How do you add density...?

[PonderInc]

How do you add density without freaking out the neighborhood?

From attending neighborhood meetings over the years, I've come to the conclusion that people in single-family homes are terrified of apartment buildings and multi-family dwellings.

Obviously, we need apartments, condos, lofts, etc, in addition to single-family homes.  Because of retiring baby boomers/empty-nesters, an increasing number of young singles, and more single-parent homes, there will be a growing need for alternatives to RM-1 housing.  But many people don't want it in their neighborhoods.

Is this because there's no way to control the actions of lousy landlords?  Or are people just biased against "those people" who don't own their own homes?

[RecycleMichael]

Mandatory child-bearing means instant density.

Breed or move.

[Hometown]

Cost and demand will automatically add density.  When a whole bunch of people want to live in the same place you get density.

[carltonplace]

My neighborhood has a nice eclectic mix of single family homes, condominiums and apartment buildings, duplex and tri-plex and garage apartment rentals. I love it! There is always someone new moving in to liven up the mix in the area and its great to make new friends (and people to have beer with). We get all kinds, cool folks and kooks, open minded and otherwise.

I think the reason it works is that the street is kind of partitioned into "multi-family" areas and "single-family" areas, and most of the structures have front porches or balconies that get people out in front of their houses and meeting people.

The partitioning isn't really noticable, the apartments feel like they belong...they enhance the overall neighbor hood feel and they are constructed of materials that familiar to the rest of the structures. The duplex/triplex don't really stand out as such, they resemble single family structures but they never were.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

How do you add density without freaking out the neighborhood?

From attending neighborhood meetings over the years, I've come to the conclusion that people in single-family homes are terrified of apartment buildings and multi-family dwellings.

Obviously, we need apartments, condos, lofts, etc, in addition to single-family homes.  Because of retiring baby boomers/empty-nesters, an increasing number of young singles, and more single-parent homes, there will be a growing need for alternatives to RM-1 housing.  But many people don't want it in their neighborhoods.

Is this because there's no way to control the actions of lousy landlords?  Or are people just biased against "those people" who don't own their own homes?

Or just maybe... we moved out where we are (near 111th & Memorial)because we didn't want to live in a dense area. There are plenty of other places to go. Your reaction to me tearing down several apartment buildings to build a single family dwelling near downtown would be the equivalent of the opposite side of the coin.

[PonderInc]

I love the old 4-plexes and 6-plexes in older neighborhoods, and love the way they fit into established neighborhoods.  Always wanted to live in one of those cool 4-plexes near 14th and Carson...

Next question: Can a developer build a traditional 4 or 6-plex, and expect to make any money?  (Why does it seem like developers only want to build huge condos/apartment complexes with hundreds of units?)

[PonderInc]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

How do you add density without freaking out the neighborhood?

From attending neighborhood meetings over the years, I've come to the conclusion that people in single-family homes are terrified of apartment buildings and multi-family dwellings.

Obviously, we need apartments, condos, lofts, etc, in addition to single-family homes.  Because of retiring baby boomers/empty-nesters, an increasing number of young singles, and more single-parent homes, there will be a growing need for alternatives to RM-1 housing.  But many people don't want it in their neighborhoods.

Is this because there's no way to control the actions of lousy landlords?  Or are people just biased against "those people" who don't own their own homes?

Or just maybe... we moved out where we are (near 111th & Memorial)because we didn't want to live in a dense area. There are plenty of other places to go. Your reaction to me tearing down several apartment buildings to build a single family dwelling near downtown would be the equivalent of the opposite side of the coin.

In downtown, we only tear down historic apartment buildings to make surface parking lots...

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

How do you add density without freaking out the neighborhood?

Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years.  Some neighborhoods are freaked out by ADUs, but others have many of them already.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

How do you add density without freaking out the neighborhood?

From attending neighborhood meetings over the years, I've come to the conclusion that people in single-family homes are terrified of apartment buildings and multi-family dwellings.

Obviously, we need apartments, condos, lofts, etc, in addition to single-family homes.  Because of retiring baby boomers/empty-nesters, an increasing number of young singles, and more single-parent homes, there will be a growing need for alternatives to RM-1 housing.  But many people don't want it in their neighborhoods.

Is this because there's no way to control the actions of lousy landlords?  Or are people just biased against "those people" who don't own their own homes?

It really depends on where you live.  It's probably easier to convince a single-family-dwelling neighborhood in Midtown that condos are a nice addition than it is in most of South Tulsa or Owasso, etc.  It's hard to undo decades of "American Dream" marketing done by real estate developers since the post-World War II economy spiked demand for automobiles and owner-occupied housing.

The negative perception about urban life in general seems to be slowly subsiding in the US as cities such as St. Louis have recognized their first population gain in 50 years.

But back to your question: how to add density?
I think the first place to start is to look for defining geographic or cultural characteristics   of a neighborhood and seek to enhance them.  Neighborhoods with strong character and unique identity tend to weather the tide of sprawl and changing consumer preferences a lot better than neighborhoods that don't have the aforementioned qualities.  Density and strong community ties tend to be highly correlated.  Thus, neighborhoods with a strong sense of identity and unique characteristics are prime candidates for hip, urban, dense development.  Real estate developers and investors will recognize the marketing value of being associated with a unique neighborhood/lifestyle.

Besides that, density is also obviously related to proximity to other dense areas.  For instance, some of the neighborhoods around TU are prime locations for increased density in terms of mixed-use development.  Proximity to entertainment districts, retail areas, parks, colleges, and offices is another important factor.

