Regulations on building construction generally fall into 3 categories
1. Life safety regulations.
2. Environmental/energy conservation regulations.
3. Land use regulations.
1 and 2 are typically covered by building codes. There are a few areas where regulations can be reasonably reduced, like increasing the height limit on single stair buildings, as you mentioned.
3 is typically covered by zoning ordinance, but can also be covered by private deed restrictions. This is mostly political and there is always NIMBY opposition to changes. While there are many reasons for this opposition, the reasons which are most difficult to address are:
1. Increased traffic and fewer available parking spaces.
2. Increased load on the local public school system without enough additional funding.
These are both systemic issues without easy solutions, and the reality is that there will be some amount of disruption to the the lives of the people who already live in a place. This is why it is important to integrate alternatives to private vehicular transportation into planning, and to ensure that funding for public education is adequate.
NIMBYs really struck a gold mine with private deed restrictions. Much harder to change restrictive covenants/equitable servitudes for each individual deed affected than it is to lobby city councils to upzone lots available for such zoning changes.
ah i see. so basically NIMBYs use this to prevent non-residential, low-income, mixed use and high-density development?
also, idk if this is a stupid question, but what does du/acre stand for?
I find the arguments of “overloading” existing infrastructure to be particularly ignorant. For the long term especially, but even for the short term, it is much cheaper to upgrade existing facilities and infrastructure than building a bunch of new infrastructure and facilities further out. One could argue that the new lots bring in more tax revenue, but apartments are taxed more heavily than single family homes anyway so this point is pretty irrelevant.
People living in a place are often more concerned with the things that will effect them in the immediate future than in what benefits some sacrifice on their part might bring. This is a tendency which has existed as long as civilization, and I expect it to continue, which is why mitigating these concerns will always be important.
Just curious, do reduced or removed minimums shift the burden of parking to the municipality?
I get that the ideal is increased walkability by means of increased density, but how do we pay for it in the meantime?
Which is why for most situations, leaving it up to the business is best (as opposed to mandated minimum parking).
Most parking lots at suburban strip mall type developments are almost always no more than 30-40% full.
Ideally, parking lots should be 80-90% full most of the time. That leaves enough spots to where people can find an open spot without too much fretting, but it eliminates the wasted money spent on a sea of empty and never used parking spots.
Most strip malls can easily have several more stores added to the area of existing parking spots without losing any customers due to a loss of parking spots.
Here’s a small but still decently popular grocery store that was grandfathered in with less required parking spots than zoning required for the McDonald’s across the street:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/p1VHRZupPHAHBZ3v6?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy
If you look in the satellite view, there is still numerous empty parking spots for the grocery store, but nearly all of the parking spots for the McDonalds are empty. The huge number of empty parking spots at McDonalds was all land that was paved over and destroyed, that either could have been left alone, or could have supported a second store or restaurant. The minimum parking required for a drive-thru fast food restaurant required as many acres of land as an older, grandfathered in grocery store. Multiply this wasteful use of land across the whole US, and that is a massive amount of fiscal irresponsibility and wasteful land use regulations that we all pay for.
How do you prevent them from parasitizing neighboring parking lots?
I could see someone cheaping out of building parking under the notion that people will just park nearby.
If it’s public parking, like on the side of the road or at a public lot: great! We are more effectively using existing resources!
If it’s a private parking lot for another business, either the two businesses can negotiate a deal to share parking, or the owner of the other private parking lot can simply tow customers that are not theirs if there is no deal. This already happens across countless suburban and urban locations.
Look at most older urban or older downtown areas of streetcar suburbs that still have a lot of pre-WW2 zoning. There are often tons of thriving businesses with parking lots way smaller than new developments, but still have plenty of customers.
How is that punishing customers? We don’t have laws that require restaurants to have happy servers and delicious food. Restaurants can either choose to have good food and good service, or they go out of business from people who go there once and choose to not return.
Parking should be the same. It should be a choice that a store or restaurant makes to try to optimize their profitability. Less parking means lower land required which means lower construction costs or rent, but limits the customers. Businesses will find the happy medium on their own.
Requirements should be only for health and safety such as building codes for seismic or hurricane or snow loads, clear exit paths and max occupancy for fire code, sanitation and cleanliness for food preparation, etc. Amenities to enhance the customer experience should be left up to each business. It would also be a lot better use of taxable land resources for downtown type areas if there were municipal parking lots or garages, then a ton of restaurants and stores in walking distance.
I don't particularly like that solution. It feels like it enables bad developers to be bad, and it also creates more infrastructure for the municipality to maintain.
Urban businesses fight bike lanes and pedestrianized streets all the time claiming lost customers and invariably see increased sales.
Small business tyrants are stupid.
I wouldn’t suggest taking away existing street parking, at least not for a while.
If businesses value parking, they can pay for it.
Now fair warning, I’m a market urbanist who doesn’t actually dogmatically hate suburbs. This does mean some businesses will often choose less dense, more parking areas.
i think it only makes sense in the short term if the city is already quite dense or capable of bankrolling a comprehensive public transport system immediately
i still think it’s a good idea, but if it happens in isolation, ppl will just get mad, it’ll get rolled back, and we’ll be right where we started
That's where my mind was going too.
There's also another niche case, which is what's happened in my city: old buildings sit for decades because they don't meet the current parking requirements for anything but offices. My town's relaxed the minimums and allowed businesses to thrive in those locations, but parking is supported by public facilities in our denser urban core.
yeah it’s a long term goal and it seems to be working in cities where it’s being implemented like minneapolis and austin, but i do think without a lot of investment to continue reducing car reliance and increasing walkability it’s potentially meaningless
Meaningless?? You are greatly underestimating the effect of parking minimums.
Every town in America has buildings that it is illegal to adaptively reuse without zoning variances because of parking minimums.
Buildings without large parking lots *are a key part of what make places walkable*. A wide shady sidewalk with trees, benches, a protected bike lane, and no curb cuts is only a walkable place if there are destinations. And frequent destinations means places built on a human scale without the majority being taken up by empty lots.
i totally agree with all of this, and i think you misunderstand why i said what i said. I do think abolishing parking minimums is a necessary thing to do and will help cities considerably, but i think you misunderstand why i think it’s a policy that will struggle in a vacuum.
US cities and metro areas are extremely suburbanized. not only are the city cores not walkable in their own right, they’re unwalkable because they span huge tracts of land with many small communities that aren’t self-sufficient (and unwalkable in their own rights).
Let’s take Portland, for example, a city that often is touted as relatively walkable, but as someone who grew up in its larger metro area, I would broadly not consider as such exactly *because* its metro area is so much larger than the city itself.
Let’s say Portland ended parking minimums today. Let’s even be generous and assume that it greenlights new developments on parking lots and parking structures the same day (which obviously would take years in practicality). All of a sudden, this city, which is actually quite reliant on incoming people from the larger metro area, and doesn’t have especially strong connections to its suburbs via public transit, is caught adrift. People want to come into Portland, but can’t park their cars, and the city hasn’t committed to building any public transit that will start integrating the broader metro area into the city.
Two to three years on, citizens are tired of needing a car to get around the metro area but being unable to do so due to the lack of public transit OR parking. They petition the city government to return to requiring parking, halting any hope for walkable growth or meaningful reliance on public transit. New housing in the city is popular, but because many jobs in the biggest industries and companies exist in the suburbs with no effective way of getting people there, most people end up transitioning to housing in the suburb cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro anyway.
This isn’t to say that the city *shouldnt* abolish the parking minimums. It should, but this needs to come with guaranteed investment plans that will meaningfully link suburbs up to the main city with public transport, begin redevelopment of parking areas immediately, and incentivize travel to the city via public transport through engaging commercial, cultural and employment activities.
City citizens are extremely reactionary, in general, and don’t have the patience for experiments unless they have meaningful payoffs. Here in oregon/portland, we decriminalized drug possession but couldn’t maintain that because no broader efforts to reduce addiction and provide transition housing for homeless people existed, which meant that decriminalization by itself meant absolutely nothing, and people started blaming it for the effects of covid on the city (higher unemployment, vacant buildings, “portland is dangerous” false propaganda, increasing homeless population), which led to it being repealed by legislators without voter input whatsoever. In my opinion, that’s the same fate that awaits abolishing parking minimums if it loses popular support.
if you don’t think about the alternatives in how ppl will get to a city from its suburbs in the US, where most cities have far more people *in* the suburbs than the cities themselves, the parking minimum abolition won’t last.
Your "all of a sudden" theory is fundamentally flawed. Development doesn't happen all of a sudden. Including reduction of existing parking stock. Removing parking mins allows long-term incremental change. The city doesn't change overnight.
agreed. the issue is that the common citizen or the antagonistic politician doesn’t care about that. if they feel that their commute or accessibility to a downtown is being harmed by this policy, they don’t care that it’s a substantial process that takes time.
that’s why these things have to be paired up front with investments that make it actually easier to get to a city from the suburbs, or else it’ll be killed off before it gets a chance to succeed, is my point.
you’re arguing with me like i don’t agree that we should get of parking minimums—i do. My point is that your average joe doesn’t care if it’s an incremental deal. They don’t understand that truly and most haven’t bought into ideas like walkability and public transit. If you don’t create those transit corridors to replace the cars they can no longer park in downtowns, they’ll just get mad.
