apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

a two thirds rule is pretty good methinks... we need some help in this area.

Great, so a rich person want to build a 12,000 SF house. The lot they had planned to use would have only allowed for 8,400 SF. Does this keep said rich person from building that extra 3,600 SF or does this make them buy more land, decreasing density and increasing sprawl? I don't know, but it seems like there should be a better way to limit house size than tying it to lot size

All we need to know is that Pia Zadora destroyed Pickfair to build some generic eyesore.

It depends on zone AND lot size combined. That might work. I think urban sprawl & the lack of good public transportation are more important issues overall.

The amount of code, ordinances, laws, and regulations governing my home in the interest of someone else's pathetic bourgeois aesthetics drives me totally nuts. Land of the free, my ass.

- a wacko social liberal

Easyenough, when your home can exist in a bubble with no effect on anyone or anything else you can build whatever you want.

The idea of houses barely fitting the lots they are built on is not terribly new but has had a resurgance however and I have seem some developments that were 2 story largish houses on lots barely bigger than the house's outside walls and these were built in the 1980's.

Ordinances are always being remade, reworked, trying to find solutions for problems that someone should have thought about a long time ago.

Far ahead of the stupidity lies the pocket neighborhoods that DID require some reworking of the ordinances in those areas, but look at the results:
http://www.rosschapin.com/Projects/projects.html

I have been a huge fan of the pocket neighborhoods for many long years. And I do wish I could live in one.

Any of the Small, Cool fans would probably agree that these homes are plenty big, and use space in a wonderful way:

449 sq ft:
http://www.rosschapin.com/Plans/Cottage/Backyard/backyard.html

540 sq ft:
http://www.rosschapin.com/Plans/Cottage/Lizzie/Lizzie.html

614 sq ft:
http://www.rosschapin.com/Plans/Cottage/Lisette/Lisette.html

Here's an aerial of one of the early developments:
http://www.rosschapin.com/Projects/PocketNeighborhoods/ThirdStreetCottages/ThirdStreet.html

And text to consider:
"This was the first contemporary ‘pocket neighborhood’ that set the stage for all the others that followed. It demonstrated that eight smaller cottages have less impact than four large homes on the same site. It also confirmed there is a market for cottages designed for one and two-person households in a community-oriented setting."

More:
"It allows for up to double the density of detached homes in all single-family zones — providing the ground floor area is less than 700 SF and total area is less than 975 SF. The cottages must also face a usable landscaped commons, and have parking screened from the street."

All the cars are corralled off on one side. Everyone has a tiny yard of their own. And a huge yard that is shared.

Combine that concept with other ideas that make sense, like car sharing:
http://www.zipcar.com

Public transit. Etc. Imagine the difference. Those homes aren't inexpensive, unfortunately. But I believe they could be far less expensive and could solve a great many problems.

There IS a lot of density of homes in that overhead shot, as there are in most of these cottage pocket neighborhoods. But it is so far away from the McMansions and tract home developments because these homes make sense.

Not for EVERYONE, but certainly for the majority of the people who enter Small, Cool.

Here's my favorite floor plan, bigger than what I really need, but I love the details, like the lofted space over the bedroom. AND the space above the kitchen, which has an interior window, that could be used for a tiny bedroom, an office space, that would be free from sound that carries in the main living area.
http://www.rosschapin.com/Plans/Cottage/PearsCherries/PearsCherries.html

The built-in dining niche. The funky angled bedroom and bathroom. The huge front porch, just waiting for you to dine or relax on and say "Howdy" to all your neighbors!

Tons more images of the cottages here:
http://www.cottagecompany.com/cctscgallery.html

The two lower right images are of the Pears and Cherries cottage, and you can see the loft area in the last image. The walled in loft area with the interior window is the second to last image (as seen from the larger loft).

They have solved a bunch of problems by using built-ins.

Because it's all community-oriented, I would guess that their own crime rate is virtually non-existent. Why? Everyone knows everyone, everyone sees everyone going to everyone else's home. The front door looks out on a common area. And as all the autos are parked in the same area, with everyone knowing whose auto is whose, you'd KNOW if it was someone who didn't live there.

Another idea they use is the double density with a larger and a smaller home:
http://www.cottagecompany.com/ccgroom.html

"The 1200 SF home on the front of each lot includes a light-filled main living space, two bedrooms, an office and covered outdoor space. A single-car garage is either attached to the house or separate. The 425 SF backyard cottage offers a great deal of lifestyle flexibility---it can be an office or an art studio, a place for an elderly parent or a starter house for an adult-child, a guest cottage or a rental. Its use is open to interpretation!"

That makes so much more sense than a McMansion. Doesn't it?

What I've seen is that if you have enough money you can always get around any zoning ordinance. Obviously, these people have enough money, so it seems kind of futile.

It is true, the more money you have, the easier it is to get around the law. The houses some people are building today really are ridiculous. I have been some of my clients homes that are so large that many rooms sit empty-Empty. Often they have been in the house for years and just dont know what to make of the 20 extra rooms.

I am all for it! Growing up in the suburbs of Seattle I was used to houses sitting comforably on their lots with a nice front, back and even side yards. I slowly saw houses get closer and closer together to the point where most new construction has one house so close to the neighbor that you can barely push a lawnmower between them. When I was living in NJ some years later, I saw the same thing. Even worse was seeing smaller houses that were well suited to their lots being torn down to make way for a home that litterally went from one property line to the other.

There needs to be a change the mentality of the general population to limit their consumerism and sprawl. Regulations and laws are only good for people without enough money and influential lawyers.

Where is the common sense in this country? I mean honestly!

I truly hate McMansions. I feel that they are a waste of space, money, and express a truly transparent lack of taste & restraint. However, if you've got the money I say go for it - everyone needs a neighbor to hate.

I do really support the measure to restrict house size to lot size. In my old hometown a dear old couple with a little ranch home - nothing special, just well integrated into the landscape - lost almost all of their property value because a developer scooped out the hill next to their house and dropped NINE McMansions down - all 6 feet apart from each other, and ALL towering over the little ranch.

I think the ordinance is a start, but it should be paired with other incentives - say, a tax break if you live in under x-square feet per person in your household.

Unless you are talking about the amount of footprint and not just overall square footage, this is sort of stupid.

Yes, there's nothing like a concerned citizens' watchdog group to make sure everyone conforms to their ideas of good taste. And certainly exterior paint colors and window design and landscaping should be legislated as well.

I think density is great, but not when it destroys homogenous and attractive areas. Density is the future, so good design (and sensible sizes) should go along with that hand in hand.

In fact, historically density was high, and houses built to the lot line and butting up to each other - the row house!

Good design is tyranny.

i think it's quite possible to believe that smaller is cooler and yet still be tremendously wary of legislating aesthetics. i think it's important for established neighborhoods to know what's going on with new development and to keep it in check. with new neighborhoods, the city should lay the groundwork for some sort of control and adequate infrastructure before any building ever begins. forcing people into small isn't going to make them think its cool.