infill development

[iggy]

I've not had the opportunity to read all of the posts in the different forums. However,what I have read does not address what I believe is a big and serious problem in Tulsa. I live in midtown and it seems like all to often a house is torn down and two replace it. This often happens because the zoning code allows two  house to be built on 1.5 lots. This is insane unless the total sum of the sq. ft. in the property equals the size requirement as  spelled out in the zoning code for two lots in which case the property should be re-subdivided into two legal  lots.

[YoungTulsan]

What you described actually is good for "infill".  It increases population in the same area.  Might not be good for the neighborhood though.  Sometimes I see houses with no porch, or even houses with no architecturally obvious front entrance, and I scratch my head..  They seem intentionally anti-neighborhood.  These days, the garage is the entrance, and the front door rots.  Some people are so accustomed to entering their houses through the garage that they don't know the front door has rotted itself permanantly shut.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

What you described actually is good for "infill".  It increases population in the same area.  Might not be good for the neighborhood though.  Sometimes I see houses with no porch, or even houses with no architecturally obvious front entrance, and I scratch my head..  They seem intentionally anti-neighborhood.  

I know what you're saying but IMO I can't see that putting two homes on 1.5 lots, thereby increasing the taxable population, positively offsets the negative impact on the neighborhood. Especially when the builder tears down existing conforming homes. Your porch remark is spot on. Infill homes are more likely to feature stucco privacy walls and garage doors like the burbs.

Think about this. None of the South Tulsa neighborhoods would accept the style of my craftsman cottage home with detached garage and wrap around porch with porch furniture, wood clapboard siding, car parked out front and less than 2500 sq.feet because of their covenants and restrictions. Yet they seem to think bringing their stucco covered, walled off 3000 sq ft borg cubes should be allowed to plop down next to me. Zoning boards, commissions and historic designations are our only protection and they are being assaulted.

There are appropriate infill examples but they require more planning and skill thus less profit for builders. Check out the bungalow at 20th & Cincinnati or the brick two stories at 18th & Owasso. They blend just fine.

[Chicken Little]

The difference between good infill and bad infill is not about overall square footage or density.  It's really about design.  You can increase or decrease both effectively and not destroy the neighborhood so long as the design respects the established character of the neighborhood.

For instance, if you wedge two houses side-by-side on 1 1/2 lots, then you will probably disrupt the established rythm of that street in a negative way (HOUSE, HOUSE, HOUSE, house house, HOUSE...get it?)

However, you could easily subdivide an existing house front-to-back and even add a large addition to the back of the original without disrupting that rythm.

If architects, citizens, and lawmakers had a better understanding of form and space, i.e. rythm, scale, proportion, and articulation, we'd have better infill results.

Instead, we make regulations based on dumbed-down, bureaucratized notions like density, building materials, and total square footage.  Trouble is, you can tweak those variables all day long and if you ignore that form and space axiom, you will still end up with a crap result.  

Conversely, if you you respect the established forms, then things like materials, density, and land use are really not as important and would have little impact on the neighborhood.

[cannon_fodder]

It depends entirely on the structure built.  IMHO, denser is usually better for infill.  How would you feel if 2 older homes were demolished to put in one new one?

[Rose]

Waterboy,
The houses you metioned -- all 3 were designed by Fox Architects.  I know the owners of 2 of them and they love having a beautiful new house in a historic area.  

Iggy,
When lots are split, they are required to meet current zoning lot dimension requirements and set backs.  As long as those guidelines are adhered to, the builders/owners can build new homes or add on rooms and garages.  I thinks it is a shame when a gigantic house is squeezed onto a very small lot.  But again, the owner has the right to do with their property as they see fit.  There seems to be a demand for big houses with small yards.  As long as that is the case, I don't think progress will stop.

[cannon_fodder]

I too hate the large houses on small lots.  Then again, just getting back from Albuquerque... many of the neighbors use the walls of the adjacent house as part of their fence line.  It makes some sense, having that 5 foot section of dead grass between fence and house is worthless anyway.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Rose

Waterboy,
The houses you metioned -- all 3 were designed by Fox Architects.  I know the owners of 2 of them and they love having a beautiful new house in a historic area.  

Iggy,
When lots are split, they are required to meet current zoning lot dimension requirements and set backs.  As long as those guidelines are adhered to, the builders/owners can build new homes or add on rooms and garages.  I thinks it is a shame when a gigantic house is squeezed onto a very small lot.  But again, the owner has the right to do with their property as they see fit.  There seems to be a demand for big houses with small yards.  As long as that is the case, I don't think progress will stop.

