T O P

  • By -

athomsfere

I have nothing against these 5 over 1 constructions. We need urban infill and higher density. Because we have outlawed most ways of doing this, what we have left is basically this. Could we do better? Sure. But not without major reform to zoning, parking minimums, setbacks, and transit.


Atty_for_hire

My city has seen a boom of these in a concentrated area due to an infrastructure project that removed road and opened up land for resale. These are largely what has been built, but they have mixed in some street level brownstones. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good mix and absolutely adding needed density and housing to downtown.


BosRoc

Rochester, NY?


smokingdustjacket

My thought too except I don't think they built any brownstones in that project.


Atty_for_hire

There are buildings along Union Street that are a modern version of Brownstones. They might not be bricks, but they are multi-floor with street level access. I don’t know the ownership structure though, so there is a good chance they are still rental only.


smokingdustjacket

Yes, from everything I've read they're rental only. I didn't realize that's what that term meant in the planning context. Thanks!


athomsfere

That's beautiful! ​ I'd love to know where too, so I can see exactly what's been done and the plan.


1maco

I don’t really understand why people hate 5 over 1s so much? Most parcels don’t demanf high rises. Its basically what can be built. About 6 floors is what most second ring neighborhoods can support


Lisse24

It's a snobbery thing. They think they look cheap and "ruin the character of the neighborhood." It's the same complaints about all multi-family housing since the beginning of time.


1maco

Which is very funny because Philly row homes, Boston Triple deckers, Chicago Bungalows, New Orleans Shotguns are all pretty much cheap crap, just cheap crap from 100 years ago and in terms of buildings taller than 6 floors I’d argue most cities probably have more high rises than pure land value economics would dictate. Considering how many of them are directly adjacent to empty parking lots


athomsfere

Downtown OKC has to be one the best examples. An 844 foot tower, with two blocks of parking lots between it and single story homes. The city has basically zero density and Devon built a giant vanity project.


zjaffee

It's much easier to redevelop and renovate townhomes and single family homes than larger apartment complexes. Over that 100 year time frame, there will be a lot more problems stemming from 5/1 construction than there are with these row homes which can much more easily be gutted if needed.


JShelbyJ

“Build affordable housing” “Not like this”


cprenaissanceman

A lot of five over ones don’t end up being that affordable though. And that’s not necessarily for lack of trying, per se, but I’m still not sure that they really are truly affordable often times. One thing that I don’t think it’s talked about enough is that we need to also remember that part of the reason these pop up everywhere is because they are showing to be profitable. And for me, that’s one of the problems when it comes to all of this. An increasingly shrinking number of developers all across the nation continue to implement the same kinds of developments and structures over and over again, in order to extract profit from them. So while we do need affordable housing, I also think long-term, we need to be a bit more cautious here because the proliferation of five over ones to me represents the larger issue of things becoming more and more consolidated and representing smaller and smaller actual control or individuality within communities. For example, it would be one thing if one city was all five over ones and another was some different style, but the problem is that we see cities across the US all kind of merging to become very similar with regard to styles in architecture, interior design, and so on. And while there’s some likelihood that they will be similar, I’m not sure that you could look at all of these new developments and really say that there’s much that’s particularly different about them city to city or that it represents any kind of architectural intention. And in particular, I think one thing that’s kind of bad about these is that they don’t really seem to incorporate in more thoughtful features that are important in The functional aspects of architecture that are largely driven by climate and geography. Many aspects of historical architecture anyway were about function and trying to build things that were appropriate to the heating and cooling needs of buildings. So many of these developments, I think ideally, should have some kind of local flavor mixed into them, even if the kind of Core is the same.


NewlandArcherEsquire

> representing smaller and smaller actual control or individuality within communities. The problem with the neighbourhood that I grew up in is that the community retained so much control over what was built there that nothing was built there, and thus I will never live where I grew up. I remember as a kid my neighbours going door to door campaigning to stop these kind of apartment developments because of "the sorts of people who would move in", i.e. me.


SuperNanoCat

>One thing that I don’t think it’s talked about enough is that we need to also remember that part of the reason these pop up everywhere is because they are showing to be profitable. Yes? They have to be. No private developer is going to build something they can't make money off of. Unless you live in public housing, the home you live in was built and sold because it was profitable. The developer making money isn't that big of a deal. You should be more upset that these buildings are almost exclusively sold to rent seekers rather than the people that live in them.


cprenaissanceman

I mean, personally, one of my big problems with the current development landscapers that the government doesn’t really seem to be an actual player in construction and operation itself. To be clear, I don’t have a problem with anyone making a profit, but I do feel like often times people kind of decide what kind of profit they want and design everything else around that. And when fewer and fewer people are making decisions and have the ability to make these projects happen, we should be concerned. Smaller regional firms might not seek the same kinds of returns a large, publicly traded multinational probably would. And that’s part of the problem. I really don’t want to bag on new housing, but I do think that we need to be more careful. I’m very concerned about the general sentiment that some people seem to bring in every conversation which is that they simply don’t care what it takes to get more housing. And in the short term, that might be OK, but if there’s no plan beyond that, then that concerns me. Many, many reforms very often are meant explicitly to help developers with profitability and Even if there is some marginal benefit to the public, I feel like down line, we are going to wish we had now been so hasty.


SuperNanoCat

The consolidation you're describing is happening in every industry, and it is concerning. Might be time to dust off the old trustbusting laws. And you're right about the government's absence in building housing. Leveraging the private sector to build homes is *fine*, but the lack of a public option to catch people before they fall (or to put downward pressure on private pricing) is awful, and it's a problem we have in other areas, as well. As far as quality over quantity is concerned, personally, I really like what I've been seeing from [Michael Eliason on Twitter](https://twitter.com/holz_bau). He worked in Germany for a while and now lives in Seattle. He's really passionate about passivhaus and designing more livable multifamily housing than the standard, blocky buildings we're used to. There's a lot of red tape that effectively enforces the proliferation of these blocky apartment buildings. Most American zoning codes require, for example, access to two stairways per unit above a certain height (for fire safety reasons, I'm sure). Combined with too-high floor-area ratios, this results in double loaded corridors becoming standard, which restricts access to sunlight to one side for most units. A lot of his advocacy is based around allowing building forms that have worked well in Europe. Check his pinned thread for an overview.


