these houses than to build an entire development.





Old on the left, new on the right. It's not too difficult to imagine this in a more urban context (eg. with an extra couple floors of apartments above, no gaps in between, maybe stores on the ground floor) if zoning permitted.

[mhays]

Small developers sure. But I said "average homeowner."

[MonkeyRonin]

Yes, but I never said "average homeowner".

[tablemtn]

As mentioned before, "old quarters" don't just fail to meet modern codes - they often fail by a lot. Even if you had the money, here's no way you'd be able to go before a planning board and get approved to build a new neighborhood with the street and structural dimensions of Beacon Hill/North End/etc.

Existing neighborhoods are grandfathered into the code by fiat, but new areas have to abide by everything from fire truck turning radius rules to minimum lot requirements (in some areas) to earthquake rules that discourage the use of old brick-and-mortar designs.

[memph]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Yet plenty of people do it, in just about every city in the world. Huge swaths of Toronto's 1940s-50s bungalow belt have been redeveloped house by house over the past decade or so, for example. These can be built either by developers (both big & small) and then sold to individuals, or commissioned directly by the owner, but either way, they're an example of small-scale, individually-owned new development. Now this isn't something quite within the reach of the average middle-class homeowner - anyone doing this is certainly wealthy - but point being that it's a lot easier to raise the capital to build one of these houses than to build an entire development.

Old on the left, new on the right. It's not too difficult to imagine this in a more urban context (eg. with an extra couple floors of apartments above, no gaps in between, maybe stores on the ground floor) if zoning permitted.

There's a small development on College Street that's like this, 5.5 floors on a row house width lot (about 20ft). I looks like there will be a small retail space on the ground floor.



From: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthr...-Popper)/page3

With 25 units, that's quite an increase in density compared to a typical row house. Granted, the lot is deeper than the typical row house lot, although the units per acre is still around 8 times higher (150-200 units/acre, just estimating using google planimeter). The units would probably be about 1/2 the size of the typical row house, so people per unit would be less, but I think still about 5 times the density. The built form is essentially very similar to the likes of Greenwich Village - if not denser - but with glass and reinforced concrete instead of brick masonry. Even if just 1 lot out of 5 would be redeveloped to this density, that would be a doubling in density for the neighbourhood (assuming typical Toronto rowhouse/small lot SFH as the starting density).

Assuming doubling in population translates to doubling in retail, for Toronto, that would mean not only could the likes of Bathurst, Dufferin, Harbord, Landsdowne and Dovercourt become lined with non-stop retail, but also the likes of Argyle, Nassau, Brock, Beverley, Baldwin, Ulster, Wallace, Christie, Emersen, Hallam, Barton, Sorauren...

Here in Waterloo, the big towers get the most attention but there are a fair bit of smaller buildings. Some are mid rises on what were 2-5 SFH lots, but there are a few that were on just 1 SFH lot (about 50x120 ft) like the brick building behind this construction site.

(my pic)
It has relatively little space dedicated to parking, I think at most half a dozen under the building at ground level behind the lobby (if I remember right). Kind of like this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Wat...037b28c7231d90
The buildings in Waterloo have smallish side setbacks, although that also allows for windows on the sides of the buildings (unlike the building on College St), which means the building can be built further back without needing a courtyard for windows.

[memph]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

As mentioned before, "old quarters" don't just fail to meet modern codes - they often fail by a lot. Even if you had the money, here's no way you'd be able to go before a planning board and get approved to build a new neighborhood with the street and structural dimensions of Beacon Hill/North End/etc.

Existing neighborhoods are grandfathered into the code by fiat, but new areas have to abide by everything from fire truck turning radius rules to minimum lot requirements (in some areas) to earthquake rules that discourage the use of old brick-and-mortar designs.

Minimum lot requirements can obviously be changed. Dunno about the earthquake rules and how significant the effect is.

However, fire truck turning radius doesn't require that narrow streets, assuming no parked cars at intersections (typically illegal anyways) and assuming the truck can swing into the left side of the street (if this is a side street with little traffic, or one way, and the siren's on, that shouldn't be a problem). Based on these assumptions, a 2.1m wide (7 ft) firetruck with a 16m turning radius would only need a 6.5m wide street at the intersection (22ft). Except for some of the narrower North End streets, the streets in most of the neighbourhoods mentioned are no narrower.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by memph

Minimum lot requirements can obviously be changed. Dunno about the earthquake rules and how significant the effect is.

However, fire truck turning radius doesn't require that narrow streets, assuming no parked cars at intersections (typically illegal anyways) and assuming the truck can swing into the left side of the street (if this is a side street with little traffic, or one way, and the siren's on, that shouldn't be a problem). Based on these assumptions, a 2.1m wide (7 ft) firetruck with a 16m turning radius would only need a 6.5m wide street at the intersection (22ft). Except for some of the narrower North End streets, the streets in most of the neighbourhoods mentioned are no narrower.

