tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post7460018031245703035..comments2024-03-29T03:50:00.893-04:00Comments on Urban kchoze: The midrise obesity crisis in North Americasimval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-62937909025578321622020-12-25T00:11:07.524-05:002020-12-25T00:11:07.524-05:00Do you have a source on the bits about windows and...Do you have a source on the bits about windows and sun? Even just more insight into the intuition for them? This seems like one of the major bottlenecks to density and I'd like to understand more about it and what housing would look like optimized for high FAR with this in mind. It seems like there'd be a distribution of effect on people from little sun, etc, and that a system allowing the market to capitalize on those unaffected would be nice. For example, how does Paris make do with 6 floor buildings and tiny streets? Would it work with 10 floors and not significantly more street? 20 floors? 40? The logical limit of your high FAR designs with windows is just a bunch of regular tiny columns of outside brought into a huge building the size of a block. Japan has the Shadow Restriction and urban design guidelines detailing slanted geometry limits; doesn't it seem like there are easier ways to accommodate this?Edward Swernofskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329965193571657269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-20229605269876787462020-12-01T14:50:00.307-05:002020-12-01T14:50:00.307-05:00You can have thinner buildings or buildings with d...You can have thinner buildings or buildings with different shapes while having a double-loaded building and respecting fire codes. But to do this would require a reduction of buildable FAR within the confines of the buildable geometric as defined by height limits and setbacks.<br /><br />If we modified regulations so that FAR was the bottleneck, not geometric rules, then I think it could free developers to attempt more building shapes to create housing units that have better ventilation, access to sun and the ability to have more bedrooms without becoming much bigger (and more expensive).simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-84014497631087611102020-11-30T10:50:39.007-05:002020-11-30T10:50:39.007-05:00I think the focus on zoning setbacks and height li...I think the focus on zoning setbacks and height limits isn't quite right. The most likely cause are the fire codes and internal layouts. <br /><br />Almost all of the North American examples are double-loaded buildings with a central hallway and units on either side. I wouldn't be surprised if the european examples have units that extend through the building - which is a lot trickier to do if you have to meet the US egress standards (often - and elevator and two separate stairways). <br /><br />This post is focused on high rise floorplates, but it shows how the specifics of the code shape the building: https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/high-rise-codes-housing-affordability-in-los-angeles/ blockskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09680983704924304749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-812426766403085942020-11-30T10:31:56.299-05:002020-11-30T10:31:56.299-05:00I think we have to be careful, because causality f...I think we have to be careful, because causality feedback loops in urban planning and economics are very common (A affects B which affects A, etc...). If there is enough demand for singles' housing that results in buildings full of studios and 1-BR apartments being viable, then ok, but the problem is that buildings with this type of housing can generally better use the available space and be built at a higher FAR while respecting setbacks, height limits and required margins.<br /><br />The problem is that land prices are, to my understanding, proportional to the amount of floor space that can be built. So because these buildings are built, this affects land value and makes other types of building more expensive.<br /><br />For example, if you can build an obese building full of studios and get 100% FAR, but if you built more family-friendly units, you'd be limited to something with 80% FAR because you have the same height limit and you need to make the building less thick, then the land value per square foot of the latter building will be nearly 25% higher because speculators will demand to be paid as if the most economically viable building was being built (the thick one with studios.<br /><br />If you live in a major city where the average square foot of floor area is 500$, and 300$ of that is just the land value, then that increases the cost of family-sized units from 500$ to 575$ per square foot. For someone looking for a 800sf unit, that mean 460 000$ instead of 400 000$... and that's if the developer doesn't seek to recoup the lost profit margin, which may push prices even higher.<br /><br />So if we regulated FAR more strictly and building dimensions and shape less(or controlled area to perimeter ratios), that problem would not happen, because building something with only studios and 1-BR apartments would not increase FAR nor profit margins. So we'd be on a level playing field, allowing developers to build a higher diversity of housing typology... AND allow existing buildings to be more easily adapted in case of market shift.simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-4553850724922867772020-11-27T03:48:23.687-05:002020-11-27T03:48:23.687-05:00To be honest I think the causation is the wrong wa...To be honest I think the causation is the wrong way around.<br /><br />There is so much pent up urban demand for dense living in the US that one could conceivably build a building full of studios and make the most money that way, and then developers figure out which building form will fit the most studios.