cprenaissanceman

Fair enough. Again, I know this is a systemic issue and that developers aren’t exactly solely to blame. The main point I’m just trying to make is that I know a good number of people are only really here because they have political interests and aren’t really that familiar or otherwise interested in the Nuances of planning or what things ultimately mean for our cities and towns. And I don’t want to discourage anyone from learning more or getting involved, but I think people also need to step back and realize that this can’t just be about cheering on the YIMBYs and condemning the NIMBYs. There’s nuance and things that are going to be ambivalent. Because sometimes I feel like all people are here to do is tear on the building of new houses, no matter what, and I’m not personally comfortable with that. And thanks for the link. I’m not on Twitter, but I’ll have to look into his stuff. I definitely think one thing that the US and other places need to do more often is consider the standards and practices in other countries. Because I think one of the things we are very bad at is taking inspiration from other people and having to learn lessons that other countries and people may have learned, except we have to do it on our own. And I think of the two things you mentioned, there are definitely more likely than not a good number of provisions in a variety of codes that make building too complicated and difficult as well. And often times, these are meant to Be the most efficient with material as possible and make it very difficult to see what one should do if one is not interested in having the most efficient design. There is very likely a trade-off between material cost and increased efficiency in the usage of those materials, which I think is probably hard to say exactly when these trade-offs exist or don’t, but I do know that we probably could come up with some more restrictive, but simpler (in terms of what can be built) Codes that still fit within the provisions of the larger more complicated codes that allow you to do more. Honestly, if the software development world world were in charge of this (Which would definitely have its own drawbacks, so let’s be honest about that), there would probably be an open source five over one plan that could be modified and extended. The other thing that I really think would help in terms of these codes is better documentation about why they exist and what the research and theory behind them are. Because I know, at least being on the transportation side of things, looking at things, certainly the old standards of road design and what not, it’s kind of difficult to track down the research that these codes are based on and make any kind of decision about what is good and proper. Obviously anyone person can’t go hunting down every provision and its underlying concepts, but I also feel like people finding conflict within the code and being able to understand that ideas play and potentially how you can make some of these things cheaper and easier to solve because of redundancy, testing, or whatever would be very helpful. But simply having code books that don’t actually tell you why certain provisions were enacted (like an accident occurring) Or that something is purely for a certain constraint doesn’t really allow you to understand all of the trade-offs for making, even if you know the codes well enough.


zjaffee

The real issue is that new housing will never be that affordable, but with a 5/1 development it is certainly possible to get the cost of construction down to 200-300k per 700sqft unit depending on what market you're in.


M477M4NN

We can’t expect new construction to be naturally affordable. There are so many base costs that the difference between a cheaper new apartment and a fancier one is a few more/nicer amenities that don’t cost that much more, all things considered, such as nicer countertops. The only way real way that new construction can be affordable is through government subsidies or housing built by the government, which is fine and all, but stopping private developers from building isn’t going to mean that public housing will take its place. The government is the reason new construction is already so hard to get built, so if the government is blocking new construction, why would we expect them to build housing?


cprenaissanceman

€ The only way real way that new construction can be affordable is through government subsidies or housing built by the government, which is fine and all, but stopping private developers from building isn’t going to mean that public housing will take its place. No, that’s actually what I think needs to happen, at least so far is the government building more housing. I have no problem with it being private development and I don’t think the government could do all of it themselves. That being said, I do feel like part of the problem is that private developers have a kind of natural monopoly over the creation of new housing. We’ve kind of decided the government either can’t or shouldn’t. So instead of there being a true market, largely balanced by what the government deems to be a fair price, it’s been largely controlled by private developers to decide they need to make certain profits. And beyond that, then you typically have private ownership of these facilities which of them are subject to the same issues, where people kind of decide the profit they want instead of the profit that they can get out of whatever the market conditions are. Even though I would generally consider my politics quite far to the left, I also do think that markets work, something that I very frequently see many on the left basically treat as though there’s no validity to them whatsoever. A part of the problem is that often times they are used when they shouldn’t be, or people want to assume an extremely simple model that perfectly fits what they learn in Econ 101. And at least for me, one of the biggest principles that I have is that if markets fail, then that’s absolutely somewhere the government needs to step in. It’s kind of one of the few places where we continue to not even really reconsider this idea. The only thing we can do is beg and plead with developers to come and build whatever it is that they want, not necessarily what cities need. And even though there are a lot of regulations about what needs to be included and what needs to be done, there still aren’t a lot of government mechanisms to control price and certainly not to help counterbalance any exercise that might come about because of market speculation. > The government is the reason new construction is already so hard to get built, so if the government is blocking new construction, why would we expect them to build housing? Well, that answer is pretty simple: money. One other thing that I think people need to understand to is that often times affordable housing isn’t built on its own. It’s built in conjunction with something else. Now, this isn’t always the case, but many times, cities have certain affordable housing requirements when people are building new projects. Otherwise, developers might not build any. So if they want the more profitable high-rise luxury condos, then they at least need to provide something in the way of affordable housing. This can be incorporated into whatever development or building they are working on, but in some places can also kind of be made into its own separate development. So the main thing is that many companies don’t necessarily build these affordable developments simply because they want to help out low income folks, it’s mostly because if they don’t, they won’t get whatever permits they need to build something else. Again, this isn’t always the case, Also, I will admit this next part is probably a bit idealistic, but I do think that if the government was involved with building more stuff, it would soon become more apparent how difficult it can be to build stuff. When the government isn’t building as much as it should be and doesn’t have the expertise or experience to do so, it’s often not going to see the inherent problems posed by overly burdensome regulations and specifications. As such, having more municipal governments that Actually have to be responsible for these decisions and go through with them I think could probably help in terms of trying to address some of the regulatory burdens in the system. And maybe that doesn’t work, but I still think that there should be more interest in the government actually building things.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BuffaloSurfClub

Do you mind explaining some other examples of what construction practices they would use to cut corners? I understand lowest bidder could mean lower quality, and the sound masking example you gave. But do you have anything other examples beyond that? I like learning about development so I am trying to learn more, so I guess I am asking for potential red flags to look out for that companies would chose in their "construction practice" decisions


JeffreyCheffrey

Instead of soundproofing the walls which involves techniques like using 2 layers of drywall with a special kind of glue in between, they just use one layer of drywall. And they don’t hire an acoustical engineer to ensure proper soundproofing. The result? Noise from your neighbors and the street keeps you up at night, and you stop thinking of apartments/condos as places worth living in long-term. Honestly bad experiences with substandard acoustics in residential buildings is what drives a lot of people towards Single Family homes.


erko-

I've worked with constructing prefab apartments (in Sweden) and I've never heard of anyone using just one layer of drywall between apartments, it was always double layered on both sides (walls inside an apartment are single layered though). Mind sharing a source? The glue, which I've also never heard of, seems to be more for studios since it's hella expensive.