The issue, in part, however, relates to contiguous single family residences and multistory rental structures is fire. If such structures had a least 1 truly fire resident self supporting wall between "units" then fires basically would burn themselves out once the combustibles are consumed between firewalls. If units do not, the fire will spread parallel to the floor, beneath the ceiling. The problem here also becomes the speed of burning upward. Water damage, too, is an issue.

(Stone and masonary structures resist this, particularly those built with a minimum of volume of wood, combined with massive wood thicknesses.)

Today, with smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, and, somewhat of a fire code, odds are good that tenants in 4-6 story apartment/condos and in row houses could escape easily. So the fire issue is not really about danger, but, about "collateral damage."

[memph]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

The issue, in part, however, relates to contiguous single family residences and multistory rental structures is fire. If such structures had a least 1 truly fire resident self supporting wall between "units" then fires basically would burn themselves out once the combustibles are consumed between firewalls. If units do not, the fire will spread parallel to the floor, beneath the ceiling. The problem here also becomes the speed of burning upward. Water damage, too, is an issue.

(Stone and masonary structures resist this, particularly those built with a minimum of volume of wood, combined with massive wood thicknesses.)

Today, with smoke alarms, sprinkler systems, and, somewhat of a fire code, odds are good that tenants in 4-6 story apartment/condos and in row houses could escape easily. So the fire issue is not really about danger, but, about "collateral damage."

But isn't the risk of damage the same for a 300 unit 5 story wood frame apartment on a 60,000 sf floorplate the same as for a block of 15 separate but attached 20 unit 5 story wood frame apartment buildings on 4,000 sf floorplates?

[sharkfood]

Philadelphia is building hundreds of new row houses each year on narrow, shallow lots. Most are three stories, but a few have four and some have two. Most are single family homes, but many are two, three or four unit apartment buildings. These homes are being built in infill locations next to existing 150 year old row houses so they become part of the fabric of existing neighborhoods. Most of the infill row houses have no off street parking; however, if the site is large enough, developers are creating rear parking lots behind some of the houses.

[CentralGrad258]

Originally Posted by sharkfood

Philadelphia is building hundreds of new row houses each year on narrow, shallow lots. Most are three stories, but a few have four and some have two. Most are single family homes, but many are two, three or four unit apartment buildings. These homes are being built in infill locations next to existing 150 year old row houses so they become part of the fabric of existing neighborhoods. Most of the infill row houses have no off street parking; however, if the site is large enough, developers are creating rear parking lots behind some of the houses.

When I saw the thread title, I immediately though of Northern Liberties. It had huge industrial swaths of land with which to experiment in modern low slung urbanity. It's been a mixed bag, but there are blocks that really do have that urban feel, while there are others that make way too much concession to parking and ruin the effect. It's the closest I've seen to the concept though:

[pdxstreetcar]

You need small lots with various owners, form based codes, tame walkable streets, and demand (i.e close to an existing downtown), good transit, and placemaking. The smaller the lots the better for variety, unfortunately parking requirements, ADA requirements, fire codes, developer stinginess push for the largest possible floorplates. In Portland we have gotten some tiny new infill like (5000 sq ft and under floorplates) because of relaxed parking requirements and floorplates so small that many fire and ADA codes don't kick in. You aren't going to get off street parking and a mixed use building in less than 10,000 sq ft.

As has already been said, Portland's Pearl District is the closest although unfortunately there is a push to just pack the rest of the build out with towers. The new buildings in the Pearl are typically 200x200' in size (bigger than historic stock but smaller than typical new mixed use developments), a good number of 100x200' and some 100'x100' buildings. South Lake Union in Seattle also but it too is getting the fate of the Pearl with tall towers infilling the later phases.

Conway in NW Portland will be about 15-20 continuous blocks of mixed use mid rise (~6 stories), just west of the Pearl District on a former massive truck parking lot area.

I think Mission Bay in SF is also a neighborhood following this 5 over 1 model.

[mhays]

If you're using Seattle as an example, Capitol Hill is a better example. The core 250-300 acres or so are mostly lowrises, with zero highrises, mostly six stories for anything recent, including several projects underway now. Parking ratios range from a lot of 0.0 and 0.1 examples to larger sites in the 0.8 range. You can do a level or two of parking in a typical 60x120 lot, but it's only easy if the slope allows you to do it below-grade but without ramping. Demand is huge right now, and the easy spots are nearly gone, so current work generally involves saving an old facade or two.

[pdxstreetcar]

Originally Posted by mhays

If you're using Seattle as an example, Capitol Hill is a better example. The core 250-300 acres or so are mostly lowrises, with zero highrises, mostly six stories for anything recent, including several projects underway now. Parking ratios range from a lot of 0.0 and 0.1 examples to larger sites in the 0.8 range. You can do a level or two of parking in a typical 60x120 lot, but it's only easy if the slope allows you to do it below-grade but without ramping. Demand is huge right now, and the easy spots are nearly gone, so current work generally involves saving an old facade or two.