<br /><br />The underlying issue is that there is still nowhere near enough supply for urban living, and generally speaking three or four studios or 1-bedrooms will fetch higher profit than a 3-bedroom, so that's what's getting built. A better solution would be to increase buildable land supply, and through the virtue of building to meet demand, eventually the premium will vanish and people will start building normal family apartments again, as used to be common.<br /><br />It'll be interesting to see what happens in places getting rid of SFH; maybe we'll see more multi-bedroom apartments if 1-bedroom demand is getting met adequately elsewhere.Curious Bystanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16756827805295592279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-47552943316844116412020-06-15T23:55:52.538-04:002020-06-15T23:55:52.538-04:00I was going to say that buildings in my former col...I was going to say that buildings in my former college town (Waterloo, Ontario) are generally narrower than this, until I read up to the part where you said multiple bedrooms require more units.<br /><br />Well yeah, the buildings in Waterloo were largely built for students, and many of the units have 4-5 bedrooms. This is in large part due to a different zoning incentive, requiring 1 parking space per unit. The walkability and transit is quite good for a city its size, so car ownership among these students is quite low. Since zoning allowed apartments with to 5 bedrooms, developers decided to maximize bedrooms per unit to minimize parking per bedroom.<br /><br />Since many of the buildings were built in formerly SFH areas, assembling large lots was relatively difficult anyways, so we got a lot of narrow buildings like these, usually with a pair of 4-5 bedroom apartments per floor.<br />https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4772337,-80.5372683,3a,75y,252.58h,102.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrDdyd_RqY3FEbfXP9YaeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656<br /><br />Or when two lots were combined, you'd get square shaped buildings with four corner units per floor like this:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=162&v=U6191_q26QE&feature=emb_title<br /><br />In the last few years, there's been some zoning changes. Now it's 0.2 parking spaces per bedroom, rather than 1 space per unit. Higher densities are also allowed in more areas near the universities. So we're getting more smaller units and more buildings with larger and wider footprints, but I'd say that the floor-plates are still smaller than in Toronto. Although they aren't really building 4-5 bedroom units anymore, there's still a lot of 2-3 bedroom units being built.NickDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006815196885883516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-75096993897669536262020-06-15T23:27:31.545-04:002020-06-15T23:27:31.545-04:00Indeed, in the city I went to college, the parking...Indeed, in the city I went to college, the parking is often on the ground level and extends to the end of the properly line while the building itself is set back.NickDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07006815196885883516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-55185662064507968612020-01-16T23:53:03.736-05:002020-01-16T23:53:03.736-05:00The argument that this large footprint is dictated...The argument that this large footprint is dictated by structured parking underneath is an interesting one, but it seems to me that it's based on an incorrect assumption... namely, that you have to maintain the same footprint size for every level of a building. Why can't the level with the parking be bigger than the levels above with residential units?<br /><br />I posted a new post where I explained my own theory as to why we see these huge buildings. Namely, development revenue is proportional to floor area built, and if floor area is not controlled directly by regulation, then developers have an economic interest in filling up all the space they are legally allowed to build in. My solution is to make sure that there is a FAR limit that is less than the total space that geometric regulations (setbacks, margins, height limits) allow.simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-18995894675410581382020-01-16T14:10:23.295-05:002020-01-16T14:10:23.295-05:00Generally, the larger footprint is dictated by the...Generally, the larger footprint is dictated by the desire to put structured parking on one or more levels of the building. Zoning requirements in my city are for a 62' (19 m) parking bay, with a 24' aisle bounded by two 19' parking lanes. Some cities require 64' (20 m). Recent apartment construction in my city is as deep as 22m, with parking underneath, and not surprisingly, it's all studios and one bedrooms. The one I'm referring to is built as part of a transit center. Other newer housing accommodates larger units in buildings only 15 m deep, with parking provided on street, in courtyards, or in nearby garages. DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09480480108192564421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-36584538814802122292020-01-14T17:13:26.336-05:002020-01-14T17:13:26.336-05:00According to Census data in https://www2.census.go...According to Census data in https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/families/2019/cps-2019/tabavg1.xls, the most common type of household is the family, at nearly twice as many family as non-family households. The average size of a family household is 3.21; the average size of a non-family household is 1.25.