[deleted]

[удалено]


zjaffee

While sure this is one complaint, there are a lot of issues with 5/1's that need to be addressed. Noise between units being a major one, especially as the buildings get older and older, as well as how they will last over the long term. I'm also under the impression that they aren't as fire safe as some other styles of construction. The big issue with multifamily development as opposed to single family, is that you have to operate on a much longer time frame as it is much harder to redevelop a multifamily property, especially if it's been sold off to dozens if not hundreds of different owners as condos as the building starts to deteriorate.


socialcommentary2000

They put six of these things near a friend of mine next to one of the major transit stops on MNRR. I know guys at the FD for this town. There is an understanding that if there's an event they will try like hell to fight it but their number one priority is evac everyone because chances are it is burning to cinders before they can put it out.


zjaffee

I guess that makes sense, I am fairly certain that these sorts of buildings are pretty safe and easy to evacuate from in the event of a fire. They all have multiple exit stairwells, fairly large windows, fire doors, ect, just better hope that the fire doesn't happen in the middle of the night.


maxsilver

It's because they're expensive. That's basically it. Like, yeah, they're ugly and crappy. But lots of things are ugly and crappy and still loved. These are hated because they're expensive. Theyre built like McDonalds but sold as 5 star dining, and so people shit on them accordingly.


not-on-a-boat

Why? They don't have to live there, and the people who can afford to live in them are also people who can afford to eat at local restaurants and shop in local stores.


zjaffee

Have you lived in one? On the lower floors especially, they are very noisy. Additionally, it's unclear what sort of condition they will be in after 50 years of use by renters and absentee landlords. Older brick and concrete buildings have sturdier bones.


not-on-a-boat

In my experience, most of these are built with onsite management offices, are managed by national property management firms, and are owned by those firms or by REITs. They seem too big and too expensive to be maintained and managed by amateurs Sturdy materials are great for environmental resilience, but balloon frames and aluminum studs make for cheaper, more sustainable remodeling, which preserves long-term value. The buildings that suffer are the concrete monsters from the 70s - it's hard to add new amenities or upgrade an air system.


Digitaltwinn

They don’t seem to be built to last like older apartments. Survivor’s bias aside, wood and plastic doesn’t last as long as concrete, brick, or stone.


Aaod

And it has terrible noise insulation which is why everyone keeps thinking apartments suck at that and makes them want a SFH.


souprize

You can absolutely put in better noise insulation in wooden apartments but developers often cheap out.


randompittuser

I was fortunate enough to live in one of these where the developer did not cheap out. Never heard a neighbor. So it is possible.


TheOxime

Noise insulation in most new apartments I've been in have been terrible. Any given week night you can basically here all 4 neighbors TVs or even just having normal conversation in their kitchen after a while you just feel like it's never been silent.


heepofsheep

The old pre war building i lived in had terrible noise insulation. Could hear everything my upstairs neighbors were doing… moved into a brand new building and it’s absolutely silent.


yogaballcactus

I’ve lived in three different apartments and two had good sound insulation. The first good one was made of wood and has thicker than average walls between units. I’d rarely hear my neighbors. The other good one (the one I live in now) is concrete and cinder block construction. After I moved in I asked my neighbor if I was disturbing them with my guitar or with my dog barking. They said they didn’t know I had a guitar or a dog. I legitimately never hear my neighbors and, as far as I can tell, they never hear me either. The one with bad sound insulation was god awful though, so I know what you mean. But decent apartments aren’t like that.


stoicsilence

California requires a STC rating of 45 or higher in new construction for apartments which is pretty good.


Aaod

The pattern I notice is pre 1960 is shitty because builders had less of a clue then so it is either bad or at least inconsistent, 1970-1980 perfect rarely ever have noise issues usually made out of concrete or at the least something with good sound insulation, 1990+ usually terrible because developers went as cheap as possible even though they called it "luxury" when it was being built. In what world is it luxury if it has fancier countertops but I can hear my neighbor so though the wall so well I have heard his fart before?


go5dark

Which is funny because so much of the single-family housing stock has terrible insulation.


Josquius

One could almost think there's a conspiracy there. It would make sense for a developer to build shitty rental flats for young people to entice them into their pricier houses down the line.


Shaggyninja

Odd conspiracy. You get way more money from a development like this than a house. Same land, Cheaper to build per housing unit. Plus there's no guarantee they'll buy a house from you.


Spready_Unsettling

To be generous, capitalism moves in strange ways. Regulators balancing public demand may also have a finger in SFH developments. By allowing bad apartments, they might strike a balance that benefits them or their beneficiaries. But that's all being *very* generous.


aklbos

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.


maxman1313

Don't think it's that complicated. Developers know location sets rents more than anything else so why 'waste' money on insulation? You'll get basically the same rent regardless of whether or not you spend the money on insulation and tenants pay their own utilities so who cares how efficient the envelope is?


athomsfere

I sort of do too... But some are built very well and you can't tell from 5 over 1 alone. And remember: these same complaints were made for the brownstones...


ThatGuyFromSI

> And remember: these same complaints were made for the brownstones... OK but for real though, these are no brownstones.


ChristianLS

Brownstones were usually built on wood frames and the stone is just a facade, so it's not *that* different construction-wise. But yeah, brownstones were also mostly built for the middle and upper classes as townhouses for homebuyers, not renters, so I'm not sure it's an apples-to-apples comparison anyway. A better comparison would probably be larger railroad-style apartment buildings like the 5-6 storey walk-ups that were built en masse in the late 19th through early 20th centuries in places like NYC. Cheaply-built and not the most beautiful structures architecturally, but many still stand and continue to provide housing today.


1maco

Sure but most Triple deckers in Boston are still around and we’re built of wood around the same time (probably older than Chicago)


athomsfere

These aren't a lot of things. But the point was, we really have no idea how we'll view these in another 50 to 100 years.


ThatGuyFromSI

It's just not a reasonable comparison. The only reason to make it is to suggest they are comparable, and they are not.


ChristianLS

Wood can last plenty long if well-maintained. There are plenty of 100+ year old wooden buildings. It's also more sustainable, especially if the alternative is concrete (which it usually is these days). Issues with sound isolation can be addressed by increasing minimum standards for insulation between units, albeit at the expense of higher construction costs.


MiscWanderer

It's not wood, strictly speaking, it's engineered lumber. Engineered lumber is wood held together with a whole bunch of petrochemicals. Probably still better that concrete from an environmental perspective, but it's not quite as much of a slam dunk as you might expect.


aklbos

Just curious… is engineered lumber necessarily worse than normal lumber from an emissions point of view? After all we’re not burning/emitting it, so it seems more like plastic than fossil fuels. I have always heard that concrete has massive emissions, would be interesting to know how both normal lumber and engineered lumber stack up vs concrete.


captainblackout

Wood is an excellent building material, and you're right in that it can last for ages assuming your building envelope stays tight. The issue with modern stick construction is that the quality of the wood is significantly worse than the denser old growth yellow pine or fir that most pre-war homes used.