What is your point? I suggest you act on your urges to buy property and "do as you see fit". Then prepare to defend yourself in front of the various boards, commissions and court rooms. You'll do just fine.[]

[Rose]

Waterboy,
My point is that I am living where I want to live-- an old house in a great neighborhood with mostly older homes -- built in the 30's, 50's, 70's, 80's etc.  If my neighbor wants to tear down their old house and build an A frame -- fine with me.  I don't have ownership rights, they do.  

That's all.  What is your point?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Rose

Waterboy,
My point is that I am living where I want to live-- an old house in a great neighborhood with mostly older homes -- built in the 30's, 50's, 70's, 80's etc.  If my neighbor wants to tear down their old house and build an A frame -- fine with me.  I don't have ownership rights, they do.  

That's all.  What is your point?

I've tried in vain to make my point understandable to you throughout this thread. Don't know what else to say except that your belief in ownership rights isn't in synch with what laws define. These laws have evolved over about a century to keep your investment safe. Before Realtors devised a code of ethics and lobbied legislatures to regulate real estate it was just as you described. Wide open land use. If you wanted a pig farm next to a housing addition or a strip joint by a church then fine. Do what you want cause its your land.

It may be fine with you for him to build an A frame but the law protects the common good. Cities without these zoning, covenant and deed restrictions have suffered with unplanned development and lower overall values. I hear Houston had a difficult time with their housing values because of that. People want some assurance that the home they bought isn't going to lose value because of some guy building a house in the shape of a shoe next to their colonial.

Lets say your neighbor would like to build a home out of coke bottles he collected over his lifetime. A guy out in Arizona has done that. Cool house but way out in the desert where it won't offend. But your neighbor decides he will build it satisfying current building code inspections but ignoring zoning, covenants and deed restrictions. If the neighbors and authorities allow that, your neighborhood values start to plummet because no one wants to live nearby. He patiently waits till all the homes are below market, buys them and tears down his coke house. Then resells the properties at huge increases or rents them at a weekly rate to area drug users.

With some changes in technique, this is what has happened in the past. Sometimes using race as the tool, sometimes with rental properties, sometimes with lack of maintenance. That is one reason why we tolerate an infringement on our rights.

 

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

The difference between good infill and bad infill is not about overall square footage or density.  It's really about design.  You can increase or decrease both effectively and not destroy the neighborhood so long as the design respects the established character of the neighborhood.

For instance, if you wedge two houses side-by-side on 1 1/2 lots, then you will probably disrupt the established rythm of that street in a negative way (HOUSE, HOUSE, HOUSE, house house, HOUSE...get it?)

However, you could easily subdivide an existing house front-to-back and even add a large addition to the back of the original without disrupting that rythm.

If architects, citizens, and lawmakers had a better understanding of form and space, i.e. rythm, scale, proportion, and articulation, we'd have better infill results.

Instead, we make regulations based on dumbed-down, bureaucratized notions like density, building materials, and total square footage.  Trouble is, you can tweak those variables all day long and if you ignore that form and space axiom, you will still end up with a crap result.  

Conversely, if you you respect the established forms, then things like materials, density, and land use are really not as important and would have little impact on the neighborhood.

                                                 It's all about scale, character, and harmony  baby, yeah!

[Rose]

Waterboy-
I never said I thought it was ok to ignore zoning and coventants, etc.  What I have said it that if a property owner follows the rules/laws, whatever you want to call them, he/she should be able to build what they want.  If the neighbor in the colonial doesn't like it, he can move -- to a neighborhood where all the houses look the same-- Ranch Acres for instance.
[)]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Rose

Waterboy-
I never said I thought it was ok to ignore zoning and coventants, etc.  What I have said it that if a property owner follows the rules/laws, whatever you want to call them, he/she should be able to build what they want.  If the neighbor in the colonial doesn't like it, he can move -- to a neighborhood where all the houses look the same-- Ranch Acres for instance.
[)]

Let me ask, what is it that makes you or others want to move into these old neighborhoods and make what will probably be the largest investment in your lifetime?

[mac]

quote: I know the owners of 2 of them and they love having a beautiful new house in a historic area.  

I find it ironic that these people want to move into a historic neighborhood and build a new house. If enough people did this the neighborhood would no longer be historic.