<br /><br />Anecdotally, I have never had a problem, in two geographically distinct markets, in two different flyover country states, finding apartments with 1Br units to live in. While I don't necessarily have an extensive social network, I've never known any other single people who needed to band together because there were no such units available anywhere in the market. There's certainly some geographic sorting because of zoning; but apart from situations where I've seen single family neighborhoods bought up by absentee landlords who rent to groups of college students, i.e. outside speculation, I've never witnessed any concerted pressure on family homes by non-family households. I'll take your word that that's a thing in specific parts of Seattle, or San Francisco, or wherever the geographic sorting forces singles out of the neighborhoods they otherwise want; but not nationwide, where desirability is more dispersed.Tadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468813717280336288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-21356611252285560692020-01-14T17:12:39.468-05:002020-01-14T17:12:39.468-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468813717280336288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-43647730150624019332020-01-13T12:12:54.671-05:002020-01-13T12:12:54.671-05:00Interesting comment, thanks. I'll note however...Interesting comment, thanks. I'll note however that even the modern buildings you point out still qualify as slim. Going on Google Maps, the ones without inner airshafts or courtyards are about only 12-13 meters deep, meanwhile, deeper buildings have small airshafts or interior alleys that reduce the effective depth of buildings.simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-60725840137237742892020-01-13T12:01:18.503-05:002020-01-13T12:01:18.503-05:00"This makes families unable to profit from th..."This makes families unable to profit from the recent boom in urban housing."<br /><br />Here's where I disagree.<br />The most common household size in America is a single person. <br />The most common (accounting for a plurality and about 40% of all units) is a 3-bedroom, 2 bathroom, detached single-family home.<br /><br />Currently, we have a lot of singles and couples living with roommates, because our most common housing type doesn't work for our most common household type.<br /><br />Families will benefit from singles and couples moving to 1br apartments, by virtue of the pre-existing family-style housing returning to family use. (This isn't just suburban, either, over half of LA, Seattle, and other major cities is zoned single-family)<br /><br />There's a whole housing market, and new housing isn't the only type to take into consideration. IAN! Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14000346268609562407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-24520304164758750812020-01-13T12:01:17.955-05:002020-01-13T12:01:17.955-05:00"This makes families unable to profit from th..."This makes families unable to profit from the recent boom in urban housing."<br /><br />Here's where I disagree.<br />The most common household size in America is a single person. <br />The most common (accounting for a plurality and about 40% of all units) is a 3-bedroom, 2 bathroom, detached single-family home.<br /><br />Currently, we have a lot of singles and couples living with roommates, because our most common housing type doesn't work for our most common household type.<br /><br />Families will benefit from singles and couples moving to 1br apartments, by virtue of the pre-existing family-style housing returning to family use. (This isn't just suburban, either, over half of LA, Seattle, and other major cities is zoned single-family)<br /><br />There's a whole housing market, and new housing isn't the only type to take into consideration. IAN! Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14000346268609562407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-48871659326618236222020-01-13T11:35:46.463-05:002020-01-13T11:35:46.463-05:00The big block with inner courtyard(s) ('patio&...The big block with inner courtyard(s) ('patio') from Madrid is, in fact, very characteristic of the Spanish urban boom of the 60s, 70s and 80s; you can find those designs all over the main metropolitan areas of the country. Thinner blocks without courtyard are sometimes present instead, but the kind of design you show in the post is quite representative of the 'desarrollismo' era. I know zilch about the building codes, but the extra windows provided by the courtyard are particularly important because, in most of Spain, clothes are generally hung outside a window to air-dry (tumble dryers are not widespread, as in the US).<br /><br />More modern developments (which are the subject of some urbanist criticism) often go instead for the rectangle block with one big inner courtyard that has space for a swimming pool, garden and/or sports courts. This picture ( https://i.imgur.com/UK59k2d.png ) from a Madrid suburb has a good comparison of both styles (70s south of the rail tracks, late 90s north of the train line). A few three-sided asterisk-shaped buildings too.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05905940529756439581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-13490220252501742332020-01-13T11:24:11.602-05:002020-01-13T11:24:11.602-05:00I've heard that one reason for the dimensions ...I've heard that one reason for the dimensions of American mid-rise apartments is that it maximizes the amount of parking that can fit underneath. I'll have to do some measurements on my building, but it would allow for 90° parking in two aisles, one on each side of the building centerline (though I think my building only really has parking under one side)Mike Hickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257599090818492294noreply@blogger.com