Eh, I think the big thing is that like a lot of things people agree on the solution in the abstract (denser housing in this case), but not when it's applied to them.
NIMBYs gonna NIMBY
For me I won't say that's not entirely without merrit, but we chose this area because there were not multistory units in downtown.
But fine, times change. However would like the city to do actual urban planning then and think about parking and pedestrian/bike paths. Not just give developers a bunch of money and tax breaks then shrug when population triples in an area with no grocery store in walking distance.
So we woke up today to absolute wreckage behind the house. The city came through and cleared out a bunch of brush that was covering a drainage area in the back, but unfortunately that really tipped the balance on our back yard privacy/shade. We are lucky to have some established trees on either side of the fence line, but now we got this big ass gap, here:
Which makes the view from our back door feel less private, but its the main source of light in the living room, since we are in a duplex and lack windows on one whole side of the house. So I wanna keep my curtains open when possible.
We were planning on getting out there in the next few weeks and and just start thinking of what we wanted, but this puts replacing the fence higher up on my to-do list. Do any of you have major fence opinions? I'm just collecting company names and yelp reviews at the moment, but I'm kinda dreading talking to either of our neighbors or the HOA about this. We probably wont ask them to contribute, which should make things easier (if more expensive) but I think a taller fence with a lattice top would be aces.
The other option is to just temporarily attach lattice to the front of the current fence. Its already old though and I'm not sure how much life it has left, and it feels like adding even light weight to it might shorten its lifetime, I'm not sure if my instinct on that is off.
Maybe buy a bunch of potted ficus trees? I think that'd look nice
0
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
We went with double-sided cedar to match the neighbor's fence and been very happy with it, I guess. Hasn't fallen over in 3 years though some of the posts have splits in them. Went for 5.5ft? Whatever the shorter of the two standard allowed heights are as a nearby house got 8ft? and it looks like a prison yard.
What you have now looks fine aside from the age.
Lattice might be a good option if you want taller, but do measure it out to see just how tall it will be; especially if there's terrain variations (hills).
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
When proposed commercial or mixed-use developments go through the optional method, developers can obtain additional density through a detailed structure of formulas and negotiations covering a wide range of possible community benefits that includes both staff and community review. For increased density in single-family zones, the formulas are even simpler. If the developer provides at least one additional unit above the 12.5% mandatory minimum set-aside for affordable housing through the moderately priced dwelling unit (MPDU) program, they can do townhouses or duplexes.
The optional method has produced 3,751 townhomes or duplexes in single-family homes in the county since 2000, at least 12.5% of which were set aside as affordable.
MoCo has done a lot. they have protected farmland and watersheds, there are minimum affordable (for MoCo in all fairness) unit goals for any new developments, and there is as you noted a significant incentive for builders to do high density townhomes. Every new build area is mixed use single family/high density, and it shows. They also have planning in place for the next 20 years (give or take) of housing development. you can see it all on the planning board website.
We went with double-sided cedar to match the neighbor's fence and been very happy with it, I guess. Hasn't fallen over in 3 years though some of the posts have splits in them. Went for 5.5ft? Whatever the shorter of the two standard allowed heights are as a nearby house got 8ft? and it looks like a prison yard.
What you have now looks fine aside from the age.
Lattice might be a good option if you want taller, but do measure it out to see just how tall it will be; especially if there's terrain variations (hills).
The yard slopes towards the drainage (as it should) but overall is otherwise flat. I dont think I want to go much taller, but there's a shooting range on the other side of those houses, so we'll also have major noise reduction loss from this, unfortunately. Getting some solid wood up for sure has some oppressive qualities, but blocking off the reverberations when someone is going ham with the long rifles is something I gotta consider as well.
We went with double-sided cedar to match the neighbor's fence and been very happy with it, I guess. Hasn't fallen over in 3 years though some of the posts have splits in them. Went for 5.5ft? Whatever the shorter of the two standard allowed heights are as a nearby house got 8ft? and it looks like a prison yard.
What you have now looks fine aside from the age.
Lattice might be a good option if you want taller, but do measure it out to see just how tall it will be; especially if there's terrain variations (hills).
The yard slopes towards the drainage (as it should) but overall is otherwise flat. I dont think I want to go much taller, but there's a shooting range on the other side of those houses, so we'll also have major noise reduction loss from this, unfortunately. Getting some solid wood up for sure has some oppressive qualities, but blocking off the reverberations when someone is going ham with the long rifles is something I gotta consider as well.
I think some kind of interesting top is a good way to go. I'd skip the boring pre-purchase X or + shaped lattice if you can because there are way cooler things out there. For privacy, it doesn't take much to make it feel less like you're in a zoo. When we rebuilt the fence around our back garden (which has a fairly frequently used sidewalk along it) I replace the top foot or so with this pattern, and it has been a nice way to have some separation without feeling totally disconnected and unapproachable.