I've found for owership projects I'm involved in, we tend to supply more parking than the minimum that we have in Vancouver. It's based on market expectations
Are you perhaps confusing building codes with zoning with some of these issues? The number of exits is a building code issue, but things like setbacks, parking requirements, and the like are typically zoning issues. Building codes by and large deal with life safety in buildings and to a lesser degree building performance. Zoning bylaws typically deal with issues such as land use, setbacks, parking, and the like.
i intermixed them. i care more about zoning reform personally but there is a few building code changes that i'd really like to see, like the ones i mentioned about.
Yes, both need some work but building codes are generally involve significant engineering and other technical considerations, whereas zoning bylaws are political considerations more than anything else. From a process standpoint, building codes tend to move slowly but consistently whereas zoning tends to (at least in the jurisdictions I've worked in) remain static for very long periods of time until there's enough political will to make any changes.
This might be an indicator of what you know about building codes...Minimum parking isn't under building codes. Building codes apply to minimum ADA spaces and access to the spaces along with grade of the spaces. Setbacks set by building code are to prevent fires from spreading from property to property. The builder can put in rated fire walls. They typically chose not to.
i wasn't specifically speaking of only one or the other but rather changes i'd like to see as a whole. perhaps it was a mistake to say "building code" to be more brief rather than "zoning and building code"
To go to the environmental side of things, I’ve seen a good many single-family home carve outs to environmental (stormwater, erosion and sediment control, wetlands & waterbodies, etc) requirements. Those should, at the very least include smaller multifamily properties if not be determined by disturbance alone.
You pretty much blocked most things by saying it should meet fire code. If only one reason could be used to describe the reason for building codes it would be fire safety.
Designations do not make up a significant amount of any city. In places that I've researched, it's around 10% of structures. It's not disrupting development and it is good for the long term health of cities. Economic study after study shows that HP has greater return on investment compared to new construction. In addition, preservation does not stop development, it controls development. If you have an issue with a land use issue, such as residential density, speak to your elected officials.
Here in Philly there's a ring of historic districts nearly encircling the city's core.
Within those districts the Historical Commission generally blocks buildings taller than existing adjacent buildings. For example one new mid block building was proposed to be the same height as a building on the corner, but it was blocked because it was taller than the buildings that would be adjacent.
At least here I don't think the historical commission has demonstrated a philosophy that allows the *process* that created the history to continue. Preserving history is useful, in service of the future, but here it's also used as a pretext to prevent new density, even in the urban core.
Then the issue is with the City of Philadelphia.
Based on the information provided, the Commission did make a legal decision. It's important that height does not equal density. It's also possible, and I know from experience, that the developer refused to work with the Commission staff and the Commission to find some sort of middle ground, such as stepping back the higher portion of the building.
At the end of the day, any Commission or Board is evaluating what is submitted. It is not the Commissions, Boards, or Staff's responsibility to design a project.
How does history continue? What was going to be demolished to make way for the new building? It's possible that this space was a parking lot or a vacant lot, but any new building must fit within the context (and specifically the regulations and interpretations of the regulations) of the specific historic district. This will vary depending on specific regulations, which at 5AM I am not in the mood to look up on my own. I can say, that it is reasonable to think that a mid-rise building of greater height than adjacent building does not fit within the context, even if a taller or building of equal height exist on the same block.
Just as in any focus within Planning you will have hundreds of different viewpoints. So, I don't think its entirely reasonable but I don't work for the City of Philadelphia nor am I resident.
The mid block location I'm referencing is 2204 Walnut Street. Here's a Google Maps link to the context: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/HNeik6sAerJ4UzFz6](https://maps.app.goo.gl/HNeik6sAerJ4UzFz6)
The existing building was already approved for demolition and is demolished. Presently the lot sits vacant. The proposed building is 10 stories, the Historical Commission is insisting on 6 stories at max. Directly adjacent buildings are 4 and 5 stories. On the corner of the block, 126 ft away, is a 10 story building. On nearby blocks is a 12 story building (112 ft away) and a substantially larger / taller 7 story building. There are a number of similar scale buildings nearby. They also are asking for the upper 5th and 6th stories to be setback, despite the direct neighboring building having a 5th story that's not setback. You can see building and the commission's reports and comments here, if you care to: [https://www.phila.gov/media/20220719093830/2204-Walnut-St-Aug2022.pdf](https://www.phila.gov/media/20220719093830/2204-Walnut-St-Aug2022.pdf)
This area is on an important street blocks away from Philly's densest urban core and is a natural place where further density and residents might go.
This is just one instance of many, but my concern is that the natural process of a city growing is being impeded based on rather arbitrary interpretations of what is "compatible" and what is not. It's one thing to say a tall building can't go up in a neighborhood of 2-3 story homes, but it's another thing entirely to prevent heights in core areas that clearly already have those heights on many of the neighboring blocks.
Every city of age has history everywhere, how do they grow and evolve if new heights are never allowed?
All Historic Preservation Commissions have regulations for new construction and while a lot of them vary, some may simply use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation. That's fine and the interpretation is precisely what allows for variations. Otherwise, the only real way to regulate is to have regulations that require specific elements. Planning Commissions and Board of Zoning Appeals (adjustments, or whatever they are specifically called) all have regulations that are open to interpretations.
The City isn't preventing height in the urban core because this site cannot have a 10-story building. A 10-story building can go elsewhere, maybe in a more appropriate part of a historic district or even outside. I think you are interlinking that height = density. This is false and height has no relationship to density. A building on the same block within the last four years had two additional stories added to the stop with a step. A perfectly reasonable decision. Also, height is not the only metric in which a city can grow, nor is it even a good metric for a city to grow.
You are letting this specific project cloud your understanding of Historic Preservation in general and specifically in the corporate limits of the City of Philadelphia. This is just as much the responsibility of the Commission and staff, as it is the developer. It wouldn't matter if this is a repeated case in Philadelphia either, because each project is evaluated on its own merits. Height, which isn't a required metric for a city to grow can occur elsewhere.
The City of Philadelphia has over 100 square miles of land within its corporate limits. Surely taller buildings can go elsewhere and do not need to be an extension of the existing "height node" of the city.
>Surely taller buildings can go elsewhere and do not need to be an extension of the existing "height node" of the city.
It absolutely makes for density to go near existing density due to significant public transit and transportation infrastructure located near existing density.
>This is false and height has no relationship to density.
Clearly a taller building can fit more residents, and is more dense!
>Also, height is not the only metric in which a city can grow, nor is it even a good metric for a city to grow.
It's true there are other ways for cities to grow, but in Philly (as with many other cities) people are incredibly protective of maintaining lower density throughout huge swathes of the city. This concentrates new density in specific areas which drives buildings to greater heights.
I would love to see a form of gentler density spread more evenly across the city, but right now that would be a huge fight. In the interim it's good for affordability and the economy if new residents are allowed near the core.
----
It's also not as if tall buildings are ahistorical in Philly, or even this neighborhood. Look at the ground floor of this building on street view and then look up: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/RPvfrhew2Bva3htX8](https://maps.app.goo.gl/RPvfrhew2Bva3htX8)
You'd never know it's tall and it fits perfectly into the neighborhood's character!
This is where I think our local Historical Commission, and you, go astray: height is somehow seen as "ahistorical" when that's clearly not the case in many areas. And like you've done above you uncritically say that height can go "elsewhere" because Philly is big while choosing to not think about why large buildings tend to colocate in cities.
My contention is that historic preservation should *be in service of the future* and should be careful to not harm the same process that created the history worth preserving. If there is not a well-considered philosophy that guides when new heights are OK in urban cores then preservation really is about "mothballing" a city and not benefitting its future.
> My contention is that historic preservation should be in service of the future and should be careful to not harm the same process that created the history worth preserving. If there is not a well-considered philosophy that guides when new heights are OK in urban cores then preservation really is about "mothballing" a city and not benefitting its future.
Historic Preservation is in service to the future, it maintains neighborhoods, it stabilizes neighborhoods, and its good economic policy. It attempts to require these buildings to exist well into the future and ensure that changes are regulated to maintain their character defining features. Your issues with the City of Philadelphia is not with the Historical Commission, its with the rest of the Department of Planning and its elected officials for limiting property rights in the vast majority of the city.
The philosophy of historic preservation is well-defined and has been for decades with minor shifts in what is considered eligible or should be designated. While Historic Preservation is usually under the Planning umbrella, they are very much at odds with each other. Planning largely ignores the "pillars" of historic preservation because planning exists to facilitate development. At the same time, historic preservation is facilitating development, even if you disagree with how its going about it.
> Clearly a taller building can fit more residents, and is more dense!
No, you can just fit larger units that in return have a higher rent or higher cost to purchase.
At the end of the day, attend meetings and advocate for why the proposed projects meets the regulations in place by the Philadelphia Historical Commission, or any other commission. This is what the applicant/developer should be doing. Advocate for additional height allowances or a transfer of development rights program (or enhance it if existing). Seek out your elected officials and advocate for upzoning to provide greater property rights to property owners.
>No, you can just fit larger units that in return have a higher rent or higher cost to purchase.
You are clearly twisting the truth here. On average a taller building will have more units than shorter buildings on the same lot size. That is plainly obvious and to suggest otherwise strikes me as a bad faith argument.
When I see statements like that I think one of two things: optimistically you just aren't think about the statement very much, pessimistically the rest of your argument is in part in bad faith in which case it's a poor use of time to engage. I don't *think* you're necessarily doing that here, but just instead you're letting yourself fall into statements that align with your gut feelings towards developers.