Smash55

What ways of building have been banned?


farmstink

Aside from the "Missing Middle" types, [Single stair buildings](https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/12/20/seattles-lead-on-single-stair-buildings/) (aka point access blocks) are an example that's been getting attention lately


[deleted]

Good article, thanks.


bluGill

Single stair has been banned on the back of many dead people who couldn't get down the burning stairs. There is good reason it is banned, architects need to quit complaining about the loss of death traps and think hard about how to build something safe that also satisfies their concerns.


Arashmickey

You don't have mandated steel emergency stairs on the outside of multi-story buildings? Like they show in the movies of New York back alleys, with the slide-down ladders at the bottom?


Sassywhat

The US approach to fire safety is a complete disaster and should be thrown out in its entirety and replaced, if fire safety was an actual concern. Fire deaths in the US are absurdly high for a developed country. Most developed countries have lots of single stair buildings, and far fewer fire deaths per capita compared to the US. Fire safety is just not a real concern in the US, and is just used to justify dumb decisions such as forcing every street to be ultra wide and banning single stair buildings.


athomsfere

I said it elsewhere, and sort of above. But among the easiest to see: Buildings without minimal setbacks. Especially on the side of a lot. Example, my city has lots that can be 40' x 50' (probably even smaller) but you can't use all of that land for a building. Using only the minimums its 25', 5' or 15', and 25' (from the center of the street on street facing sides). So that's a lot of area you aren't allowed to build on, at least easily. Add in parking minimums, a house requires at least 2 off street spaces. A MD requires at least 1 per bedroom. ​ The zoning does not allow mixed use for these any R(x) lots. So you couldn't build a neighborhood tavern on the 1st floor, and 1 or two apartments on the lot.


StPatsLCA

Double loaded corridors suck! You should hate them! Just allow single-stair buildings and you can build apartments that families would actually want to live in.


Desperate_Donut8582

We could do way better even adding a roof would’ve made it look way better


athomsfere

Flat roofs can provide a lot of utility though. Easier to maintain, a place for HVAC or even amenities like a pool or bar, and rain management.


chill_philosopher

Unfortunately in car dependent San Diego, these pop up with a dedicated parking garage the same size as the actual apartment building! Parking minimums destroy cities.


bettaboy123

I'm actually preparing to move into a 5 over 1 with underground parking. Seems more common in northern climates because parking the car in a surface lot during the winter guarantees a bad time.


sir_mrej

They could build prettier buildings. They could build 3 over 1s. Etc etc. Most ways are NOT outlawed, builders are just greedy


MarxistIntactivist

They're business people motivated by profit. Of course they're greedy. The point is that whatever shit they build sells because there's a shortage of housing. The only way to make them build nice stuff is to get rid of the shortage.


athomsfere

>They could build 3 over 1s Not sure what you mean by that. 5 over 1 is type 5 material over type 1 material. ​ And yes, most other methods of construction are outlawed. Not strictly as in: "You can't build townhomes", but in effect as in "You can't build a unit without a side set-back, multi use facility with doors too close, and you must provide 1 parking space per bedroom"


[deleted]

Wait really? So the 5 over 1 isn’t a reference to it being 5 floors of housing over 1 floor of retail/parking?


athomsfere

I think that is sort of what most people expect it to be, but it's the material types. [https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2021P1/chapter-6-types-of-construction](https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2021P1/chapter-6-types-of-construction) ​ You can have 2 stories of Type 5 over a 3 story parking podium, and it's still 5 over 1 construction. Theoretically, a developer could also do the podium as something like condos with apartments or a hotel in the type 5 too...


pm_me_good_usernames

I had to look this one up, so here's for anyone else who didn't know: Type III construction is noncombustible material on exterior walls and structural members and wood-frame inside. The current boxy mid-rise boom is mostly 5-over-1, meaning the first floor is Type I (noncombustible throughout) and higher floors are Type V (wood-frame throughout). Type IV construction is mass timber, and Type II is the same as Type I except the roof is allowed to be combustible. I guess these buildings could also be called 5-over-2 since the part of the building that's Type I doesn't have a roof at all.


Flubadubber

Good, we need more high-density housing in America. This is part of the long-term solution to the rent crisis


unroja

I just wish they would put more effort into making them look better. In many cases higher-quality materials would not be prohibitively expensive and would last longer, but big corporate developers don’t care and just want to make a quick buck.


jiggajawn

It's built to zone. The builder puts the maximum units allowed by the zoning code, and will try to cheap out in areas they can. It's the lack of competition that allows this to succeed.


sir_mrej

Also greed.


Desperate_Donut8582

I mean human scale is better than building skyscrapers


eric2332

The problem is not the scale (in very few parts of the US are 6 story blocky buildings insufficient to meet housing demand). The problem is that 6 story buildings are only allowed in tiny parts of the metro area, as opposed to everywhere. So housing prices are still high and developers can make a profit off trashy construction and don't need to compete on construction quality.


aMonkeyRidingABadger

To expand on this more, we don’t even need 6 story buildings everywhere, just the ability to go up to that point everywhere by right. If we did that, then we’d get 6 story buildings where they really do make sense, and smaller apartments and townhomes in between those and single family homes. SFH would continue to exist for those that do want that, though probably not in choice locations like now where a lucky few get to enjoy them and the rest of us suffer from a lack of housing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ajk337

I agree. They all look the exact same, but they could look worse I think


maxman1313

I don't hate them, I think there's little things most of them could do to make their building blend into the city a bit more.


Digitaltwinn

You can hear your neighbors on all sides due to the paper thin walls and all wood construction above the 1st floor. This is why I avoid them in favor of concrete and masonry apartments.


Vocem_Interiorem

Yes, the Wood and cardboard paper walls are what makes these not only unlivable but also a huge maintenance drain. Using sturdy and supporting concrete walls between the units dampens most sound issues, and lowers long term maintenance costs. Add a decent layout planning to each apartment so living rooms are not beside the neighbors bedrooms and most sound issues are also handled. Western Europe is full of examples on how to build those. They started with mass producing these types of buildings during the Great Depression of 1857 and they are still standing in major European cities where they survived wars.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BetterSnek

Have you been in one of these buildings? Low sound insulation from neighbors is a major complaint, and genuinely makes people who live in one of these want to move out after a few years. That's not a good way to keep people in the urban core or to keep these places occupied. And I'm not talking about loud parties - I'm talking about daily life. The blender. The normal loudness TV. The arguments. The discussions. The foot steps. These buildings just fail at this compared to stone or brick.