We've got a big picture window that's 3 feet from the same sidewalk and higher, so people walking by look up into the living room if you have the blinds up (then act like you're the weirdo if you make eye contact). While I planted some shrubs to soften that in a couple years, I also just put privacy film on the bottom 2-feet so that people's heads aren't going by along the bottom of the window. Maybe some combination of that would work for your layout.
For noise, I remember reading that anything that isn't completely solid isn't really going to do much, technically. Sound propogates really well through even tiny gaps so most things people do as noise reduction from streets isn't effective (hedges, slat fences, trees) because that tiny space between the slats or leaves is just letting it all through - like a door that's cracked vs fully closed. I think there is some evidence that it makes it feel quiter though, so maybe placebo effect is a good way to go... but I don't know how well that will work rifle shots.
My old house, we could only build a 6ft tall fence. Which wasn't enough to block what I wanted, so I was going to go with trees. I didn't need a fence either as I didn't have a dog or anything.
Thanks for all that ! I love that fence top, and we have enough tools now to really make shit, which is super exciting. I'm not sure the current fence is stable enough to support that, but its a consideration if we put something new in.
Nothing truly will help with the rifle shots when outside, but we are lucky that the windows in the house are all brand new and well insulated. They do make essentially solid fences, in the horizontal slat variety, that I think might buffer the slight echo of it we get on the back door sometimes. The sound actually leaks into the house the most through the chimney, though, to your point.
I'll probably have to cross my fingers and hope that as development spreads like wildfire 'round here, they sell the land and move on, but that seems like a 10 year from now thing.
We are lucky that, with the drainage there, and how far the fences/yards on the other side stretch back, and the racket from the range meaning people dont often just chill outside, its still pretty private back there.
We started with a condo then moved to house. While I'm not actively campaigning against them, I'm not thrilled that my city built a bunch of multi-family units in the downtown area. Worried about crime, parking, worried about how it's going to change things like the concerts in the park we have as they're already packed.
The city just keeps building and don't seem to be thinking on how to expand the surrounding infrastructure to support all the extra people.
downtown is where the most mult-family units should be, it's downtown, theoretically that should reduce commuting and parking assuming the buildings have appropriate infrastructure.
"oh no, my downtown park concerts are getting too crowded" is a pretty bizarre thing to complain about.
Crime is about poverty not density.
They've opened up quite a bit of commercial land for residential use in my suburb, which is now filled with condos and townhouses. Which would be fine except the council has done nothing to improve the infrastructure. The 3 roads in and out have always been insanely busy, and going grocery shopping after work or at lunch is a fool's errand. I am hoping after lockdown we can continue to work from home, because I dont see how I'd actually be able to get to/from work or do shopping.
We just did an 8 foot white plastic fence. It does the job. Cedar etc is nice, but the price difference wasn't worth it to us.
The big advantage to vinyl fences is really in the lifespan.
Personally I think a wood fence looks better but odds are it's not going to last nearly as long unless you're super diligent about maintenance.
And even then odds are at least some of the posts are going to go to shit, there's nothing you can do to stop that, and once even a few do all it takes is a decent wind/thunderstorm to make entire panels decide to take a trip.
We just did an 8 foot white plastic fence. It does the job. Cedar etc is nice, but the price difference wasn't worth it to us.
The big advantage to vinyl fences is really in the lifespan.
Personally I think a wood fence looks better but odds are it's not going to last nearly as long unless you're super diligent about maintenance.
And even then odds are at least some of the posts are going to go to shit, there's nothing you can do to stop that, and once even a few do all it takes is a decent wind/thunderstorm to make entire panels decide to take a trip.
Exactly. It looks nice and will continue to look nice until it all snaps, which should be a decade or two out.
Eh, I think the big thing is that like a lot of things people agree on the solution in the abstract (denser housing in this case), but not when it's applied to them.
NIMBYs gonna NIMBY
For me I won't say that's not entirely without merrit, but we chose this area because there were not multistory units in downtown.
But fine, times change. However would like the city to do actual urban planning then and think about parking and pedestrian/bike paths. Not just give developers a bunch of money and tax breaks then shrug when population triples in an area with no grocery store in walking distance.
Your township may very well be doing nothing but encouraging the growth with nothing else, but unless you're the type that goes to all the city council meetings or read the minutes of all the meetings how would you even know? Like it or not, development and implementation of services can takes ages (especially in suburban-Chicago's patchwork of tiny townships).
add to that, i'm part of the problem. we live in a suburban neighborhood and they want to build townhomes and duplexes around the corner. I haven't gone to any meetings but i know my neighbors go and "politely" tell the city council no thank you. We actually have a duplex area not far from us and it's kind of sad how different the look and feel is. More crime in that area (a ton of cars broken into, like weekly if not daily), yards and houses more run down looking. My first house was a mobile home on a pad so i don't feel "too good" to have those neighbors but it's a big perception issue.
So this is probably shitty landlords more than anything else.