True, I'm just thinking though of primarily new neighborhoods, theres certainly a lot of gray area of whats new and old, but I see Capitol Hill more as an older neighborhood with infill, its general make up hasn't transformed away from residential. I was kind of seeing South Lake Union as a new neighborhood since its just about every block and is transforming from industrial and commercial to general mixed use, office and residential.

[memph]

You can have mixed use and off street parking on less than 10,000 sf, it just depends on how much parking and how much retail. It's probably not enough for a conventional underground garage, but you could split the ground floor between parking (at the back) and retail (at the front). This building is on about 9,000 sf.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.46793...e_Wzj3eLOw!2e0

I don't think the car entrance needs to be that wide, so the retail space could be bigger, plus if you didn't have the front setback you'd have more space for parking and retail. Plus a highly urban big city neighbourhood probably could do with less parking (or more residential with same amount of parking). You could also have parking in a single underground level which wouldn't require an oval ramp and take up less space.

You could also use hydraulic parking systems to save on space.

[mhays]

It helps if the lot is 60' wide, because then you can do a double-loaded corridor. Much less and things get far less efficient.

[Chicago103]

The blunt reality is that suburbanization has permeated our culture so much that the people who gentrify cities tend to be too "high maintenance" if you will in that they often require accommodations for their cars, they demand more floor space in their units and some kind of outdoor space even if it is a balcony.

The reason that low rise high density neighborhoods were easier to build in the past is because average people were much lower maintenance back then, they had fewer or no cars, didn't require as much floor space or privacy as middle class people today. This is why high density low rise areas tend to be heavily immigrant communities who come from cultures where crowding is the norm. Places like Greenwich Village and other parts of New York City are the exceptions but that is partly a function of super high cost of living. Even Chicago isn't anywhere nearly expensive enough to require people of average means or better to live in crowded conditions. This is why I think Chicago and other cities should build more rental housing and non-luxury housing because it will attract people of average or slightly lesser means who might chose not to own a car for economic and convenience reasons. Chicago could do tons of 10K-20K ppsm infill in blighted residential and former industrial brownfield areas and get back to it's peak population level of 3.62 million fairly easily, with the exception of within a mile of the lakefront Chicago has always been a fairly high density low rise city with smaller detached buildings.

[mhays]

On the mass scale, sure. But for some of us high-demand, high-price cities with bungalow vernacular, there's a booming market for new buildings with <300 sf units and no parking, and many thousands of <600 sf units with maybe half a parking space per unit.

[memph]

I think 300-400 sf per person was pretty typical around 1920-1950, compared to about 500-600 sf now, maybe more in some cases where you have large homes and low cost housing (like suburbs, but maybe also urban cores of cities like Houston). It'd say it's around 500sf/person in Toronto, at least in the condo neighbourhoods, it seems to be household sizes of around 1.5, which means the average condo would be 750 sf which sounds about right. I think the household sizes are increasing a bit too.

I don't think 500sf/person is very crowded at all, but it can still give you decent densities. You could get Greenwich Village type densities (60-100k ppsm) census tracts with midrises and lowrises (but still mostly 3+ stories). You might see that go down to 400sf/person in the future in more desirable (ie expensive) areas though, especially if zoning allows the necessary changes to occur. This could happen if you get more room-mate situations, small studio apartments (around 300sf or less) and families raising children in smaller homes (including apartments) like maybe 700-1200 sf in size, as well as empty nesters having greater economic pressures to downsize.

As for immigrants, it's not so much being used to being crowded as much as certain cultures being used to having more than just the standard nuclear family under one roof. So not just a couple of adults and their kids, but maybe also the couple's sisters/brothers and parents could often be living with them.

[MessiahAndrw]

I've seen a few new places like these being built. Since 2000, 'laneway revitalization' has become increasingly common in Australian cities where we'd take lanes (alleys in America) and 'activate' them by filling them with actual fronts rather than side entrances.

Since moving to the US, I have seen some New Urbanist neighborhoods and spoke with developers and typically there are minimum street widths due to a) traffic engineers and their 'projections', b) fire departments complaining they can't overtake or turn around their firetrucks in emergencies.

Most city planners tend to be stuck in the 60s (bigger is better, throw lots of subsidizes in the name of job creation), but the younger generation seem to be much more open minded about creating great places (that hold up internationally).

If we face a lot of roadblocks creating narrow streets today (I think it's time we built a traditional city), the alternative is to better utilize the narrow streets that already exist. We have plenty of abandoned alleys around here, so I'm waiting for an 'alley activation' movement to really take hold.