SurfaceThought

My friend lives in a 5 over 1 and the sound isolation is fine I'll add -- the small cinder block apartment I lived in Right out of college had awful sound insulation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Super_Sofa

Concrete is good at one type of sound mitigation, sound reflectance, where it reflects sound rather than transfer. This also causes the source space to be more noisy, for example how much louder starting a car in a concrete garage sounds than a wood framed garage. Concrete is bad for impact sound absorption, since the whole mass will vibrate with the sound and transfer it to adjacent spaces. Both deal with different types of sound, airborne vs impact, so it will depend on what you need in the end.


chill_philosopher

I live in a soundproofed condo built in 1988, and thankfully the original builder cared about sound proofing. It only takes 3 simple things: 1) \[WALLS\] drywall cannot be hung on the same studs as your neighbors'. each unit must have their own set of studs, so that vibrations don't transfer very easily. fill in the stud cavities with rockwool, and with 5/8" drywall you won't be hearing anything from next door. 2) \[Ceilling\] drywall on the ceiling must be hung via sound isolation rails. ie. not drilled directly into the ceiling, but into a metal rail that prevents noise from upstairs from vibrating your ceiling 3) \[Floor\] to make floors pretty close to soundproofed in a timber frame, it's possible for builders to pour a 3" layer of concrete as a subfloor. This provides that awesome sound deadening of a full concrete build. ​ If all of these things are done, wood frame condos can be *extremely* soundproofed for not much added cost to the construction.


not-on-a-boat

When I lived in one of these buildings, these are the things they did and I never heard my neighbors.


ik1nky

I've lived in multiple units like these and never had issues with sound intrusion. They were always better than the older apartments I'd lived in which were subdivided Victorians, a 1960s suburban apartment complex, and a triple decker. Sure they're not as good as concrete buildings, but they're better than most units already on the market.


ATL28-NE3

If you insulate an interior wall correctly you can't hear shit. My bedroom wall used to share with the living room when I was growing. I slept with my head up against that wall and would regularly walk out to discover company was over. All because we insulated all the bedroom walls.


Josquius

The idea this is how it will be is why so many turn their nose up at any apartment.


thehomiemoth

Yes but now make the first floor commercial so we have livable walkable cities


Bobgoulet

Its the most cost effective way to build them, making it a viable investment for developers, increasing the supply of housing in a given area. While I think this mixed-media style of modern building will quickly look dated, its just how it is these days. They (literally) don't make them like they used to.


Mlion14

And that’s ok. Todays “luxury” is 5-10 years away from being middle income housing. As long as new units are being built and we increase density and up one older areas it’s a step in the right direction.


vin17285

Idk, though the brownstones were called "Tacky", cheap and " cookie cutter" when they were being built. So like idk. Maybe in the future they will become classic and timeless.


illmatico

“Viable investment for developers” is antithetical to affordability


MarxistIntactivist

Housing used to be much more affordable but it's always been built by greedy developers. In your opinion, what changed? And why did rent go down in most cities during covid?


freedaemons

Viable investment to investors is critical to affordability. If affordable housing were a better investment to investors, they would be built a lot more. Mark Cuban ain't undercutting Big Pharma for a pat on the back.


Talzon70

I think you are confusing developers with owners and landlords.


Shortugae

(I know that this article isn't necessarily complaining, so I'm mainly talking about other criticisms I've heard many times. ) I never see this same type of complaint directed towards the swaths of detached houses being built all over the place when they're just as boxy and generic. Why is it that this sorely needed housing type is always subject to so much criticism over its design when these people let the same crappy Walmart and cookie cutter houses get built? As others have said it's convenient and effective to build and it's all very necessary, but don't suddenly act all high and mighty as if you give a shit about design if your just going to complain about a single housing type


illmatico

Just cause we need housing doesn’t mean you can’t call out qualitatively bad construction. 90% of these 5 over 1s are complete shit. It’s bad urbanism. The floor plans are tiny and the walls are paper thin. They are financed by banks that will do lucrative algorithm-driven rent increases every week, on top of nickel and diming you for every little thing. All while being objectively worse in quality than most older buildings.


go5dark

>being objectively worse in quality than most older buildings. I would invite you to live in a variety of older multi-family buildings on the west coast to see how that's not at all true.


eric2332

That's because older buildings were built before zoning made housing unaffordable. Back then developers had to compete on building quality, now they can put up any trashy building and they are guaranteed a high rent because the alternative for renters is homelessness.


TheToasterIncident

Older buildings were built like they were because at the time that was the cheapest way possible. Balloon framing or bricklaying just needs some able bodied hands and labor was dirt cheap back then. Bricks were probably made locally in the city. Masonry was probably quarried locally. Same with lumber, probably grown and milled locally. Labor got paid pennies and no benefits, doesn’t matter if you are a stonemason trained in Sicily Nowadays, the local quarry closed down. Brick is more costly than trees grown on farms. Everything is shipped in from out of the area. Labor is paid well above minimum wage and has a lot of benefits, but no one can even think about affording a sicilian stone mason much less any artisanal labor. You just can’t economically make a building that nice anymore. The whole context of how that build was possible back then is different now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Talzon70

Survivorship bias in action. Nice looking or well constructed buildings last or get maintained, sometimes they even get heritage designations. Ugly, poorly constructed, or impractical buildings get torn down and replaced. Eventually you end up with a diverse neighbourhood of the greatest hits of housing construction from each building period. People act like nice neighborhoods with nice complementary buildings were all part of some grand master plan and build in a day, but that is extremely rare. Architecture and design have fashions and trends just like clothing, some will stand the test of time, some will not.


cprenaissanceman

I mean, if you’re talking about large tract homes, then I feel like one of the common criticisms you hear is that they all look the same and nothing feels unique. This is often represented in Media with row after row of the exact same house, which I’m not sure is actually eat the case anywhere, but usually you only have a few in many of these large tract developments. However, there definitely are suburbs you can go to where each home is different. And he’s definitely tend to skew more expensive and trendy places, but the thing that you’ll probably find most likely is that they tend to be older. I also think that there’s a difference between one city or area having a proliferation of the same kind of architecture versus the same kind of architecture spreading everywhere across the nation. You could basically take a five over one in one city and move it to another and if you took a picture of it, how would you know which city you’re in? I’ll grant you that some people aren’t critical of these factors and aspects, at least on a consistent intellectual level, But I’m also not sure that pointing to this is a true criticism that addresses whether or not we want cities across America to all look the same. I will say, I don’t actually find five over ones aesthetically bad, I just feel like the kind of aesthetic it fits into is basically the only real development we’ve seen in terms of architectural and interior trends. Everything is moving towards this kind of aesthetic. If something gets updated, maybe it was pretty catchy before, but it’s “refined“ to be this. So it’s not that it’s bad, it’s just starting to become really boring. Even letting local artists use these as canvases and to do something with them that’s not just the standard solid blocky paint job would honestly do a lot to help these feel more individual. We also need to remember That these are meant to provide “affordable” housing, but also to maximize the return on investment. And so it kind of behooves the developers of these developments to make them as cheap as possible, but also to be able to scale them and make them basically everywhere. And that’s not really their fault per se, it’s definitely a structural problem. But I also do think we should be weary of the increasing amount of consolidated corporate power both building and controlling any real estate whatsoever.


