America Needs Small Apartment Buildings. Nobody Builds Them

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

$1571-$1748/mo for 380sf, for a millennial to live solo, in Pittsburgh, a region that continues to lose population...that is steep.

Population loss isn't my issue as much as the location. Here in Chicago, that price range for that small of a studio would only be realistic in a select few areas. Similar units in my neighborhood, Lakeview, are going for $900~, not nearly $1500+.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some people are willing to do whatever is necessary to avoid commuting and not have a car...like me. In some ways NOT having good transit would encourage this kind of proximity choice.

hmmm, i never considered that angle. pittsburgh does suprise me though. its got some pretty high end urban neighborhoods you might not expect in the middle of the PA forest....i suppose a modest 200 dollar car payment, plus insurance and gas and you are already at 450 bucks. $900 apartment in burbs plus car equals new apartment smack in the middle of city.....merbeh......

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Yeah obviously SF city proper has already surpassed that level of density, the real killer is that SF is surrounded by suburbs of mostly SFR only neighborhoods. These are the places where small apartment buildings should be being built.

SF proper doesn't really have particularly dense urban form. The NE corner of the city is reasonably dense, but it isn't like there's some massive dropoff between SF city limits and adjacent suburbs like Daly City.

And the city's housing typology tends to be SFH and small apartment buildings. Relatively few SF residents live in sizable multifamily. Population density is more impressive than built density, but still, the city has a lower overall density than, say, Queens County, NY (and weighted density would be lower still).

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by memph

I'm not sure how much sense they make in SF proper though. More like the other lower density Bay Area communities (maybe in Sunset and other lower density SF neighbourhoods?). Although 4-6 storey apartment buildings with 10-30 units could still make sense in SF and those are still different from 100+ unit buildings. Generally speaking though I'd say you want a 3x increase in floor space if you're demolishing what was there before.

Missing middle housing in San Francisco is still feasible. Basically go the DC "pop-up" route - take a 2-3 story house and stick a few extra stories onto it, turning it into a mini-apartment building.



IIRC, DC changed its zoning in 2015 to limit the ability to continue to do this, which is a shame, given local real estate prices.

Originally Posted by pdxtex

theres no way in hell id pay 1500 for this in Pittsburgh?? thats cuckoo. id consider purchasing it though. its not the size, its that rent. you can rent new 1 bedrooms in Portland for that much. maybe the developer should shoot for 1000 and see how it goes..

That's actually pretty normal for new construction apartments in Pittsburgh. it's a pretty bifurcated market, because up until 2010 or so the vast majority of apartment units were dated - either in early/mid 20th century apartment buildings or subdivided houses. The new apartment buildings come at a considerable premium because they offer all sorts of amenities the older buildings lacked.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

First of all, the height limit in the Tenderloin varies between 80 and 130 ft so the place is replete with 8-13 floor buildings (for residential, it runs abut 10ft per floor typically). That's what most of the new construction is although a lot of it is being done by non-profit builders (still looks nice--I'd live in most of it if they'd let me).

But in the outer neighborhoods--the Richmond especially, they are building plenty of 4-6 floor buildings. They can't build taller out there.

I'd take 4-6 floor buildings along the coast! Unfortunately, nowadays, you can't exceed 30' in the coastal zone.

The highest demand for housing is along the coast, yet it's basically impossible to build anything of significance as a result, CoL has skyrocketed since 1972. I'd like to see CA cities have more power to determine what's best for their communities/vision instead of the CCC.
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/conten...2017-Part2.pdf

[eschaton]

I've read more about the Baumhaus micro building in Pittsburgh, and I'm pretty sure it's a niche building set up to cater to rich undergrads and graduate students. The units not only come fully furnished, but have weekly maid service which includes cleaning the room, changing the linens, and optionally refilling soap/shampoo in the bathroom. And you can rent single micro bedrooms in a three-bedroom unit individually. This plus the normal modern apartment amenities make it more like a high-class dorm than an apartment building. And it's only around a 7-15 minute bus ride to Oakland (where the universities are) from there - not much further than the dorms, and in a corridor a lot of students already live in.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some people are willing to do whatever is necessary to avoid commuting and not have a car...like me. In some ways NOT having good transit would encourage this kind of proximity choice.

