Comments on: We Don’t Build These Anymore

by: Spencer

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:50:54 +0000

“So why aren’t we building any more of these small apartments? Short answer: Cars”

Wrong. It’s zoning, building code and economics.

Cars are what makes a good arguement, but is not critical as to why a building like the above can not be built on a lowrise zoned lot. Density is the first issue. Most lowrise requirements on a 50×100 foot lot only allow for 4 dwelling units. The building code requirements to build like this are considered too costly for a developer to take on (I’m not advocating that is right, it’s just the arguement) and to build with brick is an expensive alternative when fiber cement siding is available.

So it leaves me to believe the root issue is philosophical. If a developer wants to build it, they will find the place and the way to. Right now, we as comsumers are not giving it to them because we treat our housing options like our MP3 player options. We can, buy the used one that might be a bust, buy the cheap new one and hope it doesn’t break or wait until we have enough money (hopefully) to buy the expensive one that will last.

A good casestudy for an example of something close to the picture above was built in Columbia City last summer. The units sold for $700,000. That’s twice the average home value in that area.

by: If You Want To Understand The Real Reason There Are So Many Sucky Townhouses Going Up… | hugeasscity

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:54:14 +0000

[…] Removing parking requirements might also encourage builders to try other building types such as small apartments, that would help break the near monopoly of new townhouses in lowrise zones. I suspect that those who are disgusted with townhouses would find the apartment discussed here much less objectionable — but there is no parking in it. […]

by: danb

Sat, 03 May 2008 18:29:44 +0000

Finishtag @20: Nobody is suggesting that we do away with townhouses. They are an excellent urban building type. But they do need to be better balanced with other building types like the 2-story apartment in the photo, i.e., we’re building too many of them right now, in my opinion.

Also, it’s the building form that matters, not the brick facade.

by: Almost What We Don’t Build Anymore | hugeasscity

Sat, 03 May 2008 17:23:33 +0000

[…] This is the Opal Condominiums at 16th and Pike, just a few blocks south of the older two-story apartment in discussed in this post. It has some obvious similarities. Why, in this case, did the developer not go with a townhouse 4-pack? […]

by: Joshua

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:26:58 +0000

Flotown - You can indeed argue as to whether or not rental is a more sustainable building product than condos, but I don’t think there’s a clear answer. Certainly rental is the choice du jour of developers currently due to high demand and rising rents, but of course the market is cyclical and condos will no doubt be back once apts get built out. And really, no matter what’s happening with the market, you can always find buyers if you hit a certain niche. Regardless, my point is that building a 4 plex such as this one and using it for rental product just wouldn’t pencil with land prices being what they are (and loan pricing being what it now is). I would guess your net operating income would take at least 5 years to catch up to debt service. You’d be hard pressed to find an developer/investor who would take that on.

Also, I’m not sure how the land factor would disappear with new FAR regulations. If you remove density limits (which would be great in certain areas for sure), this land becomes more expensive, and thus constructing this type of building becomes even less feasible.

by: Steve

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:00:39 +0000

flotown,

Got it — I hadn’t realize the unit density limits would be removed in L3/L4 under the new plan. Cool.

by: flotown

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:47:15 +0000

Steve-

the assumption is that unit maximums would disappear in favor of FAR in certain “L” zones (eg L3/L4, which would be renamed), and remain in the lower desnity zones. L3/L4 would flex bewteen flats and fee simple townhouses and L1/L2 equivalents would be townhouses. you’re right, though, that absent the removal of density limits additional FAR is not helpful

by: Finishtag

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:38:18 +0000

ADA doesn’t apply to housing.
IBC Accessibility standards (ANSI) do.
And the Seattle-specific building codes.

Two story apartment buildings aren’t required to have the second floor accessible to people in a wheelchair, so no elevator needed.

Brick veneer = 2 x metal siding in cost.

People LIKE townhouses because they don’t have to live above or below each other. The idea isn’t getting rid of them, but making them better. As a building type, they’re here for the long haul.

by: Steve

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:07:13 +0000

flotown,

Isn’t unit density a bigger issue than FAR? It seems like FAR affects the enclosed space of the building but doesn’t tell us anything about the space per unit, which seems like the key townhouse/stacked flat differentiator.

by: flotown

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:48:00 +0000

Joshua,

I don’t think the rental v. condo is a good argument, because its not economically sustainable to assume condos will keep selling at a marked premium to apartments in the future when there has historically- pre-bubble- been little premium.

the land argument is legit, under today’s zoning code, but we could eliminate that factor by assuming an FAR-based system, such as is likely to be included in the new multi-family code changes this year. In that case, we could have a) townhouses and b) stacked flats. If the FAR gets high enough (2+), in some neighborhoods (eg cap hill, QA) stacked flats could win out, but in most other townhouses, which can be sold as fee simple ownership units, will be the highest and best use…