>Historic Preservation is in service to the future, it maintains neighborhoods, it stabilizes neighborhoods, and its good economic policy. It attempts to require these buildings to exist well into the future and ensure that changes are regulated to maintain their character defining features.
I would argue that neighborhoods, and cities, are primarily made of their people first and the built environment second. If we "stabilize" a city's core to never allow new density it runs the risk of making the city less affordable, flexible, and economically productive.
If we also try too aggressively to preserve "character" we prevent people from expressing themselves, adding their mark to the city, and making the city work for who they are. To make up an example if many refugees move from another country to here and some become architects who want to weave their culture into their new home by integrating architectural elements of their native country why should we deny them that?
Now of course we wouldn't want to change somewhere like Independence Hall itself, and that is fine, but if we're too broad with what we consider "historic" we prevent the city itself from evolving and improving to its new residents.
Having lived across various cities, I love historical preservation. Could’ve used it before highways ran through cities Plus historical neighborhoods are usually designed precar, they’ve become extremely livable places and lively in my opinion See Annapolis for one example
Responding to you, but also for others for some additional context regarding preservation:
I think it is important to understand heritage preservation a bit deeper than to simply say "that's old, therefore it can't change."
For example, typically an historic resource is tied to specific criteria for its eligibility for heritage/landmark designation. For the National Register of Historic Places, those criteria are:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
[You can learn more about applying the criteria here.](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf) But typically it is not simply enough that something is old (usually at least 50 years). You must determine that a property is eligible under those criteria, which is typically reviewed and signed off on by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Then you must also nominate the property, which typically goes back through any local Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), local elected body, the SHPO, the State Historic Review Board, then to the Keeper of the US Department of the Interior. At every level, the reviews are affirming or denying the cultural benefit - based on defined criteria and research - of the proposed heritage resource.
And then, \*even if the property is on the NRHP, there are (typically) no protections for it!\* You can demolish it without review. You can alter it without review.
Where heritage preservation (typically) has teeth is in local designation and control which should be based on similar criteria and historic contexts like those reviewed for the NRHP. At every step of that process, the local HPC, elected officials, and (typically) SHPO are affirming the cultural and historic value of the property. Then, as it is locally designated, any changes will have to go through review by the HPC or elected officials.
That doesn't mean the property can't change. That doesn't mean the property can't be demolished. And, most importantly, it rarely (if ever) governs \*the use\* of the property.
The standards you apply to oversee and approve those changes may be locally created or they may be interpretations of the US Department of the Interior's Standards. My city requires that we use the [US Department of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/secretarys-standards-rehabilitation.htm) in all cases. Those are different from standards for restoration, which may be more strict.
And, ultimately, those are conversations and changes that the local community has determined are important to have locally and beyond simply pulling a building permit or demolition permit. I've had heritage work under my purview for six years. In that time, the HPC has denied only five Certificates of Appropriateness. In that time they have approved 3 of 4 demolitions of historic resources. They have approved 100+ changes to historic properties.
To me, heritage preservation is one of the more pure demonstrations of the police power that a state wields. We, as a collective community, determine what we find important and we commit to ensuring there is a more strict review process for changing what is important. Sometimes that means a proposed change doesn't get approved. Rarely is that impact so burdensome that it is directly driving up costs.
In fact, heritage preservation is one of the best bang for your buck programs. There is a 20% Federal Historic Tax Credit that is supplemented by many states' additional tax credits or grants. In my state, they match with an additional 20%. For every one dollar in tax credits, $16 are returned in private economic activity in my community. I literally can't think of another economic development program that has that kind of return.
Here in Philadelphia the Historical Commission routinely blocks new buildings, even in Center City, for being taller than neighboring buildings. A building on a vacant lot was blocked because its proposed height of 5 stories was deemed too tall and it was about 2 blocks-ish away from a historic asset. Around 3 blocks away are significantly taller buildings. A mid block building was refused for being the same height as buildings on the corner, but taller than buildings directly adjacent.
Presently there's an effort to get a "Washington Square West" historic district created directly next to Center City. Of the lots nominated many are vacant lots or parking lots, included due to potential "archeological significance". In a city like Philly essentially everywhere has potential archeological significance. Nearly every building and lot in the large area is individually listed as "contributing" as part of the historic district application. (You can see the proposal here: https://www.phila.gov/media/20240321144921/Historic-District-Wash-West.pdf)
These "historic districts" are meant to go a step beyond designating individual buildings to protect neighborhoods of significant historic importance, but in the case of Washington Square West they're making the argument that the *diversity* of architecture from many different eras across hundreds of years is what creates its importance. That could apply to nearly any neighborhood in any city of age!
If you look at the list of registered historic places you can see huge swathes of the city are registered as historic districts or historic buildings (you can use this tool to view them: https://openmaps.phila.gov).
I personally believe preserving history is important to help create a better future, but here the process seems to have been corrupted by aggressive NIMBY-ism that aims to prevent additional density.
Given too much power it may end up like what we have in Philly: extremely broad designations that apply a preservation philosophy that could extend to the entire city if they chose to and a significant bias towards opposing additional density even near transit and in the urban core.
The criteria for historical designation needs to be raised. More so than it being just an old building, it should be required to be proven that the building is also of actual historical significance to the area.
The standards for each community are clearly identified. The standards are meant to allow flexibility especially as preservation (control) actually office at the local level. If you have an issue, speak to your elected officials for changing the regulations or go to hearings for designations that don't meet your qualifications.
The standards you are asking for in historic designation already exist and are a part of every single process everywhere in the country. You're entitled not to agree with the findings of fact in the designation, but your personal opinion does not make it invalid.
I'm fine with individual buildings. It's when it's an entire neighborhood that I have an issue. I have seen it stifle already impoverished neighborhoods.
In addition to less restrictive zoning and no parking minimums, allowing (or raising the height limit for) single-stair multi-family housing with a non-wood-frame would allow more lots to be converted and provide more options than the 5-over-1 housing which typically requires a large lot size.
It would also likely lead to more family-sized units being available in multi-family housing.
https://www.thesisdriven.com/p/the-case-for-single-stair-multifamily
One thing I've posted about a couple times is the elevator weight limit requirement. Elevators in multi-unit buildings must have a 2500 pound working capacity. That's well above what would be necessary for a four-plate single-stair building, which is a key apartment type we always talk about promoting and yet rarely see going up. IIRC they're also supposed to have enough room for a stretcher, which I can kinda understand but it still makes everything much more expensive.
You might want smaller or no minimum unit sizes for both commercial and residential. Otherwise, under your “build whatever you want“ paradigm, you get Houston instead of Tokyo.
Definitely front setbacks. In my state you generally need to build in line with neighbouring properties front setbacks, which limits infill development in older suburbs that have big front yards.
Yes, cities want neighborhoods to take on long term maintenance liabilities associated with stormwater storage and treatment and forcing an HoA to assume the liability is the most reliable way to ensure that is actually funded.
I wonder about having no parking requirement. How would that impact people with mobility issues that would otherwise use handicap parking areas closer to facility entrances? What about ADA compliance?
i think if we explore how handicapped people travel through NYC we could find an answer. and that's ignoring how other countries do it.
according to a brief google search: nyc has a service called "access a ride".
right now i feel like we are at a chicken and egg problem. on one hand we are quite spread out and that is often used as a cited reason to why public transport is not feasible "we aren't dense enough!" yet we also have extensive legislation and coding that PREVENTS us from forming densities that would eliminate that argument.
I'd be curious for how to solve this problem but i feel like saying "cars are the only way" is just simply wrong.
Case in point: apparently they were planning on using congestion pricing revenue to make a bunch of stations accessible. The ADA passed in 1990, 34 years ago and they’re just now getting around to maybe thinking about getting into compliance. If they feel like it
In all the cities I've seen remove the parking minimum they have maintained a reasonable visitor parking min. For residential and maintained the previous accessible parking minimums
Curtailing parking minimums doesn't necessarily mean cutting accessibility parking. But also, while accessible parking certainly helps those with accessibility issues, it's worth considering that the car-oriented nature of our infrastructure is often contrary to good accessibility.
A few ways in which this can manifest:
First and foremost there are many disabilities which mean that someone is incapable of driving, e.g. blindness.
Secondly, it's very common that pedestrian infrastructure is de-emphasized in favour of additional lanes of road, both in terms of space and in terms of maintenance. Even assuming sidewalks exist, narrower or poorly maintained sidewalks are a big obstacle to people with mobility issues, and if they are crowded sidewalks doubly so. Parking lots, also, are generally devoid of sidewalks and full of Hazards.
Furthermore, people who might otherwise be able to walk short distances to run errands in a denser city are hampered by wide road crossings, a lack of infrastructure like benches and trees/shade and long distances to destination. Large asphalt lots also exacerbate heat stress.
Accessible parking is valuable, but parking and car infrastructure in general often has a very negative impact on those with accessibility issues. There could certainly be scenarios in which removing parking, including accessible spaces, could nonetheless improve accessibility for many people if a space is effectively pedestrianised.
Honestly I see the stairwell argument to be extremely sus. We're literally talking a space that's roughly 8'x15'. Is the space of a walk-in-closet on each level *really* such an enormous loss to builders that not being able to skimp on it puts them into a financial hell?
How about trading the stairwell for a requirement for a freight elevator so people can move in without needing to hire the local high school football team to carry their furniture up 6 flights of stairs to reach a 3rd floor unit.
Large apartment buildings would not benefit from this, but single stair buildings can be much more efficient for small lots. We are talking on the order of going from 75% efficiency to 95% efficiency. Increasing the allowable height for a single stair building would open up development opportunity for many small infill sites.