All the arguments against increasing density in Single Family Home only zones are ultimately 99.999% anti-poor bias, with some element of racism too. Unit type and tenure (owner/renter) are not determinants of crime, etc. Poverty is the issue.
add to that, i'm part of the problem. we live in a suburban neighborhood and they want to build townhomes and duplexes around the corner. I haven't gone to any meetings but i know my neighbors go and "politely" tell the city council no thank you. We actually have a duplex area not far from us and it's kind of sad how different the look and feel is. More crime in that area (a ton of cars broken into, like weekly if not daily), yards and houses more run down looking. My first house was a mobile home on a pad so i don't feel "too good" to have those neighbors but it's a big perception issue.
So this is probably shitty landlords more than anything else.
All the arguments against increasing density in Single Family Home only zones are ultimately 99.999% anti-poor bias, with some element of racism too. Unit type and tenure (owner/renter) are not determinants of crime, etc. Poverty is the issue.
I don't think that's fair. That's certainly true for some people, but I wouldn't put the % that high. Maybe people just prefer a quiet neighborhood with fewer people and don't want that changed? There's many possible reasons. Some that correlated to anti-poor bias or racism, but other that aren't.
add to that, i'm part of the problem. we live in a suburban neighborhood and they want to build townhomes and duplexes around the corner. I haven't gone to any meetings but i know my neighbors go and "politely" tell the city council no thank you. We actually have a duplex area not far from us and it's kind of sad how different the look and feel is. More crime in that area (a ton of cars broken into, like weekly if not daily), yards and houses more run down looking. My first house was a mobile home on a pad so i don't feel "too good" to have those neighbors but it's a big perception issue.
So this is probably shitty landlords more than anything else.
All the arguments against increasing density in Single Family Home only zones are ultimately 99.999% anti-poor bias, with some element of racism too. Unit type and tenure (owner/renter) are not determinants of crime, etc. Poverty is the issue.
I don't think that's fair. That's certainly true for some people, but I wouldn't put the % that high. Maybe people just prefer a quiet neighborhood with fewer people and don't want that changed? There's many possible reasons. Some that correlated to anti-poor bias or racism, but other that aren't.
That's called rural, doing it in a metro is pure luxury.
add to that, i'm part of the problem. we live in a suburban neighborhood and they want to build townhomes and duplexes around the corner. I haven't gone to any meetings but i know my neighbors go and "politely" tell the city council no thank you. We actually have a duplex area not far from us and it's kind of sad how different the look and feel is. More crime in that area (a ton of cars broken into, like weekly if not daily), yards and houses more run down looking. My first house was a mobile home on a pad so i don't feel "too good" to have those neighbors but it's a big perception issue.
So this is probably shitty landlords more than anything else.
All the arguments against increasing density in Single Family Home only zones are ultimately 99.999% anti-poor bias, with some element of racism too. Unit type and tenure (owner/renter) are not determinants of crime, etc. Poverty is the issue.
I don't think that's fair. That's certainly true for some people, but I wouldn't put the % that high. Maybe people just prefer a quiet neighborhood with fewer people and don't want that changed? There's many possible reasons. Some that correlated to anti-poor bias or racism, but other that aren't.
So they can go buy an acreage somewhere. Overwhelmingly, people don't want increased density because they are afraid of people who don't have the same economic power as themselves and only want to be surrounded by people of the same or higher status and wealth. Governments spend millions around the world clearing away the encampments of the homeless (when it would be cheaper to build housing for them) because it makes the economically more fortunate uncomfortable just to *see* the very poor. We have a long legacy of Victorian attitudes that people are poor because they are lazy, bad, or evil or whatever.
Like honestly, a freaking duplex is no problem, and should have no impact on your property values or state of your neighborhood. I live in a neighbourhood of mixed houses and duplexes, and even a few quadplexes and there's no widespread squalor or disorder, or any disorder tbh. Mixed housing forms make more diverse, better neighbourhoods.
:so_raven:
+3
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
There's a big difference between rural and suburban and urban, same pretty big range within those. Tokyo is not quite the same as Chicago for example
Not going to break out the wiki links, but currently I have a suburban house and responsible for the family "farm" in southern IL. Here's the volunteer fire station for that area where they use Fire Numbers instead of your address:
I'm sure they do what they can, but if you're on fire or hurt yourself, I'd start praying to the Nine Divines before waiting on them or an ambulance. And this isn't even that rural. Oh, and it's on ground water; no city plumbing.
That is not the same as a neighborhood where I can still walk to the Starbucks or library but have a driveway.
Like I said earlier, it's not as much having mixed development, it's that especially in the US it tends to be done poorly. Just clear a few old homes or abandoned shops and drop in a 100+ families. Same with the "planned communities" that are just miles of meandering roads with no sidewalks or bike paths. All car-focused only, which is a subtle/not subtle class divide plus just being terrible for everyone.
Are we/should we headed into sci-fi future of miles-high buildings? Maybe, but hopefully they'll put a godddamn park in the middle so your Slow-Mo fall looks nice.