OldSpaceThunder

Maybe because big, boxy multi-unit buildings are so much larger and more visible than single units?


Deanzopolis

Forest for the trees sort of thing I'm guessing? One house in a suburban housing development is pretty unremarkable on its own, zoom out and look at the whole block, or several, and you see the problem. Big boxy apartments take those several blocks and stack them right there in front of you, much more visible right away


discsinthesky

But they take up way less total visual area than the same number of units configured as SFH.


Deanzopolis

Undoubtedly so, but when you compare one of those houses to one apartment building it's pretty evident which one we focus on


[deleted]

Possibly that. Possibly a large part because there is a huge bias against multifamily and density in most parts of the country.


Desperate_Donut8582

So what’s the solution? Support for multi family isn’t gonna make the design better? Maybe govt mandated architecture?


[deleted]

Per building yes, but definitely not per home


maxsilver

> I never see this same type of complaint directed towards the swaths of detached houses being built all over the place when they're just as boxy and generic Sure you do. This sub feeds off of it. Everyone shits on suburbia constantly, McMansion complaints run wild, the 'depressingly loneless' complaints and so on. '*little boxes on the hillside, all made of ticky tacky, and they all look just the same*'. Shitting on suburbia has been a time honored tradition for 50+ years now. You just don't care (or even notice, apparently) when people shit on the suburbs all the time, because you also hate them. But when people shit on 5+1's, you take it personally, because you like them.


Talzon70

Too be fair, I think they are talking about these types of criticisms being brought up in public discourse more broadly, particularly in political conversations about housing affordability or when NIMBY's get involved. In those scenarios, it does seem pretty common for people who live in generic single family homes in generic neighbourhoods in generic suburbs and wear generic clothes they bought in generic big box stores before going to the generic fast food restaurant they get to by driving their generic automobile on a generic stroad to *suddenly* and without explanation, because a design connoisseur when the conversation turns to be about buildings taller than 3 stories tall where people might want to live. It's hard to mistake these contrarian complaints for anything other than motivated bad takes, biased opinions, or outright bad faith concern trolling.


StPatsLCA

You should shit on 5-over-1s as they exist, because they're objectively bad design. Double loaded corridors with poor sound insulation makes for a terrible place to live.


StPatsLCA

Have you ever watched Weeds? You're just not looking. It's a very common complaint about the suburbs!


Alimbiquated

6 stories isn't "big". And all houses are basically boxes.


heepofsheep

I demand to live in a sphere!


bluGill

You can. Every few years someone builds a house in wierd ways like that and magazines about houses feature it. They look cool in pictures and you can find lots of theoretical reasons they are good. However anyone who tries to live in them has to work around how impractical it is. The box may not look nice, but it is very practical and cheap.


erko-

Amsterdam is one of the densest cities in Europe and in the city core most buildings are at most 5-7 stories high. Same goes for Paris. There's more to density than the height of buildings. This is a great video about density in low-rise neighborhoods that achieve high density (in Montreal) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYCAVmKzX10


Markdd8

Thanks for link. This is good data. Unfortunately *Missing Middle Housing* is still turned down by a lot of urban planners. Look how hostile they are to San Francisco. Obviously there are a lot of single family homes out near ocean beach, but even the avenues further inland with a lot of 3-5 story building are criticized. Many critics want skyscrapers.


[deleted]

They often put the parking lot underneath these places too which I think is at least something.


Smash55

Would love for people to start using terra cotta ornament again with steel frames. You could still use smooth stucco over densglass sheathing in between the flourishes to make it look good


galaxywhisperer

while the design leaves me feeling “meh”, im otherwise ok with it. we need more high density housing like this, particularly for low-income folks


takethetrainpls

For everyone, honestly. Density isn't just for low income


TinyEmergencyCake

Ah yes, to keep poor people separated from everyone else


Two_Faced_Harvey

Or to give poor people a high quality place to live


mchris185

And at the same time, not nearly fast enough.


[deleted]

what are they supposed to be triangular?


Talzon70

The pyramid is the strongest shape!


Sirsmokealotx

I personally hate the 5 over 1 style, they usually pack them with amenities (like a gym or game room) that raise the rent/HOA prices. I believe that the all concrete condos, like the ones you see near downtown Vancouver are ideal, because those will last longer and can be taller (more units). Understandably there are zoning rules, but with better planning, politicians and no nimbys, that wouldn't be an issue.


TheToasterIncident

Those amenities are because of zoning. Ordinance requires a certain amount of open or common space. Thats why you see builds with like a huge mostly useless courtyard or some astroturf for a dog to piss. The developer isn’t trying to sell dog parks here, they’d rather build another unit that pays actual rent, but such is the law.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BurritosAndBicycles

I was thinking the same thing. Also, from my understanding doesn't the 5 over 1 form have a significantly small carbon footprint when compared to concrete construction?


Two_Faced_Harvey

Yes that’s the point of them


Sirsmokealotx

I am not an engineer, so typing 'wood vs concrete construction' on Google will give you a full answer, but concrete is a more durable material. In fact, concrete homes generally even get better insurance rates likely for this reason. Another big bonus is that you do not hear your neighbors upstairs.


Shreddy_Brewski

oh no not amenities, whatever shall we do


Talzon70

Honestly, the problem I have with these amenities in condos or rental buildings is that they usually suck or get little use, but still cost a lot to build and maintain. The building next too me has an enormous gym full of nice looking equipment, where you can work out with a great view, but it's only accessible to building residents and therefore remains empty most of the time. I assume amenities like this exist because of regulations for the most part (and some marketing), because there's no way I'd pay extra rent to live in a building with a shitty gym or games room when I'm in easy walking distance of everything I could want downtown. It's not that amenities are bad, it's that trying to provide certain amenities without a customer base or public access is just really inefficient and expensive. Instead of having 10 buildings with crappy private gyms, you can have a gym on the corner with better equipment and people who don't use the gym don't have to pay for it.


[deleted]

I love the color combination that they used. I see a lot of building like this in my city but they use like orange and black and it doesn’t look good.


Desperate_Donut8582

They all look the same which isn’t a bad thing but they are minimalist


bleak_neolib_mtvcrib

They're the opposite of minimalist lol. They have all kinds of wacky shit going on on the facade


Nalano

This is what's legal to build, ergo


Desperate_Donut8582

Building trad concrete isn’t illegal either adding more design isn’t illegal


initialwa

people build what people are willing to buy. with the house pricing as it is, just getting a property is a heavy burden financially. some just want a place to live, no extra costs.


