Pancakes by fiat
In my previous post, I wrote about how city agents acting beyond what they should be doing create pancake architecture and how it creates aesthetically displeasing architecture. Now I will go into how a city can pigeonhole architects and developers into pancake architecture and how that increases the costs of construction for arbitrary reasons. So back to the Fremont Small Lot Design Guidelines we go!
In DGL 2.2.3, the city prescribes setbacks from one house to another in one story and two story situations, with a helpful diagram on the side. It states that between houses, one story elements must be 10 feet apart, one story to two story elements must be 12 feet apart, and two story to two story elements must be 15 feet apart.
In a situation where you're trying to maximize densities like, say, during a housing shortage, exercises are run to try to maximize square footages per acre of land you have to build on. This allows you to get to house sizes demanded by the market as efficiently as possible. With these design guidelines, however, we quickly find that the most efficient design is to have first floors 10 feet away from each other, then step the second floors back 2.5 feet from the first floor so they're 15 feet away from each other.
Structurally, this means instead of the force vectors going straight down from the second to first floors, they need to stagger. Theoretically, one could introduce an interior wall to transfer the loads, but that would result in spatially awkward areas inside the house. So extra framing and beams need to be introduced to transfer the load horizontally, not to mention the additional possible water penetration, potentially adding tens of thousands of dollars of cost per house. Utilizing the 15 foot separation all the way down, on the other hand, equals a loss of density. Losing five feet per lot for an extremely low value gain in side yards means that with 45 foot wide lots, you would lose one house for every nine houses along a street. With prices as of this writing, this would amount to well over a hundred thousand dollars in lost opportunity averaged per house.
Two reasons are given for this guideline: "to minimize the appearance of one continuous wall of building along the street, and create more usable sideyards." The first reason actually has some kind of public benefit rationale to it, as far as aesthetics go. However, there are other ways to do this like stepping houses forward and backward to create undulation down the street. To prescribe a bad method for all developers to follow is not only a bad idea, the underlying sentiment that aesthetics matter more than affordability should be a choice left to suppliers and consumers. If buyers want to pay more for aesthetics, they will throw their money at the people who supply it. The second reason has no public benefit rationale. Side yards are completely private to the homeowner. Usable side yards have seen consumer demand, but in houses with no rear yards. Houses that fall under these guidelines all have backyards, a minimum of 15 feet to the property lines, as prescribed under DGL 2.2.4. When people have a backyard, very few are willing to pay the tens of thousands to six figures required to achieve a minimally usable side yard.
So why force people to pay for it anyway?
In a situation where you're trying to maximize densities like, say, during a housing shortage, exercises are run to try to maximize square footages per acre of land you have to build on. This allows you to get to house sizes demanded by the market as efficiently as possible. With these design guidelines, however, we quickly find that the most efficient design is to have first floors 10 feet away from each other, then step the second floors back 2.5 feet from the first floor so they're 15 feet away from each other.
 |
| Basic diagrams of force vectors. The more lateral movements required the more costly. |
Two reasons are given for this guideline: "to minimize the appearance of one continuous wall of building along the street, and create more usable sideyards." The first reason actually has some kind of public benefit rationale to it, as far as aesthetics go. However, there are other ways to do this like stepping houses forward and backward to create undulation down the street. To prescribe a bad method for all developers to follow is not only a bad idea, the underlying sentiment that aesthetics matter more than affordability should be a choice left to suppliers and consumers. If buyers want to pay more for aesthetics, they will throw their money at the people who supply it. The second reason has no public benefit rationale. Side yards are completely private to the homeowner. Usable side yards have seen consumer demand, but in houses with no rear yards. Houses that fall under these guidelines all have backyards, a minimum of 15 feet to the property lines, as prescribed under DGL 2.2.4. When people have a backyard, very few are willing to pay the tens of thousands to six figures required to achieve a minimally usable side yard.
So why force people to pay for it anyway?
Comments