Oregon has long had strict land use laws (back from the days when we had a Republican governor who was actually an environmentalist…), particularly to protect agricultural land from development. Portland has had an urban boundary that is revised periodically but which encourages in-fill housing. They recently passed some ordinances to further encourage in-fill, only to find out that they didn’t really like the results. What was happening was that some of the original 5,000 sq ft lots in the city were actually platted as two 2500 sq. ft. lots and then sold in pairs which were built on. What has been happening is that builders have been buying up such lots, tearing down the old houses and then building two separate 15′ wide houses on the two 2500 sq ft lots. Homeowners in the existing neighborhoods are upset at this saying it destroys neighborhoods, looks ugly, etc.. The mayor recently introduced an ordinance that would require a minimum of 3,000 sq ft for the building of a house.
I don’t know about you, but I would find a 15 ft wide house to be kind of narrow, but reportedly buyers are snapping them up. These are detached single family houses, although there are also a number of row houses being built in various neighborhoods.
Not sure how the builders were able to get away with the typical design which is reported as a garage dominating the street side and the living room facing the back yard as, if I recall, a few years ago they passed an ordinance outlawing houses in which the garage dominated the street side view of the house – something that was termed “snout” houses. The argument was to bring back front porches and reconnect the homeowners to the neighborhood. Don’t know how well that worked out.
So what do you think, should 15′ wide houses be the wave of the future?
The articles about are fairly boring, so I will only toss in a couple:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/portland_news/1057751925203000.xml
Replies
In NE I often see older homes that don't look to be more 15' o so wide.
there is a cape not too far from me looks like it's footprint is about 15x30
no guarentees on my length perceptions
bobl Volo Non Voleo
Really nothing new here. Just a nod back to the truest days of urban design. Those of us who live and work within the dense neighborhoods wholly appreciate these homes. As a row house goes 15 feet is not too narrow. Especially when the home is a 2.5 story with a daylight basement. I recently saw a design for a 12 foot wide detached home to be used for urban infill. I have this 18 foot lot that we may build it on if the land assembly doesn't work out to gain another 9 feet. Keep the garages in the back. Embrace the alleyways. They make great spots to throw neighborhood parties, spaces for the kids to play street hockey, etc......
This is an 18.5' wide house I designed and built on Camano Island, WA. I just happened to have these shots on my computer, none really show the interesting side of building a skinny house.
Entry porch is in progress, screen door and newel caps coming soon. The steps are built with stone and shells from our beach.
The loft stairs are built from Russian pine salvaged from crates from a stone fabricator in Italy from whom I import.
Sounds a little ugly to me, but efficient in other ways. If you want to be enviro, it packs two families in the space of one and saves fuel on commuting. Of course, a fourplex would be even more enviro.
In ourt island community, the minimum lot size since the late eighties is 1.5 acres. Smaller are grandfathered but there is a paragraph that requires that when two or more contiguous non-conforming (undersized) lots are owned by the same person, they must be combined in whatever way is most practical to produce conforming lots.
Those in the know make sure that when buying up a strip of several small lots, they hold the property in names of different family members.
Excellence is its own reward!
Brujenn:
Wonderfull!
Size really isn't an indicator of 'ugliness'. A small house can be as beautiful or as ugly as any big house.
For a city that really prides itself in the prevention of urban sprawl, you'd have thought that they would have loved these things.
If you happen by the book store this week, take a look through the latest Dwell. There's an amazing house in there from (I think) toronto built only (IIRC) 11' wide.
my opinion is the trend to "prevent urban sprawl' is in some cases just a way to pack more people into a smaller area so the developer makes more $ per acre. (or tenth of an acre).
the model homes of the neo traditional planning homes look good but then where do the boats, campers, third car, two trash cans, recycle cans, and large barbeque grill and kiddie pool go?
And when the neighbor leaves for the airport or work at 4 am, he starts his car under your window.
no thanks.
i think its hype, pushed by the environmental gang, that does not live there.
Edited 7/13/2003 1:36:12 PM ET by wain
My kick with the small lots is that there is no place for the kids to play. And playing in the street is not an option. (Unless it's that rotten kid up the block) So the developer has to put in a park in the development. And the kids have to go 3 blocks down to play. And the parents have to go down there to watch the kids. Instead of watching the kids in the back yard.
In a planned community the small lot developments are "ok". But in Portland they are going in next to traditional 5000 SF lots single level ranch homes. Then this small lot house goes in next door. Shotgun style, 2 levels and no yard. Very unattractive in that setting.
well, urban sprawl is a real problem. But yea, if you're the kind of person that needs the 3 car garage + some then living in a high density neighborhood probably isn't your thing.