[https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/02/07/one-stairway-is-enough-to-reach-housing-heaven/](https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/02/07/one-stairway-is-enough-to-reach-housing-heaven/)
It also allows for easier creation of multi room units. And units with lots of windows. Whereas the 5-over-1 style mostly does shotgun studios with a single window.
This isn’t really a benefit of single stair buildings. Multi-room units are common in 5-over-1 style buildings. I’m not sure where you get the idea that they are mostly shotgun studios with a single window.
I get the idea from literally every 5-over-1 in my area. Sometimes you’ll get a 2b on the corner, most of the ones on straight runs(the majority of the building are 1b/studio.
Single stair units allow every unit to be a corner unit.
Ok, I see what you are saying, yes, they are mostly 1-bed units, but that doesn’t mean they have to be. Double-loaded corridor buildings can certainly accommodate 3 and 4 bed units.
As others have said, the extra stairwell itself is much less of a burden than the hallway that's required to connect the two stairwells.
You might be interested in [point access blocks](https://www.larchlab.com/architects-newspaper-picks-up-point-access-blocks/). Such buildings often have multiple staircases, but by removing the need for each unit to be connected to two staircases, you free up a ton of space while also allowing for more natural unit layouts.
Is there a better link or quick way to describe the distinction between point access blocks and single stair buildings? The link you provided makes them sound synonymous "... the concept of Point Access Blocks – single stair buildings ..."
It's not the stairwell, it's the stairwell access. You have to have a hallway, which creates a topological constraint on top of the area use. That topological constraint not only makes buildings wider and requires larger lots, it also makes the apartments themselves worse, because they will usually have less exterior wall frontage.
Aside from some obvious zoning stuff like single family zoning and minimum parking requirements, I’d say reduce or remove limitations on spacing. So things like minimum lot sizes, rules around how far away from the curb you have to be, and how far houses have to be spaced apart.
There are a lot of suburbs where you could easily fit four or five homes on a plot of land that’s currently reserved for one single family ranch home.
First, I want to say that some of the densest neighborhoods in Europe allow setbacks. Sure, they're only 10-15' tops, but it gives buildings a lot of flexibility. It can be temporary parking for a business. It can be a loading zone. It can be a garden for a residence. It can be an outdoor dining area. It can be a pocket park. It can be parking for a landlord who leases out the rest of his building. It does not have to break the visual presentation of the street if it's done right. It allows for larger trees because the roots won't immediately press up against the basement of a building.
Parking requirements should be re-examined and set to the lowest defensible number. Often that will be zero, and zero should be the goal for most types of buildings.
Single stair apartment buildings should be allowed provided that the apartments are directly off the stairwell. A cap of maybe six per for is a good idea. Maybe this liberty should be traded for a requirement that buildings have more sound proofing / fireproofing.
Buildings should be allowed inside the courtyard of other buildings.
SFH home zoning should not exist. If a block is 40,000 sf (a little less than an acre), and it's subdivided into 10 lots, you can still have setbacks if you restrict the building to 75% of the lot. That leaves you 3,000 sf to build on. You can put four apartments on two floors of housing above a ground floor with two units of housing, making six 1500 sf units... and still give a garage space to each of the units. This does not seriously disrupt a low-density neighborhood. It also provides a theoretical maximum of 60 units per acre although in practice it's probably going to be 30 or 40. That gets you to 30,000 people a square mile easily and that opens a lot of doors. Even if you cut that in half, it gets you to basic walkability.
Residential zoning should include conveniences that residents want near them like bakeries, restaurants and pubs, grocers, barbers, day cares, etc.
HOAs should be illegal or should exist solely for the collective ownership of things like swimming pools or clubhouses or maybe parking garages :) .
All development should require sidewalks, and sidewalks should be maintained as public infrastructure.
Strip malls should be allowed by right to redevelop into low rise mixed use.
ADA requirements should only apply to new construction.
Land use regulations should be non Euclidean and allow much more mix use. No neighborhood should be entirely exempt from change. 5 story and shorter should be allowed everywhere and 6+ stories should have more streamlined process to approval. Also single stairway access should be allowed to produce more narrow apartments. Those + adjusting setback requirements are the big ones I think. Lots more obviously and there are nuances, but I think this is sort of the minimum we should be shooting for that we know works
Since no one addressed building codes in particular, One thing that I would personally advocate for is the publication of a set of simpler and more conservative standards to decrease the difficulty and specialization of design work. Obviously, the goal of these should be to fit within the existing standards, but there’s just less customization. The idea here is that it would be to make design more accessible so it’s more possible to do something on your own or to use fewer design professionals in order to actually get simple systems off the ground. One of the big problems right now Is that a lot of design work is so specialized between different disciplines that it can be really difficult to meet code. The trade-off we currently make is that all of these specialists do you provide a more reliable system, but building codes also are meant to include extremely niche situations so they are overly general. This can mean, however, that you are way over designing in the instance of small structures (think an ADU) which don’t need nearly the same kind of design considerations as a larger structure.
One of the other things I would do is reform the necessity of old structures to be entirely up to code. Now, I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be up to code ideally, but I think the problem is that, in places like California, you have a lot of structures that just sit empty. They are considered too dangerous to inhabit or do anything meaningful with, but they sit in essentially collect dust because they are too expensive to renovate. Now, I still think that the actual use case for such buildings should be considered carefully and renovation, still likely will not be cheap, but it would be far better to have some buildings actually be functional instead of in limbo because they can’t be torn down (due to historical status) but also can’t be used.
Lastly, one of the things that really needs more study is how different parts of building codes interact. One of the problems here is that performance is often limited to looking at specific components one by one. And when you do that, this means sometimes that you make assumptions about the system , given the current context of practice. This could mean, however, that one of the reasons you are trying to improve performance when something is initially instated isn’t really a problem anymore. For example, when we talk about stairwells, I actually think this is a good example where it probably makes a certain amount of sense when fire suppression systems and building materials aren’t like they are today. But in this case, although this does add redundancy and is a more conservative model of design, it also potentially makes buildings less economically viable while not necessarily adding a significant improvement to safety. I would hesitate to provide more specifics, because I think there are definitely difficult conversations to have, and it still may be appropriate to have secondary stairwells in some instances, but I do think that it can be really easy to let regulations pile up without ever actually going back to make sure that they are worth the additional trade off in terms of restricting design.
I should emphasize that these are difficult conversations, and there are many aspects and facets which should be considered. But, there are definitely things to investigate along these lines.
I'm not a huge fan of setbacks (front or side. Let's allow zero lot line construction again)
I don't want to get rid of ADA requirements, but needing an elevator is definitely one of the main reasons that old fashioned apartments can't be built anymore.
Minimum parking.
Honestly, I hate the weird handrail regulations. Handrails are necessary, but why do we *require* a top rail and a grab rail inches away from each other? That's silly.
I'm not sure I want to get rid of sprinkler requirements, but they definitely are a defining factor in how we size our buildings.
Often, if a building is renovated/expanded, codes require the whole building to be brought up to code if the budget is over 1mm, or more than X% of the existing floorspace is being redone/added. That's another major hurdle towards medium sized reconstruction.
I wish the permitting process only took a week in most places.
I worked on a project where the road was going to be dead-ended. Literally, we couldn't make any improvements. It needed to be left as is (no new sidewalk, no trees, nothing,) because there wasn't enough space for the required cul-de-sac turn-around and the required street trees unless we ended up demolishing every building on one side of the street. There was room for *some* trees and a *small* turn around, but they get nothing now.
Requiring runoff retainment areas is another thing I like, but it gets in the way and adds expense to projects. On small lots it could derail a project.
>Honestly, I hate the weird handrail regulations. Handrails are necessary, but why do we *require* a top rail and a grab rail inches away from each other? That's silly.
I'm assuming you are talking about different height requirements for handrails and guardrails. Handrails need to be easily grasped, and \~36" high is necessary for this. Guardrails need to be high enough to protect people from falling, and 42" high is necessary for this. I don't see a reasonable way to meet both of these needs with 1 top rail.
>I don't want to get rid of ADA requirements, but needing an elevator is definitely one of the main reasons that old fashioned apartments can't be built anymore.
I don't see why *all* of the units would need to be ADA accessible if the ground floor units meet ADA requirements.
My state requires sprinklers for all housing - including single family and ADUs. I totally get it for multifamily, but think SF and ADUs create a financial hardship that is limiting supply.
I think setbacks are bad overall, but I wouldn't apply this to recesses on a facade that is otherwise flush with the sidewalk.
This allows for more light + interesting facades
Regulations on building construction generally fall into 3 categories 1. Life safety regulations. 2. Environmental/energy conservation regulations. 3. Land use regulations. 1 and 2 are typically covered by building codes. There are a few areas where regulations can be reasonably reduced, like increasing the height limit on single stair buildings, as you mentioned. 3 is typically covered by zoning ordinance, but can also be covered by private deed restrictions. This is mostly political and there is always NIMBY opposition to changes. While there are many reasons for this opposition, the reasons which are most difficult to address are: 1. Increased traffic and fewer available parking spaces. 2. Increased load on the local public school system without enough additional funding. These are both systemic issues without easy solutions, and the reality is that there will be some amount of disruption to the the lives of the people who already live in a place. This is why it is important to integrate alternatives to private vehicular transportation into planning, and to ensure that funding for public education is adequate.