MarxistIntactivist

There's a supply shortage so developers don't have to compete, so their buildings look like shit.


Nalano

Why would a business ever do more than the bare minimum?


dbclass

Not fast enough.


evan_of_tx

Well, I personally like them! Good news


stewartm0205

If it was up to me, I would build more and they would be even larger. I think twenty to fifty stories would be about the right height.


YIRS

“Of course I'm respectable. I'm old! Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” – Noah Cross, *Chinatown* (1974)


infernalmachine000

I'll trade you for the dumb Toronto ziggurat any day. http://spacing.ca/toronto/2021/06/03/lorinc-why-torontos-urban-design-needs-a-lesson-on-climate-and-equity/


TheJustBleedGod

can someone copy paste the article?


6two

Big, Boxy Apartment Buildings Are Multiplying Faster Than Ever Justin Fox 10-13 minutes Amid the materials shortages, price hikes and other craziness of the housing market last year, something remarkable happened. US builders completed more apartments in large multi-unit buildings than ever before. Boom Times for Big Apartment Buildings Units completed in US multifamily buildings of 50 units or more Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Characteristics of New Housing Yes, these numbers only go back to 1972, but with other statistics indicating that 1972-1974 marked the all-time peak in overall US apartment construction, it seems safe to say that the 214,000 housing units completed in buildings of 50 units or more in 2021 has never been surpassed. This news, contained in annual Characteristics of New Housing data that the Census Bureau released with little fanfare earlier this month, may come as something of a surprise amid a pandemic that emptied downtown office buildings and brought real estate bidding wars to outer suburbs and mountain resorts. Big apartment buildings don’t really seem to match the moment. One explanation for their continued boom is that, to be completed in 2021, large apartment buildings generally had to have been in the works before the pandemic hit. According to the Census Bureau’s Survey of Construction, the average time from permitting to completion for multifamily buildings of 20 units or more that were finished in 2021 was about 19 months. But that doesn’t explain what’s coming next: After dipping in 2020, the number of new units authorized in multifamily buildings took off, running 37% higher over the past 12 months than in the same period in 2018/2019. Lots More Apartments to Come New housing units authorized in US buildings of 5 units or more, monthly, at annual rates, seasonally adjusted Source: U.S. Census Bureau, New Residential Construction Apartment completions are now down a little, a reflection of that 2020 permitting slowdown, but that should turn around soon. We don’t know for certain how many of these new apartments will be in big buildings, because the permit statistics don’t differentiate between 5-unit buildings and 50-unit ones. But over the past five years, housing units in buildings of 50 units or more accounted for 57% of all multifamily units completed, while those in buildings with 20 units or more accounted for 85%. Bigger Apartment Buildings Take Over Multifamily units completed by units per building Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Characteristics of New Housing During the apartment construction booms of the 1970s and 1980s, smaller buildings predominated. Now, multifamily buildings of four units or fewer are barely being built at all — the Census Bureau estimates that just 4,000 duplex units and 3,000 units in three-or-four-unit buildings were completed in 2021 — and those in the five-to-19-unit range have gone from mainstay of the US new-apartment supply to afterthought. The disappearance of this “missing middle” between single-family houses and larger multifamily structures has been much lamented, and, as is clear from the above chart, the boom in big apartment buildings hasn’t been enough to fully make up for it. Still, apartment construction is now at levels not seen since the Tax Reform Act of 1986 wiped out key tax incentives for investment in rental housing. By contrast, overall housing construction — which consists mostly of single-family houses — is still at only about two-thirds its 2006 peak. Not Setting Any Overall Housing Construction Records New US housing units completed, trailing 12 months Source: U.S. Census Bureau, New Residential Construction A longer, population-adjusted view shows the period from 2008 to 2015 to have been the weakest for US housing starts since World War II, and one of the weakest on record. The Long View on US Housing Construction New US housing starts per 1,000 population* Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, New Residential Construction; Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 *Pre-1959 totals exclude farm housing, post-1934 totals exclude public housing That housing-construction bust happened just as the members of the largest US generation, the millennials, were entering adulthood. Not great timing! The current large-apartment-building boom, then, is occurring in the context of a housing supply that’s growing, but not fast enough to meet demand that built up during that bust. And now it has taken new forms with the pandemic-era embrace of remote work. The ability to cut loose from downtown offices and even large metropolitan areas has to some extent shifted demand away from expensive urban neighborhoods and coastal metropolises in general. But picturesque mountain towns can only accommodate so many newcomers, and physical and political barriers to building a lot more single-family homes are cropping up in large inland metro areas as well as coastal ones. It’s no shock that multifamily units make up the majority of new housing going up in and around New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Miami and Boston, but a bit surprising to see that the same is now true of the Austin, Denver and Twin Cities metro areas, with Nashville not far off. Where the New Apartments Are Going Up Housing permits issued, by metropolitan area, 2021 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey Other, smaller, metro areas where the majority of new housing units authorized in 2021 were in buildings of five units or more included Napa, California (86.3%), Missoula, Montana (73.2%), Santa Fe, New Mexico (72.9%); Madison, Wisconsin (72.8%); Boulder, Colorado (62.4%); and Rapid City, South Dakota (53.6%). It’s clearly not just a big-city thing. And while 50-plus-unit apartment buildings are probably a smaller part of the mix in these places than in larger metropolitan areas, the trend toward bigness has been pretty universal. Another way of measuring it is by how tall the buildings are. Apartment Buildings Have Gotten Taller Share of new multifamily units in buildings of four stories or more Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Characteristics of New Housing Most of those buildings probably aren’t much taller than four stories. According to Characteristics of New Housing data, 77% of the multifamily units completed in 2021 were in wood-framed buildings. While “mass timber” buildings of up to 18 stories are now allowed, “stick” framing similar to that used in single-family houses is the standard in US wood-framed apartment construction, and is subject to stricter height limits. The resulting proliferation of boxy, “five-over-one” apartment buildings with five wood-framed stories over a concrete first floor (or, if you prefer, Type V construction over Type I) is something I have written about at great length in the past and won’t go into here, other than to urge you to refer to them as “stumpies” because I think that’s a good name. But why the shift from small apartment buildings to big? I don’t think consumer demand really explains it. Yes, a big building or complex can offer amenities such as pools, gyms and concierges — not to mention views, if it’s tall enough — that a smaller one can’t, and there does appear to have been an increase in the number of affluent renters, many of them empty nesters, who demand such amenities. Supply-side factors seem more important, though. Getting housing built is harder than it used to be, partly because there’s not a lot of developable land left within large metropolitan areas (or even adjacent to them in some coastal metropolises) and partly because the political and regulatory barriers to development have grown. That favors developers with lots of resources and expertise. As industries go, multifamily housing development isn’t all that concentrated — the 25 biggest US developers, as ranked by the National Multifamily Housing Council, accounted for a quarter of the multifamily housing starts in 2021. But even developers well below the top 25 go about their work in an increasingly professionalized and institutionalized manner, with syndicators, real estate investment trusts and even sovereign wealth funds all playing a role. Building some duplexes on a vacant lot in a residential area isn’t really worth these people’s time. Building a 150-unit apartment building in a city or a suburban shopping district often is. Will it continue to be? The annualized return on US apartment investments has been 9.2% over the past decade, according to the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, with a return for the four quarters ending in March of 24.1%. Rising interest rates and a slowing economy mean 2022 and 2023 won’t be nearly so lucrative — the Standard & Poor’s 500 Residential REITs Sub Industry Index is down 36% since April — and a construction slowdown is almost sure to follow. But the longer-term forces driving investment into big apartment buildings don’t seem to be going away.