Some people will be wanting to avoid a car at all costs, and there are probably others who want to avoid transit at all costs, but for most it's going to be a straight up cost-benefit calculation I think. If the total costs of owning a car are $300 a month more than a transit pass then people will be willing to pay $300 more for a similar size and quality of home in an area that means no car needed, maybe $400-$600 once you factor in time savings of not having to spend as much time commuting and more local amenities. But they probably won't be willing to pay $1,000 more I think.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Some people will be wanting to avoid a car at all costs, and there are probably others who want to avoid transit at all costs, but for most it's going to be a straight up cost-benefit calculation I think. If the total costs of owning a car are $300 a month more than a transit pass then people will be willing to pay $300 more for a similar size and quality of home in an area that means no car needed, maybe $400-$600 once you factor in time savings of not having to spend as much time commuting and more local amenities. But they probably won't be willing to pay $1,000 more I think.

In fact, San Francisco makes these calculations easy and, for some, makes owning a home with no parking cheaper. By law now, new buildings can't sell apartments wth "deeded" parking, meaning you buy your apartment and you either buy any available parking separately, lease it of make some other arrangement. So you are never having to buy parking if you don't want it. And also you can compare apples to apples in any part of town (an apple being a unit with no associated parking).

In my building. I estimate that a parking place is "worth" (the dfference between the value of an apartment without parking and one with, if available--using similar buildings in the same area with deeded parking that were "grandfathered" in as the "comp") $100,000. As to how much parking your car is going to cost you, then, figure the monthly cost to amortize a 15 or 30-year loan for $100,000.

[Pedestrian]

In SF's Richmond District (highlighted above as home to many smaller buildings), this:



is to become this:


Images: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...-richmond.html

through the addition of 8 units that average 255 sq ft.:

7 240 sq ft studios


plus a 366 sq ft 2 bedroom:


Images: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...your-room.html

[mhays]

Lining the street with garages isn't going to help on the PR side.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

Lining the street with garages isn't going to help on the PR side.

The streets of the outer Richmond ARE pretty much lined with garages from an earlier era. This project is part of converting them to more of the kind of small units "nobody" is buiding (we are told).

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Missing middle housing in San Francisco is still feasible. Basically go the DC "pop-up" route - take a 2-3 story house and stick a few extra stories onto it, turning it into a mini-apartment building.



IIRC, DC changed its zoning in 2015 to limit the ability to continue to do this, which is a shame, given local real estate prices.

(this isn't directed at you personally)

First, that example is just the type of thing that would turn residents against. It was the poster child for both the pro and anti folks, who pound out blogs with agendas that fit (or omit) the facts for their narrative. Just to bring in some facts, the current zoning there allows 65' height, multi-family and limited commercial or retail uses; any one of those other houses in the pic could do the same.

The zoning change for popups reduced height from 40' to 35', in residential townhouse zones. The pop-ups in those places weren't adding "density", they were merely making McMansions. Houses were being snatched up by shoddy flippers and would-be developers; it isn't just the aesthetics, it's the structural damage they were causing not only to the house but to the adjacent houses due to their shitty construction "techniques". The height reduction made this less lucrative. Also now sprinklers are being required if you add.

It's easy to wave one's hand and say "just upzone", and call anyone who objects a "nimby"...

Anyway, I took some pics of some small apartment buildings that aren't being built, given DC is mothballed by nimbys and a government conspiracy to constrain supply...

[Crawford]

That first DC pic is horrific, and I completely agree with the NIMBYs. There is no point to even discussing housing policy to most folks if you're gonna destroy neighborhoods with that garbage.

[ChargerCarl]

Downzoning seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater there...

[RCDC]

What "baby"?

[ChargerCarl]

Uhh, more housing supply...

[RCDC]

The comprehensive zoning update opened up housing opportunities and reduced or eliminated parking requirements, among other things. The height reduction I mentioned wasn't part of that, it happened a year prior and had nothing to do with use/occupancy.

So again, what "baby"?

[ChargerCarl]

Yeah the other stuffs great, but the heigh reduction seems like a blunt instrument to solve the narrow problem of pop-up construction damaging next door row houses.

Ceteris Paribus, you've lowered the cap of allowed future units because of a tangentially related regulatory issue. The height limit should have remained at 40'.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Yeah the other stuffs great, but the heigh reduction seems like a blunt instrument to solve the narrow problem of pop-up construction damaging next door row houses.

Ceteris Paribus, you've lowered the cap of allowed future units because of a tangentially related regulatory issue.

Are you fucking stupid? Let me repeat: "The zoning change for popups reduced height from 40' to 35', in residential townhouse zones".

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Are you fucking stupid? Let me repeat: "The zoning change for popups reduced height from 40' to 35', in residential townhouse zones".

Yes, my point is it shouldn't have been reduced.