I traveled a thousand times in front of the tonwnhouses seen above. Never caring to see them. However, when I decided to buy a home, I happened to look at the building itself from the inside. I was surprised at the quality and nice interior. I did not buy this townhouse but I realize that from the outside they may not be as asthetic as some would care, particularly in front of a bus stop. The unites were very high-tech and exceeded City codes. High-efficient windows that concerve energy as well as keeping the noise out.

Anybody that buys any of these units will hit a huge ROI in the future. Looking at the Car Wash immeditelly accross the street… a gonner by when the economy picks up… will find a great environment. And good riddins for those who hate townhomes… they are that much less out there competing for these excellent buys.

That I find it ugly is a matter of personal preference, but what is really unforgivable to me is that the project ignores its relationship to the street (or actually it acknowledges it through the use of a wall?), the surrounding neighborhood, the bus stop (and opps for its residents to get to it with some ease) and even the experience to be had by the future residents (no wonder it is still empty?). If it did these things well, it could be a stuccoed, shingle-style, English Tudor-ized craftsman and I would be happier. I may not want to live there, but again, personal preferences.

For me, the issue at the moment is less about aesthetics, because we aren’t getting the most fundamental of issues right. What we are building now is going to be with us for the next 50+ years. What we build now is also going to influence how we build for years, not aesthetically, but as a development model of what is an acceptable project, an acceptable relationship to the street, an acceptable treatment of the interface with the public realm, an acceptable amount of natural light and ventilation, etc, etc

Back to the gauntlet. I believe by being within the boundaries of an UV, the SFDs are next in line to be up-zoned. As you point out, they aren’t currently, and I am speculating here, but I would think that this has something to do with focusing development and managing growth. Not that I am convinced that this is something the City has succeeded in doing, but up-zoning an entire neighborhood would disperse growth throughout the UV boundaries. Our zoning and growth should be viewed as incremental, and we are just taking our first steps.

Currently, a lot of the potential for growth occurs along hyper dense, mixed-use corridors. This has succeeded in generating a lot of mixed use structures over the last 10 years, but there hasn’t been nearly enough residential density in very close, walkable proximity, and I believe this is what you are getting at? Typically the mixed-use corridors are surrounded by low-rise zoning, which in theory allows for relatively dense and modestly scaled development, but this hasn’t happened to the extent that a lot of density proponents would like.

Just broadening the areas in low-rise zones won’t do the trick. I think the lack of development in this intermediate zone has to do with a couple of key factors: its much messier from a design and community review standpoint (unless you go the 6-pack route); and at an intermediate scale, it is not nearly as easy or profitable to build. This is something that I think about a lot, typically as I walk into work passing by oodles of early 20th-century low-rise apartment buildings that would not be buildable under the current zoning code.

Why? These are fabulous urban building blocks after all. But developed under today’s standards and with typical financing, their size/scale would require going through the design review process, adding time, additional fees and the element of the unknown. Parking requirements are also a huge deterrent, adding a lot of cost, time and complexity. Building setbacks play a big role too, requiring a building to stay further back from lot lines the higher it goes. And modulation requirements to a lesser extent, which would actually prevent you from building more than 5 rowhouses in a row (100′). There’s also open space requirements, which promote private open space within each development over public open space (i.e. parks). And of course clearances from overhead power lines. All these elements either add costs or diminish buildable areas, thereby dispersing costs across a lower yield. So addressing these issues are key unless, we are willing to settle for more six-packs in low-rise zones.

Here is a thought about how people can be useful. Take a look at the proposed multifamily code. Those of you who are pro-deveopment and who live in a Single Family neighborhood, especially if you are in an Urban Village, do us all a favor and tell us how you will do the right thing and get your area upzoned. And which of the choices provided will you go for?

This is kind of a trick question and a throwing down of the gauntlet. The trick question is that there should be no Single Family inside an Urban Village. The fact that is, means either the work needs to be done by none other than you as proponents or the Urban Village boundaries need to be redrawn.

The gauntlet is to really look at the code and figure out where the zoning is to allow us to dense up? Is LDT really Duplex-Triplex in the terms that largely non Urban Village SF areas can handle? Can you take the L3-L4 specs and make them happen in the SF zones inside the Urban Village? What would you change?