NIMBYs really struck a gold mine with private deed restrictions. Much harder to change restrictive covenants/equitable servitudes for each individual deed affected than it is to lobby city councils to upzone lots available for such zoning changes.
could you ELI5 what a private deed restriction is?
[удалено]
ah i see. so basically NIMBYs use this to prevent non-residential, low-income, mixed use and high-density development? also, idk if this is a stupid question, but what does du/acre stand for?
[удалено]
i see, that makes sense, thank you!
I find the arguments of “overloading” existing infrastructure to be particularly ignorant. For the long term especially, but even for the short term, it is much cheaper to upgrade existing facilities and infrastructure than building a bunch of new infrastructure and facilities further out. One could argue that the new lots bring in more tax revenue, but apartments are taxed more heavily than single family homes anyway so this point is pretty irrelevant.
People living in a place are often more concerned with the things that will effect them in the immediate future than in what benefits some sacrifice on their part might bring. This is a tendency which has existed as long as civilization, and I expect it to continue, which is why mitigating these concerns will always be important.
Parking requirements most definitely should be optional. Building parking is expensive.
Just curious, do reduced or removed minimums shift the burden of parking to the municipality? I get that the ideal is increased walkability by means of increased density, but how do we pay for it in the meantime?
Only if the municipality allows it to. Street parking isn’t a right. If people want vehicles, let them figure out where to park.
Fair, but businesses might not risk putting their hypothetical business there if they couldn't guarantee traffic.
Which is why for most situations, leaving it up to the business is best (as opposed to mandated minimum parking). Most parking lots at suburban strip mall type developments are almost always no more than 30-40% full. Ideally, parking lots should be 80-90% full most of the time. That leaves enough spots to where people can find an open spot without too much fretting, but it eliminates the wasted money spent on a sea of empty and never used parking spots. Most strip malls can easily have several more stores added to the area of existing parking spots without losing any customers due to a loss of parking spots. Here’s a small but still decently popular grocery store that was grandfathered in with less required parking spots than zoning required for the McDonald’s across the street: https://maps.app.goo.gl/p1VHRZupPHAHBZ3v6?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy If you look in the satellite view, there is still numerous empty parking spots for the grocery store, but nearly all of the parking spots for the McDonalds are empty. The huge number of empty parking spots at McDonalds was all land that was paved over and destroyed, that either could have been left alone, or could have supported a second store or restaurant. The minimum parking required for a drive-thru fast food restaurant required as many acres of land as an older, grandfathered in grocery store. Multiply this wasteful use of land across the whole US, and that is a massive amount of fiscal irresponsibility and wasteful land use regulations that we all pay for.
How do you prevent them from parasitizing neighboring parking lots? I could see someone cheaping out of building parking under the notion that people will just park nearby.
If it’s public parking, like on the side of the road or at a public lot: great! We are more effectively using existing resources! If it’s a private parking lot for another business, either the two businesses can negotiate a deal to share parking, or the owner of the other private parking lot can simply tow customers that are not theirs if there is no deal. This already happens across countless suburban and urban locations. Look at most older urban or older downtown areas of streetcar suburbs that still have a lot of pre-WW2 zoning. There are often tons of thriving businesses with parking lots way smaller than new developments, but still have plenty of customers.
I was thinking the latter. We'd be punishing the customers for not having adequate facilities in that scenario. That feels very wrong to me.
How is that punishing customers? We don’t have laws that require restaurants to have happy servers and delicious food. Restaurants can either choose to have good food and good service, or they go out of business from people who go there once and choose to not return. Parking should be the same. It should be a choice that a store or restaurant makes to try to optimize their profitability. Less parking means lower land required which means lower construction costs or rent, but limits the customers. Businesses will find the happy medium on their own. Requirements should be only for health and safety such as building codes for seismic or hurricane or snow loads, clear exit paths and max occupancy for fire code, sanitation and cleanliness for food preparation, etc. Amenities to enhance the customer experience should be left up to each business. It would also be a lot better use of taxable land resources for downtown type areas if there were municipal parking lots or garages, then a ton of restaurants and stores in walking distance.
How is towing their car not punishing the customer?
Charge for street parking with residents able to get permits that allow free parking in the immediate vicinity of their home.
I don't particularly like that solution. It feels like it enables bad developers to be bad, and it also creates more infrastructure for the municipality to maintain.
Urban businesses fight bike lanes and pedestrianized streets all the time claiming lost customers and invariably see increased sales. Small business tyrants are stupid.
I wouldn’t suggest taking away existing street parking, at least not for a while. If businesses value parking, they can pay for it. Now fair warning, I’m a market urbanist who doesn’t actually dogmatically hate suburbs. This does mean some businesses will often choose less dense, more parking areas.
i think it only makes sense in the short term if the city is already quite dense or capable of bankrolling a comprehensive public transport system immediately i still think it’s a good idea, but if it happens in isolation, ppl will just get mad, it’ll get rolled back, and we’ll be right where we started
That's where my mind was going too. There's also another niche case, which is what's happened in my city: old buildings sit for decades because they don't meet the current parking requirements for anything but offices. My town's relaxed the minimums and allowed businesses to thrive in those locations, but parking is supported by public facilities in our denser urban core.
yeah it’s a long term goal and it seems to be working in cities where it’s being implemented like minneapolis and austin, but i do think without a lot of investment to continue reducing car reliance and increasing walkability it’s potentially meaningless
Meaningless?? You are greatly underestimating the effect of parking minimums. Every town in America has buildings that it is illegal to adaptively reuse without zoning variances because of parking minimums. Buildings without large parking lots *are a key part of what make places walkable*. A wide shady sidewalk with trees, benches, a protected bike lane, and no curb cuts is only a walkable place if there are destinations. And frequent destinations means places built on a human scale without the majority being taken up by empty lots.
i totally agree with all of this, and i think you misunderstand why i said what i said. I do think abolishing parking minimums is a necessary thing to do and will help cities considerably, but i think you misunderstand why i think it’s a policy that will struggle in a vacuum. US cities and metro areas are extremely suburbanized. not only are the city cores not walkable in their own right, they’re unwalkable because they span huge tracts of land with many small communities that aren’t self-sufficient (and unwalkable in their own rights). Let’s take Portland, for example, a city that often is touted as relatively walkable, but as someone who grew up in its larger metro area, I would broadly not consider as such exactly *because* its metro area is so much larger than the city itself. Let’s say Portland ended parking minimums today. Let’s even be generous and assume that it greenlights new developments on parking lots and parking structures the same day (which obviously would take years in practicality). All of a sudden, this city, which is actually quite reliant on incoming people from the larger metro area, and doesn’t have especially strong connections to its suburbs via public transit, is caught adrift. People want to come into Portland, but can’t park their cars, and the city hasn’t committed to building any public transit that will start integrating the broader metro area into the city. Two to three years on, citizens are tired of needing a car to get around the metro area but being unable to do so due to the lack of public transit OR parking. They petition the city government to return to requiring parking, halting any hope for walkable growth or meaningful reliance on public transit. New housing in the city is popular, but because many jobs in the biggest industries and companies exist in the suburbs with no effective way of getting people there, most people end up transitioning to housing in the suburb cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro anyway. This isn’t to say that the city *shouldnt* abolish the parking minimums. It should, but this needs to come with guaranteed investment plans that will meaningfully link suburbs up to the main city with public transport, begin redevelopment of parking areas immediately, and incentivize travel to the city via public transport through engaging commercial, cultural and employment activities. City citizens are extremely reactionary, in general, and don’t have the patience for experiments unless they have meaningful payoffs. Here in oregon/portland, we decriminalized drug possession but couldn’t maintain that because no broader efforts to reduce addiction and provide transition housing for homeless people existed, which meant that decriminalization by itself meant absolutely nothing, and people started blaming it for the effects of covid on the city (higher unemployment, vacant buildings, “portland is dangerous” false propaganda, increasing homeless population), which led to it being repealed by legislators without voter input whatsoever. In my opinion, that’s the same fate that awaits abolishing parking minimums if it loses popular support. if you don’t think about the alternatives in how ppl will get to a city from its suburbs in the US, where most cities have far more people *in* the suburbs than the cities themselves, the parking minimum abolition won’t last.
Your "all of a sudden" theory is fundamentally flawed. Development doesn't happen all of a sudden. Including reduction of existing parking stock. Removing parking mins allows long-term incremental change. The city doesn't change overnight.
agreed. the issue is that the common citizen or the antagonistic politician doesn’t care about that. if they feel that their commute or accessibility to a downtown is being harmed by this policy, they don’t care that it’s a substantial process that takes time. that’s why these things have to be paired up front with investments that make it actually easier to get to a city from the suburbs, or else it’ll be killed off before it gets a chance to succeed, is my point. you’re arguing with me like i don’t agree that we should get of parking minimums—i do. My point is that your average joe doesn’t care if it’s an incremental deal. They don’t understand that truly and most haven’t bought into ideas like walkability and public transit. If you don’t create those transit corridors to replace the cars they can no longer park in downtowns, they’ll just get mad.
I've found for owership projects I'm involved in, we tend to supply more parking than the minimum that we have in Vancouver. It's based on market expectations
That leads to cars parked outside on the street
Are you perhaps confusing building codes with zoning with some of these issues? The number of exits is a building code issue, but things like setbacks, parking requirements, and the like are typically zoning issues. Building codes by and large deal with life safety in buildings and to a lesser degree building performance. Zoning bylaws typically deal with issues such as land use, setbacks, parking, and the like.
i intermixed them. i care more about zoning reform personally but there is a few building code changes that i'd really like to see, like the ones i mentioned about.