While I'm sure that is 1 factor, it's certainly not the end all be all. It's an incredibly complex issue.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
While I'm sure that is 1 factor, it's certainly not the end all be all. It's an incredibly complex issue.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
That would be convincing if zoning did not make single family housing mandatory, and duplexes and townhouses illegal. You don't need to make things people overwhelmingly want mandatory and things no one want illegal.
While I'm sure that is 1 factor, it's certainly not the end all be all. It's an incredibly complex issue.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
I live in the Vancouver area, just outside the City of Vancouver. No one has to convince people to buy condo's here because this is the current cheapest freehold house that isn't a floathome or on leasehold land in City of Vancouver:
Sure, and all the townhomes here are getting bought up as well. But that doesn't mean everyone wanted them, for some folks just means it was the only option.
Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
add to that, i'm part of the problem. we live in a suburban neighborhood and they want to build townhomes and duplexes around the corner. I haven't gone to any meetings but i know my neighbors go and "politely" tell the city council no thank you. We actually have a duplex area not far from us and it's kind of sad how different the look and feel is. More crime in that area (a ton of cars broken into, like weekly if not daily), yards and houses more run down looking. My first house was a mobile home on a pad so i don't feel "too good" to have those neighbors but it's a big perception issue.
So this is probably shitty landlords more than anything else.
All the arguments against increasing density in Single Family Home only zones are ultimately 99.999% anti-poor bias, with some element of racism too. Unit type and tenure (owner/renter) are not determinants of crime, etc. Poverty is the issue.
I don't think that's fair. That's certainly true for some people, but I wouldn't put the % that high. Maybe people just prefer a quiet neighborhood with fewer people and don't want that changed? There's many possible reasons. Some that correlated to anti-poor bias or racism, but other that aren't.
So they can go buy an acreage somewhere. Overwhelmingly, people don't want increased density because they are afraid of people who don't have the same economic power as themselves and only want to be surrounded by people of the same or higher status and wealth. Governments spend millions around the world clearing away the encampments of the homeless (when it would be cheaper to build housing for them) because it makes the economically more fortunate uncomfortable just to *see* the very poor. We have a long legacy of Victorian attitudes that people are poor because they are lazy, bad, or evil or whatever.
Like honestly, a freaking duplex is no problem, and should have no impact on your property values or state of your neighborhood. I live in a neighbourhood of mixed houses and duplexes, and even a few quadplexes and there's no widespread squalor or disorder, or any disorder tbh. Mixed housing forms make more diverse, better neighbourhoods.
Savannah does some thing with the homeless that isn’t monsterous. There is a large area under a raised highway which is designated a sanitary camp, and where most homeless “live”. The city drops off and regularly maintains Bathrooms showers and running water. Social workers routinely visit the area, because that’s where all the people who need them are. Same with charities religious groups. There are problems of course. But it’s better than nothing, or active hostility.
zepherin on
+1
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
While I'm sure that is 1 factor, it's certainly not the end all be all. It's an incredibly complex issue.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
I live in the Vancouver area, just outside the City of Vancouver. No one has to convince people to buy condo's here because this is the current cheapest freehold house that isn't a floathome or on leasehold land in City of Vancouver:
While I'm sure that is 1 factor, it's certainly not the end all be all. It's an incredibly complex issue.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
I live in the Vancouver area, just outside the City of Vancouver. No one has to convince people to buy condo's here because this is the current cheapest freehold house that isn't a floathome or on leasehold land in City of Vancouver:
Speaking of places that are on well water... anybody know what kind of costs are involved in getting converted to city water?
My new place has a well because it was built back when this area was largely undeveloped, 20 years ago. I've got a water conditioner for the acid and am about to get a water softener for the hardness introduced by the conditioner, and probably a filter so my toilets don't fill up with sediment and I'd really just rather not deal with any of that and also not lose water when the power goes out for a day...
There are multiple subdivisions going up down the road from me in both directions, so I assume the city's got to have run water lines along the road by now, right? But I'm ~100m down a private road. I guess if I wanted to get on city water I'd have to convince my neighbors on said private road to let me pay to have someone run water (and, ideally, sewer) lines along it? Is that, like, a thousands of dollars kind of cost or tens of thousands of dollars kind of cost?
It's a tens of thousands of dollars project. Running a line and sewer from a residence to a city hookup, figure around $100 to $150 per linear foot from a contractor. But the city's going to have to run a main and sewer up your private road, and it being a private road means you'll likely have to pay for that. Along with the hook up from your house to the main. The only way to make it less expensive would be to get your neighbors all in to share the cost.
matt has a problem on
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Speaking of places that are on well water... anybody know what kind of costs are involved in getting converted to city water?
My new place has a well because it was built back when this area was largely undeveloped, 20 years ago. I've got a water conditioner for the acid and am about to get a water softener for the hardness introduced by the conditioner, and probably a filter so my toilets don't fill up with sediment and I'd really just rather not deal with any of that and also not lose water when the power goes out for a day...