Bottom line: Density is like a sponge.  It makes sense for density to exist when there is something nearby to "soak up."  You can't plop a neighborhood in the middle of nowhere and expect there to be a demand for density.  You also can't expect a generic, boring, homogeneous space to necessitate sufficient demand for multiple uses of that space, a.k.a. density.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years.  

So were conservation districts and they both went nowhere fast. Did the C.O.R.E. proposals ever make it to the TMAPC only to die a silent death and get buried in the bureaucracy? It's time for Tulsa, especially in regards to infill, to start doing it's own planning and that starts with it's own planning commission. Neighborhood sensitive, appropriate infill that adds density while maintaining the character and quality of life in a neighborhood is possible. The TMAPC and to a greater degree, INCOG staff have a dismal record in this regard. City Planners have come up with some great plans that sit on shelves or get ignored by INCOG staff or the TMAPC. They should stick to regional planning like the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and let the city of Tulsa and Tulsans be the ones who decide, implement, and enforce the planning process for Tulsa's future.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

It really depends on where you live.  

I think that sums it up.

The negative perception about urban life...

Not wanting something for yourself doesn't require you to have a negative opinion of it.

Thus, neighborhoods with a strong sense of identity and unique characteristics are prime candidates for hip, urban, dense development

I would have thought a community with a strong sense of identity would be less likely to want to change that identity.

[cdowni]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years.  

So were conservation districts and they both went nowhere fast. Did the C.O.R.E. proposals ever make it to the TMAPC only to die a silent death and get buried in the bureaucracy? It's time for Tulsa, especially in regards to infill, to start doing it's own planning and that starts with it's own planning commission. Neighborhood sensitive, appropriate infill that adds density while maintaining the character and quality of life in a neighborhood is possible. The TMAPC and to a greater degree, INCOG staff have a dismal record in this regard. City Planners have come up with some great plans that sit on shelves or get ignored by INCOG staff or the TMAPC. They should stick to regional planning like the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and let the city of Tulsa and Tulsans be the ones who decide, implement, and enforce the planning process for Tulsa's future.

i couldn't agree with you more. i've always disliked incog. what is the point of it? is there any way the city could get out of it, or disband it or something?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by cdowni

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years.  

So were conservation districts and they both went nowhere fast. Did the C.O.R.E. proposals ever make it to the TMAPC only to die a silent death and get buried in the bureaucracy? It's time for Tulsa, especially in regards to infill, to start doing it's own planning and that starts with it's own planning commission. Neighborhood sensitive, appropriate infill that adds density while maintaining the character and quality of life in a neighborhood is possible. The TMAPC and to a greater degree, INCOG staff have a dismal record in this regard. City Planners have come up with some great plans that sit on shelves or get ignored by INCOG staff or the TMAPC. They should stick to regional planning like the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and let the city of Tulsa and Tulsans be the ones who decide, implement, and enforce the planning process for Tulsa's future.

i couldn't agree with you more. i've always disliked incog. what is the point of it? is there any way the city could get out of it, or disband it or something?

Get rid of INCOG. It's as simple as not renewing their contract. It's just a matter of having a Mayor and Council with the political will to do it. It's like DTU and the disservices they provide through the tax assessment district downtown. Simply not putting ink to paper would rid ourselves of them both.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by cdowni

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years.  

So were conservation districts and they both went nowhere fast. Did the C.O.R.E. proposals ever make it to the TMAPC only to die a silent death and get buried in the bureaucracy? It's time for Tulsa, especially in regards to infill, to start doing it's own planning and that starts with it's own planning commission. Neighborhood sensitive, appropriate infill that adds density while maintaining the character and quality of life in a neighborhood is possible. The TMAPC and to a greater degree, INCOG staff have a dismal record in this regard. City Planners have come up with some great plans that sit on shelves or get ignored by INCOG staff or the TMAPC. They should stick to regional planning like the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and let the city of Tulsa and Tulsans be the ones who decide, implement, and enforce the planning process for Tulsa's future.

i couldn't agree with you more. i've always disliked incog. what is the point of it? is there any way the city could get out of it, or disband it or something?

Get rid of INCOG. It's as simple as not renewing their contract. It's just a matter of having a Mayor and Council with the political will to do it. It's like DTU and the disservices they provide through the tax assessment district downtown. Simply not putting ink to paper would rid ourselves of them both.

I agree on DTU and INCOG land planning services.  We would need to be very careful to insist on fairness in how a City Planning Commission would be established and how the commissioners would be elected and/or appointed.  Otherwise, you know what would happen.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

This has been considered by the TMAPC in the past few years.  

So were conservation districts and they both went nowhere fast. Did the C.O.R.E. proposals ever make it to the TMAPC only to die a silent death and get buried in the bureaucracy? It's time for Tulsa, especially in regards to infill, to start doing it's own planning and that starts with it's own planning commission. Neighborhood sensitive, appropriate infill that adds density while maintaining the character and quality of life in a neighborhood is possible. The TMAPC and to a greater degree, INCOG staff have a dismal record in this regard. City Planners have come up with some great plans that sit on shelves or get ignored by INCOG staff or the TMAPC. They should stick to regional planning like the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and let the city of Tulsa and Tulsans be the ones who decide, implement, and enforce the planning process for Tulsa's future.

I agree with you. Utilizing regional resources to manage local issues (zoning, economic development) seems to result in the generic "one size fits all" solutions to intricate problems.