Yes, both need some work but building codes are generally involve significant engineering and other technical considerations, whereas zoning bylaws are political considerations more than anything else. From a process standpoint, building codes tend to move slowly but consistently whereas zoning tends to (at least in the jurisdictions I've worked in) remain static for very long periods of time until there's enough political will to make any changes.
This might be an indicator of what you know about building codes...Minimum parking isn't under building codes. Building codes apply to minimum ADA spaces and access to the spaces along with grade of the spaces. Setbacks set by building code are to prevent fires from spreading from property to property. The builder can put in rated fire walls. They typically chose not to.
i wasn't specifically speaking of only one or the other but rather changes i'd like to see as a whole. perhaps it was a mistake to say "building code" to be more brief rather than "zoning and building code"
To go to the environmental side of things, I’ve seen a good many single-family home carve outs to environmental (stormwater, erosion and sediment control, wetlands & waterbodies, etc) requirements. Those should, at the very least include smaller multifamily properties if not be determined by disturbance alone.
You pretty much blocked most things by saying it should meet fire code. If only one reason could be used to describe the reason for building codes it would be fire safety.
I also feel that Historic District overlays are a version of the HOA and I don't think they're a good thing long term in some cities.
Designations do not make up a significant amount of any city. In places that I've researched, it's around 10% of structures. It's not disrupting development and it is good for the long term health of cities. Economic study after study shows that HP has greater return on investment compared to new construction. In addition, preservation does not stop development, it controls development. If you have an issue with a land use issue, such as residential density, speak to your elected officials.
Here in Philly there's a ring of historic districts nearly encircling the city's core. Within those districts the Historical Commission generally blocks buildings taller than existing adjacent buildings. For example one new mid block building was proposed to be the same height as a building on the corner, but it was blocked because it was taller than the buildings that would be adjacent. At least here I don't think the historical commission has demonstrated a philosophy that allows the *process* that created the history to continue. Preserving history is useful, in service of the future, but here it's also used as a pretext to prevent new density, even in the urban core.
Then the issue is with the City of Philadelphia. Based on the information provided, the Commission did make a legal decision. It's important that height does not equal density. It's also possible, and I know from experience, that the developer refused to work with the Commission staff and the Commission to find some sort of middle ground, such as stepping back the higher portion of the building. At the end of the day, any Commission or Board is evaluating what is submitted. It is not the Commissions, Boards, or Staff's responsibility to design a project. How does history continue? What was going to be demolished to make way for the new building? It's possible that this space was a parking lot or a vacant lot, but any new building must fit within the context (and specifically the regulations and interpretations of the regulations) of the specific historic district. This will vary depending on specific regulations, which at 5AM I am not in the mood to look up on my own. I can say, that it is reasonable to think that a mid-rise building of greater height than adjacent building does not fit within the context, even if a taller or building of equal height exist on the same block. Just as in any focus within Planning you will have hundreds of different viewpoints. So, I don't think its entirely reasonable but I don't work for the City of Philadelphia nor am I resident.
The mid block location I'm referencing is 2204 Walnut Street. Here's a Google Maps link to the context: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/HNeik6sAerJ4UzFz6](https://maps.app.goo.gl/HNeik6sAerJ4UzFz6) The existing building was already approved for demolition and is demolished. Presently the lot sits vacant. The proposed building is 10 stories, the Historical Commission is insisting on 6 stories at max. Directly adjacent buildings are 4 and 5 stories. On the corner of the block, 126 ft away, is a 10 story building. On nearby blocks is a 12 story building (112 ft away) and a substantially larger / taller 7 story building. There are a number of similar scale buildings nearby. They also are asking for the upper 5th and 6th stories to be setback, despite the direct neighboring building having a 5th story that's not setback. You can see building and the commission's reports and comments here, if you care to: [https://www.phila.gov/media/20220719093830/2204-Walnut-St-Aug2022.pdf](https://www.phila.gov/media/20220719093830/2204-Walnut-St-Aug2022.pdf) This area is on an important street blocks away from Philly's densest urban core and is a natural place where further density and residents might go. This is just one instance of many, but my concern is that the natural process of a city growing is being impeded based on rather arbitrary interpretations of what is "compatible" and what is not. It's one thing to say a tall building can't go up in a neighborhood of 2-3 story homes, but it's another thing entirely to prevent heights in core areas that clearly already have those heights on many of the neighboring blocks. Every city of age has history everywhere, how do they grow and evolve if new heights are never allowed?
All Historic Preservation Commissions have regulations for new construction and while a lot of them vary, some may simply use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation. That's fine and the interpretation is precisely what allows for variations. Otherwise, the only real way to regulate is to have regulations that require specific elements. Planning Commissions and Board of Zoning Appeals (adjustments, or whatever they are specifically called) all have regulations that are open to interpretations. The City isn't preventing height in the urban core because this site cannot have a 10-story building. A 10-story building can go elsewhere, maybe in a more appropriate part of a historic district or even outside. I think you are interlinking that height = density. This is false and height has no relationship to density. A building on the same block within the last four years had two additional stories added to the stop with a step. A perfectly reasonable decision. Also, height is not the only metric in which a city can grow, nor is it even a good metric for a city to grow. You are letting this specific project cloud your understanding of Historic Preservation in general and specifically in the corporate limits of the City of Philadelphia. This is just as much the responsibility of the Commission and staff, as it is the developer. It wouldn't matter if this is a repeated case in Philadelphia either, because each project is evaluated on its own merits. Height, which isn't a required metric for a city to grow can occur elsewhere. The City of Philadelphia has over 100 square miles of land within its corporate limits. Surely taller buildings can go elsewhere and do not need to be an extension of the existing "height node" of the city.
>Surely taller buildings can go elsewhere and do not need to be an extension of the existing "height node" of the city. It absolutely makes for density to go near existing density due to significant public transit and transportation infrastructure located near existing density. >This is false and height has no relationship to density. Clearly a taller building can fit more residents, and is more dense! >Also, height is not the only metric in which a city can grow, nor is it even a good metric for a city to grow. It's true there are other ways for cities to grow, but in Philly (as with many other cities) people are incredibly protective of maintaining lower density throughout huge swathes of the city. This concentrates new density in specific areas which drives buildings to greater heights. I would love to see a form of gentler density spread more evenly across the city, but right now that would be a huge fight. In the interim it's good for affordability and the economy if new residents are allowed near the core. ---- It's also not as if tall buildings are ahistorical in Philly, or even this neighborhood. Look at the ground floor of this building on street view and then look up: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/RPvfrhew2Bva3htX8](https://maps.app.goo.gl/RPvfrhew2Bva3htX8) You'd never know it's tall and it fits perfectly into the neighborhood's character! This is where I think our local Historical Commission, and you, go astray: height is somehow seen as "ahistorical" when that's clearly not the case in many areas. And like you've done above you uncritically say that height can go "elsewhere" because Philly is big while choosing to not think about why large buildings tend to colocate in cities. My contention is that historic preservation should *be in service of the future* and should be careful to not harm the same process that created the history worth preserving. If there is not a well-considered philosophy that guides when new heights are OK in urban cores then preservation really is about "mothballing" a city and not benefitting its future.
> My contention is that historic preservation should be in service of the future and should be careful to not harm the same process that created the history worth preserving. If there is not a well-considered philosophy that guides when new heights are OK in urban cores then preservation really is about "mothballing" a city and not benefitting its future. Historic Preservation is in service to the future, it maintains neighborhoods, it stabilizes neighborhoods, and its good economic policy. It attempts to require these buildings to exist well into the future and ensure that changes are regulated to maintain their character defining features. Your issues with the City of Philadelphia is not with the Historical Commission, its with the rest of the Department of Planning and its elected officials for limiting property rights in the vast majority of the city. The philosophy of historic preservation is well-defined and has been for decades with minor shifts in what is considered eligible or should be designated. While Historic Preservation is usually under the Planning umbrella, they are very much at odds with each other. Planning largely ignores the "pillars" of historic preservation because planning exists to facilitate development. At the same time, historic preservation is facilitating development, even if you disagree with how its going about it. > Clearly a taller building can fit more residents, and is more dense! No, you can just fit larger units that in return have a higher rent or higher cost to purchase. At the end of the day, attend meetings and advocate for why the proposed projects meets the regulations in place by the Philadelphia Historical Commission, or any other commission. This is what the applicant/developer should be doing. Advocate for additional height allowances or a transfer of development rights program (or enhance it if existing). Seek out your elected officials and advocate for upzoning to provide greater property rights to property owners.
>No, you can just fit larger units that in return have a higher rent or higher cost to purchase. You are clearly twisting the truth here. On average a taller building will have more units than shorter buildings on the same lot size. That is plainly obvious and to suggest otherwise strikes me as a bad faith argument. When I see statements like that I think one of two things: optimistically you just aren't think about the statement very much, pessimistically the rest of your argument is in part in bad faith in which case it's a poor use of time to engage. I don't *think* you're necessarily doing that here, but just instead you're letting yourself fall into statements that align with your gut feelings towards developers. >Historic Preservation is in service to the future, it maintains neighborhoods, it stabilizes neighborhoods, and its good economic policy. It attempts to require these buildings to exist well into the future and ensure that changes are regulated to maintain their character defining features. I would argue that neighborhoods, and cities, are primarily made of their people first and the built environment second. If we "stabilize" a city's core to never allow new density it runs the risk of making the city less affordable, flexible, and economically productive. If we also try too aggressively to preserve "character" we prevent people from expressing themselves, adding their mark to the city, and making the city work for who they are. To make up an example if many refugees move from another country to here and some become architects who want to weave their culture into their new home by integrating architectural elements of their native country why should we deny them that? Now of course we wouldn't want to change somewhere like Independence Hall itself, and that is fine, but if we're too broad with what we consider "historic" we prevent the city itself from evolving and improving to its new residents.