There are multiple subdivisions going up down the road from me in both directions, so I assume the city's got to have run water lines along the road by now, right? But I'm ~100m down a private road. I guess if I wanted to get on city water I'd have to convince my neighbors on said private road to let me pay to have someone run water (and, ideally, sewer) lines along it? Is that, like, a thousands of dollars kind of cost or tens of thousands of dollars kind of cost?
just built a house in a new development. my cut of the water/sewer infrastructure was 20K (USD).
It's a tens of thousands of dollars project. Running a line and sewer from a residence to a city hookup, figure around $100 to $150 per linear foot from a contractor. But the city's going to have to run a main and sewer up your private road, and it being a private road means you'll likely have to pay for that. Along with the hook up from your house to the main. The only way to make it less expensive would be to get your neighbors all in to share the cost.
You also might not even be able to get the utilities to agree to do it, even if you pay the cost, unless all the other houses on the road agree to also connect up.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Well, there's only two other houses on the road, and one of them is on the corner with the main road. So not many people to convince, but not many people to split the cost, either.
While I'm sure that is 1 factor, it's certainly not the end all be all. It's an incredibly complex issue.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
I live in the Vancouver area, just outside the City of Vancouver. No one has to convince people to buy condo's here because this is the current cheapest freehold house that isn't a floathome or on leasehold land in City of Vancouver:
Leasehold, and ground rent is such bullshit. I'm surprised Canada allows that.
And in popular areas, Condos are going to be the natural progression. And if we want cheap housing, in desirable areas it has to be condos.
In Vancouver area there's a couple of types of leasehold, one is places built on land owned by the City, and also adjoining the city and the University of BC (which is not part of the municipality of Vancouver), is a Musquem first nation lands (I'm not sure if it's an actual reserve or just owned by the First Nation) that has houses that are leased.
Condos don't have to just mean towers, it's important to note. There's lots of different building forms. I used to live in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver, basically one of the best neighbourhoods in the country, and most of south Kits looks like single family homes, but in fact each of the buildings is 4-6 units. You can densify single family neighbourhoods without going for towers.
:so_raven:
+3
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Also in the case of Condos, Duplexes and apartments we can definitely build them better than we do as far as the soundproofing and vibration on adjoining walls. We just don't because its easier to go cheap because who gives a fuck about the tenants.
While I'm sure that is 1 factor, it's certainly not the end all be all. It's an incredibly complex issue.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
I live in the Vancouver area, just outside the City of Vancouver. No one has to convince people to buy condo's here because this is the current cheapest freehold house that isn't a floathome or on leasehold land in City of Vancouver:
Leasehold, and ground rent is such bullshit. I'm surprised Canada allows that.
And in popular areas, Condos are going to be the natural progression. And if we want cheap housing, in desirable areas it has to be condos.
In Vancouver area there's a couple of types of leasehold, one is places built on land owned by the City, and also adjoining the city and the University of BC (which is not part of the municipality of Vancouver), is a Musquem first nation lands (I'm not sure if it's an actual reserve or just owned by the First Nation) that has houses that are leased.
Condos don't have to just mean towers, it's important to note. There's lots of different building forms. I used to live in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver, basically one of the best neighbourhoods in the country, and most of south Kits looks like single family homes, but in fact each of the buildings is 4-6 units. You can densify single family neighbourhoods without going for towers.
We have a new street of condos near me that's like this. 4 units a building. They're still around $150/sq. ft., which is high here, but since they're all aroudn 1200 sq ft, they fall into the "is about the same as rent" category.
Also in the case of Condos, Duplexes and apartments we can definitely build them better than we do as far as the soundproofing and vibration on adjoining walls. We just don't because its easier to go cheap because who gives a fuck about the tenants.
It should be a requirement to use Type X drywall and insulation On shared walls, it is not but it should be. Type X is fire rated, is thicker and the composition is more massive. But because of that it deadens sound better than soundproofing drywall. And it’s fire rated so it will Slow or stop spread of fire. And because of that, if you look at the composition of some of the 5/8 inch drywall it is TypeX with fancy branding.
@CptHamilton try calling the city at any rate and at least start asking questions.
Who knows, maybe there's some other builds in planning that are pushing the infrastructure closer(?)
I’m leaving you batsignalled.
With checking the city. Check the municipal water master plan. They often wring concessions out of developers for municipal water and sewer to existing homes in the area and charge a “front foot tax” to the new buildings for it. As someone who pays $89 quarterly until
*checks documents*
2035
They may already be bringing it in.
Also do you belong to an HOA (it sounds like no most HOAs aren’t on well water), but the water and more importantly sewage is a thing a group could better negotiate. Might also be the county or state who does permits and developments. And the developer is going to ask for exceptions. They all do.
Hell show up to a permitting meeting and be a fly in the ointment until they bring you services.
One of the fun surprises of buying a new build was that we'll be paying $55 a month for quite some time for the water hookup.
