There’s quite a few logistical challenges with building anything in the back yard of an older home. I think Denver mostly has alleys, which is a big help, as it’s really hard otherwise.
Truth is, it’s often hard to make the math work in these scenarios unless you can do six units minimum. Or have the ability to go very high end with new condos.
Denver has alleys and most lots are 125’ deep and have garages currently, so I think the physical space and access are pretty doable. I haven’t tried to do a proforma one of these yet, though.
What I've seen in my area is that it gets really complicated with utilities, very quickly. There are some hacks, but it really takes some construction know-how to do it. But we largely have front-loaded lots, not alleys. If you have water/sewer in the alleys, that's an enormous help to develop the backs. In terms of the pro forma, obviously you are starting with paying a pretty high price (in a nice area), just to demo a house and clear the lot. So if you think of it as a finished lot you're buying, that's a big number. Always interesting to play with this angle first, imagine who will actually build what, and then back into policy ideas after running the exercise
My guess is that many / most of the backyard units would end up being the existing owner hiring a turnkey builder and staying in the house in the front. That happens some now with lot splits, but it’s rare in part because few lots are zoned to allow that. But since we dropped parking requirements, and it looks like we’ll be liberalizing the zoning I suspect we’ll see at least a small uptick in those.
Zoning decides whether a neighborhood can renew itself with families, workers, and middle-class continuity or whether every lot gets financially optimized into an enclave for capital.
Austin’s HOME reforms achieved something similar to the first two options. The affordability option wasn’t pursued because the industry said it would never pencil. Nevertheless, incentivizing more square footage for more units (we used FAR rather than fixed numbers) is working here, and more (relatively) affordable HOME projects are sprouting up everywhere in the urban core.
I really struggle with the layered complexity to translate conventional zoning into a traditional pattern. This will work in teh really short term if you add a PhD in Quantum Physics to your development team. All of these well intentioned regulations will just make it harder and more expensive for these lots to redevelop.
What if the city took a giant step back from zoning and just put a pause on asking the planners to solve a design problem? Instead, what if the city empowered an internal team solely focused on how to streamline the next increment of development within the existing constraints.
This would be a design team within the city composed of architects, site engineers, and developers, charged with showing what is possible on sites throughout the city. This body of work would be an illustrative catalogue that build confidence and inspires development. The team would be focused on implementation and not struggling with aspirational what if's.
Denver could follow the Town Architect Model which could revive the traditional pattern of development that increamnetal grows.
There’s quite a few logistical challenges with building anything in the back yard of an older home. I think Denver mostly has alleys, which is a big help, as it’s really hard otherwise.
Truth is, it’s often hard to make the math work in these scenarios unless you can do six units minimum. Or have the ability to go very high end with new condos.
Denver has alleys and most lots are 125’ deep and have garages currently, so I think the physical space and access are pretty doable. I haven’t tried to do a proforma one of these yet, though.
What I've seen in my area is that it gets really complicated with utilities, very quickly. There are some hacks, but it really takes some construction know-how to do it. But we largely have front-loaded lots, not alleys. If you have water/sewer in the alleys, that's an enormous help to develop the backs. In terms of the pro forma, obviously you are starting with paying a pretty high price (in a nice area), just to demo a house and clear the lot. So if you think of it as a finished lot you're buying, that's a big number. Always interesting to play with this angle first, imagine who will actually build what, and then back into policy ideas after running the exercise
My guess is that many / most of the backyard units would end up being the existing owner hiring a turnkey builder and staying in the house in the front. That happens some now with lot splits, but it’s rare in part because few lots are zoned to allow that. But since we dropped parking requirements, and it looks like we’ll be liberalizing the zoning I suspect we’ll see at least a small uptick in those.
Housing policy is not just land-use regulation.
It is social reproduction infrastructure.
Zoning decides whether a neighborhood can renew itself with families, workers, and middle-class continuity or whether every lot gets financially optimized into an enclave for capital.
Great point, thank you for sharing!
Austin’s HOME reforms achieved something similar to the first two options. The affordability option wasn’t pursued because the industry said it would never pencil. Nevertheless, incentivizing more square footage for more units (we used FAR rather than fixed numbers) is working here, and more (relatively) affordable HOME projects are sprouting up everywhere in the urban core.
I really struggle with the layered complexity to translate conventional zoning into a traditional pattern. This will work in teh really short term if you add a PhD in Quantum Physics to your development team. All of these well intentioned regulations will just make it harder and more expensive for these lots to redevelop.
What if the city took a giant step back from zoning and just put a pause on asking the planners to solve a design problem? Instead, what if the city empowered an internal team solely focused on how to streamline the next increment of development within the existing constraints.
This would be a design team within the city composed of architects, site engineers, and developers, charged with showing what is possible on sites throughout the city. This body of work would be an illustrative catalogue that build confidence and inspires development. The team would be focused on implementation and not struggling with aspirational what if's.
Denver could follow the Town Architect Model which could revive the traditional pattern of development that increamnetal grows.