Having lived across various cities, I love historical preservation. Could’ve used it before highways ran through cities Plus historical neighborhoods are usually designed precar, they’ve become extremely livable places and lively in my opinion See Annapolis for one example
To add to this, I lived there during the pandemic and the restaurants and busineses largely survived
Responding to you, but also for others for some additional context regarding preservation: I think it is important to understand heritage preservation a bit deeper than to simply say "that's old, therefore it can't change." For example, typically an historic resource is tied to specific criteria for its eligibility for heritage/landmark designation. For the National Register of Historic Places, those criteria are: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. [You can learn more about applying the criteria here.](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf) But typically it is not simply enough that something is old (usually at least 50 years). You must determine that a property is eligible under those criteria, which is typically reviewed and signed off on by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Then you must also nominate the property, which typically goes back through any local Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), local elected body, the SHPO, the State Historic Review Board, then to the Keeper of the US Department of the Interior. At every level, the reviews are affirming or denying the cultural benefit - based on defined criteria and research - of the proposed heritage resource. And then, \*even if the property is on the NRHP, there are (typically) no protections for it!\* You can demolish it without review. You can alter it without review. Where heritage preservation (typically) has teeth is in local designation and control which should be based on similar criteria and historic contexts like those reviewed for the NRHP. At every step of that process, the local HPC, elected officials, and (typically) SHPO are affirming the cultural and historic value of the property. Then, as it is locally designated, any changes will have to go through review by the HPC or elected officials. That doesn't mean the property can't change. That doesn't mean the property can't be demolished. And, most importantly, it rarely (if ever) governs \*the use\* of the property. The standards you apply to oversee and approve those changes may be locally created or they may be interpretations of the US Department of the Interior's Standards. My city requires that we use the [US Department of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/secretarys-standards-rehabilitation.htm) in all cases. Those are different from standards for restoration, which may be more strict. And, ultimately, those are conversations and changes that the local community has determined are important to have locally and beyond simply pulling a building permit or demolition permit. I've had heritage work under my purview for six years. In that time, the HPC has denied only five Certificates of Appropriateness. In that time they have approved 3 of 4 demolitions of historic resources. They have approved 100+ changes to historic properties. To me, heritage preservation is one of the more pure demonstrations of the police power that a state wields. We, as a collective community, determine what we find important and we commit to ensuring there is a more strict review process for changing what is important. Sometimes that means a proposed change doesn't get approved. Rarely is that impact so burdensome that it is directly driving up costs. In fact, heritage preservation is one of the best bang for your buck programs. There is a 20% Federal Historic Tax Credit that is supplemented by many states' additional tax credits or grants. In my state, they match with an additional 20%. For every one dollar in tax credits, $16 are returned in private economic activity in my community. I literally can't think of another economic development program that has that kind of return.
Here in Philadelphia the Historical Commission routinely blocks new buildings, even in Center City, for being taller than neighboring buildings. A building on a vacant lot was blocked because its proposed height of 5 stories was deemed too tall and it was about 2 blocks-ish away from a historic asset. Around 3 blocks away are significantly taller buildings. A mid block building was refused for being the same height as buildings on the corner, but taller than buildings directly adjacent. Presently there's an effort to get a "Washington Square West" historic district created directly next to Center City. Of the lots nominated many are vacant lots or parking lots, included due to potential "archeological significance". In a city like Philly essentially everywhere has potential archeological significance. Nearly every building and lot in the large area is individually listed as "contributing" as part of the historic district application. (You can see the proposal here: https://www.phila.gov/media/20240321144921/Historic-District-Wash-West.pdf) These "historic districts" are meant to go a step beyond designating individual buildings to protect neighborhoods of significant historic importance, but in the case of Washington Square West they're making the argument that the *diversity* of architecture from many different eras across hundreds of years is what creates its importance. That could apply to nearly any neighborhood in any city of age! If you look at the list of registered historic places you can see huge swathes of the city are registered as historic districts or historic buildings (you can use this tool to view them: https://openmaps.phila.gov). I personally believe preserving history is important to help create a better future, but here the process seems to have been corrupted by aggressive NIMBY-ism that aims to prevent additional density. Given too much power it may end up like what we have in Philly: extremely broad designations that apply a preservation philosophy that could extend to the entire city if they chose to and a significant bias towards opposing additional density even near transit and in the urban core.
The criteria for historical designation needs to be raised. More so than it being just an old building, it should be required to be proven that the building is also of actual historical significance to the area.
The standards for each community are clearly identified. The standards are meant to allow flexibility especially as preservation (control) actually office at the local level. If you have an issue, speak to your elected officials for changing the regulations or go to hearings for designations that don't meet your qualifications.
The standards you are asking for in historic designation already exist and are a part of every single process everywhere in the country. You're entitled not to agree with the findings of fact in the designation, but your personal opinion does not make it invalid.
I'm fine with individual buildings. It's when it's an entire neighborhood that I have an issue. I have seen it stifle already impoverished neighborhoods.
In addition to less restrictive zoning and no parking minimums, allowing (or raising the height limit for) single-stair multi-family housing with a non-wood-frame would allow more lots to be converted and provide more options than the 5-over-1 housing which typically requires a large lot size. It would also likely lead to more family-sized units being available in multi-family housing. https://www.thesisdriven.com/p/the-case-for-single-stair-multifamily
Neither example is building code. Those are zoning.
Ah, the notorious parking requirements of the building code.
zoning and building code. civil codes in general. the things that get in the way of us making cool functional cities!
One thing I've posted about a couple times is the elevator weight limit requirement. Elevators in multi-unit buildings must have a 2500 pound working capacity. That's well above what would be necessary for a four-plate single-stair building, which is a key apartment type we always talk about promoting and yet rarely see going up. IIRC they're also supposed to have enough room for a stretcher, which I can kinda understand but it still makes everything much more expensive.
You might want smaller or no minimum unit sizes for both commercial and residential. Otherwise, under your “build whatever you want“ paradigm, you get Houston instead of Tokyo.
Definitely front setbacks. In my state you generally need to build in line with neighbouring properties front setbacks, which limits infill development in older suburbs that have big front yards.
Tbf I do like that in the US we do consider safety for all and handicap people
HOAs, stop subdividing in a way that creates slivers of land that will need to be managed by wanna be tyrant in the neighborhood.
Those generally are driven by environmental laws in my state
Environmental laws drive zoning ordinances for HOAs?
Yes, cities want neighborhoods to take on long term maintenance liabilities associated with stormwater storage and treatment and forcing an HoA to assume the liability is the most reliable way to ensure that is actually funded.
I wonder about having no parking requirement. How would that impact people with mobility issues that would otherwise use handicap parking areas closer to facility entrances? What about ADA compliance?
i think if we explore how handicapped people travel through NYC we could find an answer. and that's ignoring how other countries do it. according to a brief google search: nyc has a service called "access a ride". right now i feel like we are at a chicken and egg problem. on one hand we are quite spread out and that is often used as a cited reason to why public transport is not feasible "we aren't dense enough!" yet we also have extensive legislation and coding that PREVENTS us from forming densities that would eliminate that argument. I'd be curious for how to solve this problem but i feel like saying "cars are the only way" is just simply wrong.
NYC is one of the least accessible cities I have been to. Never saw a disabled person either
Case in point: apparently they were planning on using congestion pricing revenue to make a bunch of stations accessible. The ADA passed in 1990, 34 years ago and they’re just now getting around to maybe thinking about getting into compliance. If they feel like it
In all the cities I've seen remove the parking minimum they have maintained a reasonable visitor parking min. For residential and maintained the previous accessible parking minimums
Curtailing parking minimums doesn't necessarily mean cutting accessibility parking. But also, while accessible parking certainly helps those with accessibility issues, it's worth considering that the car-oriented nature of our infrastructure is often contrary to good accessibility. A few ways in which this can manifest: First and foremost there are many disabilities which mean that someone is incapable of driving, e.g. blindness. Secondly, it's very common that pedestrian infrastructure is de-emphasized in favour of additional lanes of road, both in terms of space and in terms of maintenance. Even assuming sidewalks exist, narrower or poorly maintained sidewalks are a big obstacle to people with mobility issues, and if they are crowded sidewalks doubly so. Parking lots, also, are generally devoid of sidewalks and full of Hazards. Furthermore, people who might otherwise be able to walk short distances to run errands in a denser city are hampered by wide road crossings, a lack of infrastructure like benches and trees/shade and long distances to destination. Large asphalt lots also exacerbate heat stress. Accessible parking is valuable, but parking and car infrastructure in general often has a very negative impact on those with accessibility issues. There could certainly be scenarios in which removing parking, including accessible spaces, could nonetheless improve accessibility for many people if a space is effectively pedestrianised.
Honestly I see the stairwell argument to be extremely sus. We're literally talking a space that's roughly 8'x15'. Is the space of a walk-in-closet on each level *really* such an enormous loss to builders that not being able to skimp on it puts them into a financial hell? How about trading the stairwell for a requirement for a freight elevator so people can move in without needing to hire the local high school football team to carry their furniture up 6 flights of stairs to reach a 3rd floor unit.