Also not just brand new builds, we bought a 2 year old house back in 2001 and had monthly payments for sewer hookup that was paid over a 5 year period, close to $100 a month on top of the monthly sewer usage bill. Every house/lot in the neighborhood had a $7000 bill to pay. It was disclosed by the seller, I think by law which was nice to know going in and not get an unexpected bill.
This whole housing thing has really cranked my anxiety and stress to the max. We just talked with some loan folks about locking in rates and it's not great. Banks know rates are skyrocketing right now and even 60 day locks have pretty bad rates around 3.6%-3.8%. Throw in some have points involved and if the lock expires you can't use that lender for 30 days. We knew the September 2021 date they gave us seemed ambitious, which is why we were targeting Christmas and a max rate of 3.4%. They're telling us late march/early april, but no guarantees on any more delays.
The thing that frustrates me the most is that we didn't really have any other options. Our options were:
A) Stay put in our almost 1,000sqft apartment. Hybrid has been making this really tough, with constant "do you need your 2 monitors? I have a meeting." "Can you move to the living room" (which is right next to the office and doesn't help at all if we both have meetings. I had thought of solutions like a murphy bed, but you'd also need a hidden desk and that's hard to do with 2 monitors. We like to cook but can't really fit 2 people in the kitchen at a time unless we basically stay still haha. But I suppose it was an option we could have taken though.
Move to a larger apartment. Sadly, there are not many 3 bedroom apartments made. And those that are available are in the $3,600-4,100 per month range. That's an insane markup over 2 bedroom pricing, for only 200-400 more square feet.
C) Rent a house. We did look into this. Weirdly a ton of homes/townhomes that were listed for rent had no animal clauses. Not even dogs or cats. So we didn't move very far with this search since we have 2 cats.
D) Find a house in our price range. Tried this, and every house in the $600's that we looked at, went for ten's of thousands over asking. Additionally since most don't have any public transportation near by, we'd probably have to get another vehicle, which adds to the cost. Also you had to deal with no inspection, waiving appraisal, and all the other anti-buyer clauses.
E) New Build. This is what we ended up doing since it's near public transportation and didn't have to deal with the "bidding war" that was going on. But pricing was 100K over what we wanted to spend and now we're in the fun "wait till it's done" game with interest rates which may end up pushing us over the house poor threshold.
I keep pushing my anxiety down, as we can at least make it work or sell sooner than we'd like if not. I just feel bad for folks who maybe don't have the luxury of 2 career people and no kids. I can't imagine trying to also afford kid stuff with this mess.
Posts
For me I won't say that's not entirely without merrit, but we chose this area because there were not multistory units in downtown.
But fine, times change. However would like the city to do actual urban planning then and think about parking and pedestrian/bike paths. Not just give developers a bunch of money and tax breaks then shrug when population triples in an area with no grocery store in walking distance.
Which makes the view from our back door feel less private, but its the main source of light in the living room, since we are in a duplex and lack windows on one whole side of the house. So I wanna keep my curtains open when possible.
We were planning on getting out there in the next few weeks and and just start thinking of what we wanted, but this puts replacing the fence higher up on my to-do list. Do any of you have major fence opinions? I'm just collecting company names and yelp reviews at the moment, but I'm kinda dreading talking to either of our neighbors or the HOA about this. We probably wont ask them to contribute, which should make things easier (if more expensive) but I think a taller fence with a lattice top would be aces.
The other option is to just temporarily attach lattice to the front of the current fence. Its already old though and I'm not sure how much life it has left, and it feels like adding even light weight to it might shorten its lifetime, I'm not sure if my instinct on that is off.
What you have now looks fine aside from the age.
Lattice might be a good option if you want taller, but do measure it out to see just how tall it will be; especially if there's terrain variations (hills).
MoCo has done a lot. they have protected farmland and watersheds, there are minimum affordable (for MoCo in all fairness) unit goals for any new developments, and there is as you noted a significant incentive for builders to do high density townhomes. Every new build area is mixed use single family/high density, and it shows. They also have planning in place for the next 20 years (give or take) of housing development. you can see it all on the planning board website.
The yard slopes towards the drainage (as it should) but overall is otherwise flat. I dont think I want to go much taller, but there's a shooting range on the other side of those houses, so we'll also have major noise reduction loss from this, unfortunately. Getting some solid wood up for sure has some oppressive qualities, but blocking off the reverberations when someone is going ham with the long rifles is something I gotta consider as well.
I think some kind of interesting top is a good way to go. I'd skip the boring pre-purchase X or + shaped lattice if you can because there are way cooler things out there. For privacy, it doesn't take much to make it feel less like you're in a zoo. When we rebuilt the fence around our back garden (which has a fairly frequently used sidewalk along it) I replace the top foot or so with this pattern, and it has been a nice way to have some separation without feeling totally disconnected and unapproachable.
We've got a big picture window that's 3 feet from the same sidewalk and higher, so people walking by look up into the living room if you have the blinds up (then act like you're the weirdo if you make eye contact). While I planted some shrubs to soften that in a couple years, I also just put privacy film on the bottom 2-feet so that people's heads aren't going by along the bottom of the window. Maybe some combination of that would work for your layout.