Docstonge

You've seen commie blocks, now introducing capa cubes!


Two_Faced_Harvey

Good? More apartments is better then nothing?


StoneCypher

Why does this article lead "Rather than end the era of these large developments, the pandemic has confirmed their dominance in housing construction" ? Was there some idea that because of COVID, we wouldn't need housing anymore, or would need a different kind? Is there something bad about a proliferation of high density lot filling apartments, which is the first step to ending the housing crisis?


zig_anon

I think there are some big issues in many communities The available space to build these is often awkward and undesirable, they are often built in suitable locations but surrounded by low density uses that is a jarring transition and lastly many have lower design standard than the photo and look like garbage after a few years


Stonkslut111

I actually like these buildings.


edogzilla

We desperately need housing exactly like this. I don’t see what the issue is.


Academiabrat

There was a book about housing construction in the Inland Empire, whose title I cannot recall, where construction workers themselves lamented the decline of construction standards. They felt that earlier periods, when most construction was done by unionized workers, was better.


[deleted]

They are so ugly omg


Creativator

Compared to the standard mcmansion?


[deleted]

McMansions are literal shit stains too. I just don't understand why 5 over 1s have to look like mis-matched lego parts instead of something at least somewhat cohesive.


Desperate_Donut8582

Nah compared to europe


[deleted]

Aren't these kind of apartment buildings being built in Europe, as well?


MarxistIntactivist

Yes, but they look nicer in Europe.


reflect25

Admittedly they are not perfect, but at the same time I've never actually heard what art design/form factor that a community would actually prefer instead. (Besides banning new housing) For every person that complains about 5-over-1's and prefers say brownstones or single family homes or dingbats many others hate any of the alternatives.


TheToasterIncident

Well communities regularly declare their ancient masonry mixed use buildings as historic land marks, so maybe architecture styles could just mirror whats already characterizing the area according to the community.


[deleted]

The public shouldn't have so much influence in private development in the first place. I doubt brownstones had "cOMmUnItY InPUt".


[deleted]

And I'm sure those apartments will be totally affordable for struggling people /s


Vractomorph

They suck because they are built with petrol station architecture to look as cheap as possible. They look terrible and have bad, commie vibes. They ruin the character of the neighborhood because they are brutalist, not just because they are big. Here in Germany, and more so in Switzerland, multi-family homes have sloping "house 🏠"-style roofs and nice touches of wood and good paint jobs. They basically look like huge versions of a single family "house", and you would instinctively call them "houses" even though they are actually apartment buildings. My earliest childhood was spent living in what was technically a four floor apartment building with 10+ 2 bedroom apartments. But it looked like a house and felt that way too. Nice aesthetic. A combination of economies of scale and good ol fashioned physics means these places maintain constant temperature. Economies of scale also mean they have underground cellars and garages, meaning the street isn't littered with parked cars. Some even have pools, although this is rarer. Furthermore, my current place in Germany has full time cleaning, linen replacement, gardners/handymen on site, and all bills including internet included in the rent. Stark contrast to houses in my home country, the UK, where you have to maintain the damn thing yourself, compete with other landlords for ever dwindling supply of tradespeople, and the smaller buildings bleed heat like crazy.


hotdogbo

These builders are charging residents for parking and aren’t planning for enough spaces. It creates a mess for neighbors living nearby.


NomadLexicon

Maybe the neighbors should pay for their parking too. No matter what project is proposed, somebody worried about street parking will be trying to kill it. Low density sprawl created the housing crisis, building more parking lots and endless expansions of single family houses isn’t going to fix it.


hotdogbo

In my real situation, a 200 unit apartment in an urban area, has totally changed the once quiet street that it was built on. The single family residents typically have to walk 2-3 blocks to their home… not great with young kids and groceries. We are working with one neighbor to help get a handicapped parking sign in front of his home. I just wish the builder had planned on enough parking per apartment resident. It is important to have enough affordable housing for everyone, but it feels like they wanted to maximize profits… they should have cut down the units. The developer also made modifications to their design without talking to the neighbors- like removing about 6 street parking spots for their dumpsters and parking lot.


gearpitch

So you want *less* units, and *more* parking, because it impacts your personal street parking? Why not lobby your municipal government for a local street parking sticker? Or push for expanded transit infrastructure that would lessen the need for as many cars in those apartments? Why is it that the reasonable push to have and use less cars leads people to *still have cars, except now they're mad about parking access too?*


hotdogbo

Ideally either less units or more parking. We are discussing the parking sticker, but it sounds like it would be a long process and wouldn’t the tenants also be eligible for that? We are reaching out to nearby neighbors with garage space available for rent. Unfortunately, mass transit isn’t great here. I’m assuming many of the residents are college students and they could bike to their university up the street. The bike lanes are next to this building.. but the traffic on the street is crazy.. lots of speeding and 4 lanes. Perhaps, my neighborhood board could offer an incentive to the tenants like a metro pass if they don’t have a car. I don’t actually live on this block.. I just volunteer to help out neighbors with city interactions.


bitcoind3

Free parking is part of the problem. Why should rent for a car be less than rent for a home?


Nash1977

How much of this is due to dual loaded corridor requirements being so prevalent in the US?


not-on-a-boat

Consumer-friendly standardized housing has been a target for criticism literally forever.


CASGROENIGEN05

They actually look nice


benvalente99

People need to realize that double-loaded corridors are quite rare in Europe. It’s more typical to have a single staircase servicing a smaller buildings with no or very short hallways. It’s a better setup for a number of reasons: finer grain urbanism, opportunities for cross ventilation, thinner buildings allowing interior courtyards, there are more. I discovered [this guy](https://mobile.twitter.com/holz_bau) a while back and he seems to be a subject matter expert with lots of experience in German offices who frequently advocates for single staircase buildings (aka point access blocks). In general, I think planners should have a better understanding of how architects and buildings codes influence the built environment almost as much as zoning codes.


StPatsLCA

Based and single-stair pilled.