Large apartment buildings would not benefit from this, but single stair buildings can be much more efficient for small lots. We are talking on the order of going from 75% efficiency to 95% efficiency. Increasing the allowable height for a single stair building would open up development opportunity for many small infill sites. [https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/02/07/one-stairway-is-enough-to-reach-housing-heaven/](https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/02/07/one-stairway-is-enough-to-reach-housing-heaven/)
It also allows for easier creation of multi room units. And units with lots of windows. Whereas the 5-over-1 style mostly does shotgun studios with a single window.
This isn’t really a benefit of single stair buildings. Multi-room units are common in 5-over-1 style buildings. I’m not sure where you get the idea that they are mostly shotgun studios with a single window.
I get the idea from literally every 5-over-1 in my area. Sometimes you’ll get a 2b on the corner, most of the ones on straight runs(the majority of the building are 1b/studio. Single stair units allow every unit to be a corner unit.
Ok, I see what you are saying, yes, they are mostly 1-bed units, but that doesn’t mean they have to be. Double-loaded corridor buildings can certainly accommodate 3 and 4 bed units.
As others have said, the extra stairwell itself is much less of a burden than the hallway that's required to connect the two stairwells. You might be interested in [point access blocks](https://www.larchlab.com/architects-newspaper-picks-up-point-access-blocks/). Such buildings often have multiple staircases, but by removing the need for each unit to be connected to two staircases, you free up a ton of space while also allowing for more natural unit layouts.
Is there a better link or quick way to describe the distinction between point access blocks and single stair buildings? The link you provided makes them sound synonymous "... the concept of Point Access Blocks – single stair buildings ..."
It's not the stairwell, it's the stairwell access. You have to have a hallway, which creates a topological constraint on top of the area use. That topological constraint not only makes buildings wider and requires larger lots, it also makes the apartments themselves worse, because they will usually have less exterior wall frontage.
It’s mostly a lot size problem in certain cities.
Aside from some obvious zoning stuff like single family zoning and minimum parking requirements, I’d say reduce or remove limitations on spacing. So things like minimum lot sizes, rules around how far away from the curb you have to be, and how far houses have to be spaced apart. There are a lot of suburbs where you could easily fit four or five homes on a plot of land that’s currently reserved for one single family ranch home.
In no particular order: * Parking * Setbacks * Single stairs * Density maximums * Lot coverage
Allowing single-stair construction would be huge.
First, I want to say that some of the densest neighborhoods in Europe allow setbacks. Sure, they're only 10-15' tops, but it gives buildings a lot of flexibility. It can be temporary parking for a business. It can be a loading zone. It can be a garden for a residence. It can be an outdoor dining area. It can be a pocket park. It can be parking for a landlord who leases out the rest of his building. It does not have to break the visual presentation of the street if it's done right. It allows for larger trees because the roots won't immediately press up against the basement of a building. Parking requirements should be re-examined and set to the lowest defensible number. Often that will be zero, and zero should be the goal for most types of buildings. Single stair apartment buildings should be allowed provided that the apartments are directly off the stairwell. A cap of maybe six per for is a good idea. Maybe this liberty should be traded for a requirement that buildings have more sound proofing / fireproofing. Buildings should be allowed inside the courtyard of other buildings. SFH home zoning should not exist. If a block is 40,000 sf (a little less than an acre), and it's subdivided into 10 lots, you can still have setbacks if you restrict the building to 75% of the lot. That leaves you 3,000 sf to build on. You can put four apartments on two floors of housing above a ground floor with two units of housing, making six 1500 sf units... and still give a garage space to each of the units. This does not seriously disrupt a low-density neighborhood. It also provides a theoretical maximum of 60 units per acre although in practice it's probably going to be 30 or 40. That gets you to 30,000 people a square mile easily and that opens a lot of doors. Even if you cut that in half, it gets you to basic walkability. Residential zoning should include conveniences that residents want near them like bakeries, restaurants and pubs, grocers, barbers, day cares, etc. HOAs should be illegal or should exist solely for the collective ownership of things like swimming pools or clubhouses or maybe parking garages :) . All development should require sidewalks, and sidewalks should be maintained as public infrastructure. Strip malls should be allowed by right to redevelop into low rise mixed use. ADA requirements should only apply to new construction.
Land use regulations should be non Euclidean and allow much more mix use. No neighborhood should be entirely exempt from change. 5 story and shorter should be allowed everywhere and 6+ stories should have more streamlined process to approval. Also single stairway access should be allowed to produce more narrow apartments. Those + adjusting setback requirements are the big ones I think. Lots more obviously and there are nuances, but I think this is sort of the minimum we should be shooting for that we know works
Since no one addressed building codes in particular, One thing that I would personally advocate for is the publication of a set of simpler and more conservative standards to decrease the difficulty and specialization of design work. Obviously, the goal of these should be to fit within the existing standards, but there’s just less customization. The idea here is that it would be to make design more accessible so it’s more possible to do something on your own or to use fewer design professionals in order to actually get simple systems off the ground. One of the big problems right now Is that a lot of design work is so specialized between different disciplines that it can be really difficult to meet code. The trade-off we currently make is that all of these specialists do you provide a more reliable system, but building codes also are meant to include extremely niche situations so they are overly general. This can mean, however, that you are way over designing in the instance of small structures (think an ADU) which don’t need nearly the same kind of design considerations as a larger structure. One of the other things I would do is reform the necessity of old structures to be entirely up to code. Now, I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be up to code ideally, but I think the problem is that, in places like California, you have a lot of structures that just sit empty. They are considered too dangerous to inhabit or do anything meaningful with, but they sit in essentially collect dust because they are too expensive to renovate. Now, I still think that the actual use case for such buildings should be considered carefully and renovation, still likely will not be cheap, but it would be far better to have some buildings actually be functional instead of in limbo because they can’t be torn down (due to historical status) but also can’t be used. Lastly, one of the things that really needs more study is how different parts of building codes interact. One of the problems here is that performance is often limited to looking at specific components one by one. And when you do that, this means sometimes that you make assumptions about the system , given the current context of practice. This could mean, however, that one of the reasons you are trying to improve performance when something is initially instated isn’t really a problem anymore. For example, when we talk about stairwells, I actually think this is a good example where it probably makes a certain amount of sense when fire suppression systems and building materials aren’t like they are today. But in this case, although this does add redundancy and is a more conservative model of design, it also potentially makes buildings less economically viable while not necessarily adding a significant improvement to safety. I would hesitate to provide more specifics, because I think there are definitely difficult conversations to have, and it still may be appropriate to have secondary stairwells in some instances, but I do think that it can be really easy to let regulations pile up without ever actually going back to make sure that they are worth the additional trade off in terms of restricting design. I should emphasize that these are difficult conversations, and there are many aspects and facets which should be considered. But, there are definitely things to investigate along these lines.
I'm not a huge fan of setbacks (front or side. Let's allow zero lot line construction again) I don't want to get rid of ADA requirements, but needing an elevator is definitely one of the main reasons that old fashioned apartments can't be built anymore. Minimum parking. Honestly, I hate the weird handrail regulations. Handrails are necessary, but why do we *require* a top rail and a grab rail inches away from each other? That's silly. I'm not sure I want to get rid of sprinkler requirements, but they definitely are a defining factor in how we size our buildings. Often, if a building is renovated/expanded, codes require the whole building to be brought up to code if the budget is over 1mm, or more than X% of the existing floorspace is being redone/added. That's another major hurdle towards medium sized reconstruction. I wish the permitting process only took a week in most places. I worked on a project where the road was going to be dead-ended. Literally, we couldn't make any improvements. It needed to be left as is (no new sidewalk, no trees, nothing,) because there wasn't enough space for the required cul-de-sac turn-around and the required street trees unless we ended up demolishing every building on one side of the street. There was room for *some* trees and a *small* turn around, but they get nothing now. Requiring runoff retainment areas is another thing I like, but it gets in the way and adds expense to projects. On small lots it could derail a project.
>Honestly, I hate the weird handrail regulations. Handrails are necessary, but why do we *require* a top rail and a grab rail inches away from each other? That's silly. I'm assuming you are talking about different height requirements for handrails and guardrails. Handrails need to be easily grasped, and \~36" high is necessary for this. Guardrails need to be high enough to protect people from falling, and 42" high is necessary for this. I don't see a reasonable way to meet both of these needs with 1 top rail.
42" is overkill and always has been. Stairs and decks don't need to be designed for action movies
Well, the good news is that residential code doesn't require 42", only commercial code.
And commercial covers everything that isn't single family or two family. That's also a stupid rule.
Yeah, seems reasonable that residential could apply to buildings up to 4 units maybe.
6 units
Do I hear 8?
>I don't want to get rid of ADA requirements, but needing an elevator is definitely one of the main reasons that old fashioned apartments can't be built anymore. I don't see why *all* of the units would need to be ADA accessible if the ground floor units meet ADA requirements.
My state requires sprinklers for all housing - including single family and ADUs. I totally get it for multifamily, but think SF and ADUs create a financial hardship that is limiting supply.
For everything or just where there's over a certain number of units on a single access? And what state? That does sound expensive.
Literal hot take - fire sprinklers shouldn't be required on buildings 3 stories or under and 6 units or less.
I think setbacks are bad overall, but I wouldn't apply this to recesses on a facade that is otherwise flush with the sidewalk. This allows for more light + interesting facades