For noise, I remember reading that anything that isn't completely solid isn't really going to do much, technically. Sound propogates really well through even tiny gaps so most things people do as noise reduction from streets isn't effective (hedges, slat fences, trees) because that tiny space between the slats or leaves is just letting it all through - like a door that's cracked vs fully closed. I think there is some evidence that it makes it feel quiter though, so maybe placebo effect is a good way to go... but I don't know how well that will work rifle shots.
Nothing truly will help with the rifle shots when outside, but we are lucky that the windows in the house are all brand new and well insulated. They do make essentially solid fences, in the horizontal slat variety, that I think might buffer the slight echo of it we get on the back door sometimes. The sound actually leaks into the house the most through the chimney, though, to your point.
I'll probably have to cross my fingers and hope that as development spreads like wildfire 'round here, they sell the land and move on, but that seems like a 10 year from now thing.
We are lucky that, with the drainage there, and how far the fences/yards on the other side stretch back, and the racket from the range meaning people dont often just chill outside, its still pretty private back there.
They've opened up quite a bit of commercial land for residential use in my suburb, which is now filled with condos and townhouses. Which would be fine except the council has done nothing to improve the infrastructure. The 3 roads in and out have always been insanely busy, and going grocery shopping after work or at lunch is a fool's errand. I am hoping after lockdown we can continue to work from home, because I dont see how I'd actually be able to get to/from work or do shopping.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
The big advantage to vinyl fences is really in the lifespan.
Personally I think a wood fence looks better but odds are it's not going to last nearly as long unless you're super diligent about maintenance.
And even then odds are at least some of the posts are going to go to shit, there's nothing you can do to stop that, and once even a few do all it takes is a decent wind/thunderstorm to make entire panels decide to take a trip.
Exactly. It looks nice and will continue to look nice until it all snaps, which should be a decade or two out.
Your township may very well be doing nothing but encouraging the growth with nothing else, but unless you're the type that goes to all the city council meetings or read the minutes of all the meetings how would you even know? Like it or not, development and implementation of services can takes ages (especially in suburban-Chicago's patchwork of tiny townships).
So this is probably shitty landlords more than anything else.
All the arguments against increasing density in Single Family Home only zones are ultimately 99.999% anti-poor bias, with some element of racism too. Unit type and tenure (owner/renter) are not determinants of crime, etc. Poverty is the issue.
I don't think that's fair. That's certainly true for some people, but I wouldn't put the % that high. Maybe people just prefer a quiet neighborhood with fewer people and don't want that changed? There's many possible reasons. Some that correlated to anti-poor bias or racism, but other that aren't.
That's called rural, doing it in a metro is pure luxury.
So they can go buy an acreage somewhere. Overwhelmingly, people don't want increased density because they are afraid of people who don't have the same economic power as themselves and only want to be surrounded by people of the same or higher status and wealth. Governments spend millions around the world clearing away the encampments of the homeless (when it would be cheaper to build housing for them) because it makes the economically more fortunate uncomfortable just to *see* the very poor. We have a long legacy of Victorian attitudes that people are poor because they are lazy, bad, or evil or whatever.
Like honestly, a freaking duplex is no problem, and should have no impact on your property values or state of your neighborhood. I live in a neighbourhood of mixed houses and duplexes, and even a few quadplexes and there's no widespread squalor or disorder, or any disorder tbh. Mixed housing forms make more diverse, better neighbourhoods.
Not going to break out the wiki links, but currently I have a suburban house and responsible for the family "farm" in southern IL. Here's the volunteer fire station for that area where they use Fire Numbers instead of your address:
I'm sure they do what they can, but if you're on fire or hurt yourself, I'd start praying to the Nine Divines before waiting on them or an ambulance. And this isn't even that rural. Oh, and it's on ground water; no city plumbing.
That is not the same as a neighborhood where I can still walk to the Starbucks or library but have a driveway.
Like I said earlier, it's not as much having mixed development, it's that especially in the US it tends to be done poorly. Just clear a few old homes or abandoned shops and drop in a 100+ families. Same with the "planned communities" that are just miles of meandering roads with no sidewalks or bike paths. All car-focused only, which is a subtle/not subtle class divide plus just being terrible for everyone.
Are we/should we headed into sci-fi future of miles-high buildings? Maybe, but hopefully they'll put a godddamn park in the middle so your Slow-Mo fall looks nice.
As for duplexes and townhomes, it just depends. We got a townhome because it was our only option. But if I had a choice, I'd take a detached home 10 out to 10. That doesn't mean I need 10 acres, or even 1 acre. But a shared wall puts folks off, and those that don't have to have it, would choose not to. And it's not an American thing. There was an article talking about cities in Canada that have the same issue. Canadians want single family detached homes and cities like Vancouver were struggling to convince folks of condos.
That would be convincing if zoning did not make single family housing mandatory, and duplexes and townhouses illegal. You don't need to make things people overwhelmingly want mandatory and things no one want illegal.
I live in the Vancouver area, just outside the City of Vancouver. No one has to convince people to buy condo's here because this is the current cheapest freehold house that isn't a floathome or on leasehold land in City of Vancouver:
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/23921509/518-e-cordova-street-vancouver
Savannah does some thing with the homeless that isn’t monsterous. There is a large area under a raised highway which is designated a sanitary camp, and where most homeless “live”. The city drops off and regularly maintains Bathrooms showers and running water. Social workers routinely visit the area, because that’s where all the people who need them are. Same with charities religious groups. There are problems of course. But it’s better than nothing, or active hostility.
I swear I saw that place in an episode of Holmes on Homes. :P
And in popular areas, Condos are going to be the natural progression. And if we want cheap housing, in desirable areas it has to be condos.
My new place has a well because it was built back when this area was largely undeveloped, 20 years ago. I've got a water conditioner for the acid and am about to get a water softener for the hardness introduced by the conditioner, and probably a filter so my toilets don't fill up with sediment and I'd really just rather not deal with any of that and also not lose water when the power goes out for a day...
There are multiple subdivisions going up down the road from me in both directions, so I assume the city's got to have run water lines along the road by now, right? But I'm ~100m down a private road. I guess if I wanted to get on city water I'd have to convince my neighbors on said private road to let me pay to have someone run water (and, ideally, sewer) lines along it? Is that, like, a thousands of dollars kind of cost or tens of thousands of dollars kind of cost?
just built a house in a new development. my cut of the water/sewer infrastructure was 20K (USD).
You also might not even be able to get the utilities to agree to do it, even if you pay the cost, unless all the other houses on the road agree to also connect up.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
In Vancouver area there's a couple of types of leasehold, one is places built on land owned by the City, and also adjoining the city and the University of BC (which is not part of the municipality of Vancouver), is a Musquem first nation lands (I'm not sure if it's an actual reserve or just owned by the First Nation) that has houses that are leased.
Condos don't have to just mean towers, it's important to note. There's lots of different building forms. I used to live in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver, basically one of the best neighbourhoods in the country, and most of south Kits looks like single family homes, but in fact each of the buildings is 4-6 units. You can densify single family neighbourhoods without going for towers.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
We have a new street of condos near me that's like this. 4 units a building. They're still around $150/sq. ft., which is high here, but since they're all aroudn 1200 sq ft, they fall into the "is about the same as rent" category.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Who knows, maybe there's some other builds in planning that are pushing the infrastructure closer(?)
I’m leaving you batsignalled.
With checking the city. Check the municipal water master plan. They often wring concessions out of developers for municipal water and sewer to existing homes in the area and charge a “front foot tax” to the new buildings for it. As someone who pays $89 quarterly until
*checks documents*
2035
They may already be bringing it in.
Also do you belong to an HOA (it sounds like no most HOAs aren’t on well water), but the water and more importantly sewage is a thing a group could better negotiate. Might also be the county or state who does permits and developments. And the developer is going to ask for exceptions. They all do.
Hell show up to a permitting meeting and be a fly in the ointment until they bring you services.
Also not just brand new builds, we bought a 2 year old house back in 2001 and had monthly payments for sewer hookup that was paid over a 5 year period, close to $100 a month on top of the monthly sewer usage bill. Every house/lot in the neighborhood had a $7000 bill to pay. It was disclosed by the seller, I think by law which was nice to know going in and not get an unexpected bill.
The thing that frustrates me the most is that we didn't really have any other options. Our options were:
A) Stay put in our almost 1,000sqft apartment. Hybrid has been making this really tough, with constant "do you need your 2 monitors? I have a meeting." "Can you move to the living room" (which is right next to the office and doesn't help at all if we both have meetings. I had thought of solutions like a murphy bed, but you'd also need a hidden desk and that's hard to do with 2 monitors. We like to cook but can't really fit 2 people in the kitchen at a time unless we basically stay still haha. But I suppose it was an option we could have taken though.
C) Rent a house. We did look into this. Weirdly a ton of homes/townhomes that were listed for rent had no animal clauses. Not even dogs or cats. So we didn't move very far with this search since we have 2 cats.
D) Find a house in our price range. Tried this, and every house in the $600's that we looked at, went for ten's of thousands over asking. Additionally since most don't have any public transportation near by, we'd probably have to get another vehicle, which adds to the cost. Also you had to deal with no inspection, waiving appraisal, and all the other anti-buyer clauses.
E) New Build. This is what we ended up doing since it's near public transportation and didn't have to deal with the "bidding war" that was going on. But pricing was 100K over what we wanted to spend and now we're in the fun "wait till it's done" game with interest rates which may end up pushing us over the house poor threshold.
I keep pushing my anxiety down, as we can at least make it work or sell sooner than we'd like if not. I just feel bad for folks who maybe don't have the luxury of 2 career people and no kids. I can't imagine trying to also afford kid stuff with this mess.