Why Are We Afraid of Small Homes?
Scott | August 8, 2011Do these homes frighten you? Does their lack of pretension offend your sensibilities? Do their modest proportions fill you with an unsettling sense of dread and leave you counting down the days until an old couch or broken refrigerator winds up on the porch?
Do you fear the criminal element surely lurking inside?
My gut says no. In fact, if anything, I’d guess that most folks would consider these homes a fairly representative sample of the charm we Decaturites like to boast about. And that’s ironic, given that every one of them–along with hundreds of others not shown–would be illegal to build under our current zoning code.
Say whah?
According to the zoning ordinance regulating just about all of our single family neighborhoods, our minimum size for a newly constructed single family detached home is 1,500 square feet, a standard that every one of these homes and many more–at least according to DeKalb County tax records–fails to meet.
Let me say it a different way: A sizable percentage of the very homes that give Decatur its sought after sense of variety and charm could not, without some legal wrangling, be built today.
That’s nuts.
The irony doesn’t stop there. When was the last time you heard someone complaining that an infill house on their block was too small? If your neighborhood is anything like Oakhurst, where tear-down fever inspired an ill-fated campaign for a local historic district, I’d imagine quite the opposite is true. What people seem to fear, or at least loathe, is new, supersized homes on modest lots, yet we offer no meaningful option to appeal to a different, more quality over quantity-based market, with smaller, lower-maintenance homes — a market that’s only getting larger.
I won’t speculate on whether Decatur’s ordinance reflects our former racial prejudices or just the economic fears of a town once in decline, but one thing is without question: Square footage minimums are a tool designed to keep certain people out. That alone would seem reason to revise or flat out abolish it. Throw in the fact that our 2010 Strategic Plan explicitly calls for greater inclusion and diversity along the lines of income, age and race–using housing variety as one of our tools, no less–and it’s clear we need to have a conversation.
Fortunately, with the city’s Zoning Task Force initiative now underway, that’s exactly the conversation at hand. And if we’re sincere in the Strategic Plan when we say we want ordinances that reflect our values, this is one big opportunity to do something about it.
Of course, I can still hear the muffled angst: The 1,500 square foot minimum has been keeping out the riff raff for half a century, you say, and there’s no reason to back off now. But those were different times, with different values and challenges.
The reality today is that land value sets the agenda and, for better or for worse, anyone looking to do small product in Decatur will still need to compete on the basis of quality. Small, sure, but by no means shoddy. A premium product, at sufficient densities, is the only way to cover the cost of the land, leaving small homes less a tool for “affordable housing,” as we consider the term today, and more a tool for inclusive housing, covering a broader range of demographics and allowing for more realistic aging-in-place. Which still ain’t bad.
Still skeptical? Take a look at this photo. Shown is a row of three newly constructed cottages, each roughly 750 square feet, that share a block with other homes three times their size and costing 2-3 times as much. But it doesn’t matter because all the homes, regardless of price point, are built to similar levels of quality.
These homes listed for $170,000 each and, even though conventional wisdom said the very idea of them was crazy, all three sold in a week. And guess who bought them? Cat ladies. Widows in their 60s who wanted nothing more than a bedroom, living room, kitchen and bath, a loft for their visiting grandkids, and a small flower garden out front. And as it turned out, these widows also ended up offering some good daytime surveillance of the neighborhood, not to mention a lot of last minute, drop-off baby sitting to surrounding neighbors in a bind. That’s the kind of perks that social diversity can offer.
To be clear, I’m not talking about outlawing large homes. I’m talking about choice. 100 years ago, someone coming to Decatur could build a solid home to meet their needs, be it a 900 square foot bungalow or a grand, 4,000 square foot estate. We need to embrace a similar ethos now, or we’ll lose out to other towns better offering the flexibility for private enterprise to meet emerging markets.
Hardly sounds like Decatur’s undoing. If anything, when it comes to the goals of our Strategic Plan, it seems like a good tool for putting our zoning where our mouth is. Yes, we’ll need to hammer out the details (Should we have a reduced minimum or just let the market set the standard? What would be an appropriate lot size and how could existing lots be subdivided? Etc.), but for a town weary of supersized infill dwarfing the neighbors and blocking out the sun, it would seem an idea worth pursuing.
Latest from Decaturish
What is the economic incentive to build these small houses given current land prices? Will anyone do it even if we do change the zoning regulations?
If we do change the zoning rules, I hope we pay better attention to the details to prevent developers from “gaming the system.” For example, I’d like to see us put in rules that end the current practice of demolishing everything but the foundation and 1 wall and calling it a renovation when it is clearly a new home – I don’t know what the advantage is but is is clearly an end-around current zoning rules.
Increasing market demand, along with how a revised ordinance is structured, would provide the incentive. Obviously profitability would be the driver, so it would come down to how existing parcels could be subdivided under new regulations, what density would be allowable, etc., that would determine profit potential.
You’re correct that, given current land prices, the small house with a big yard is history. But small houses with small yards could provide new options.
But now we have big houses with small (or zero) yard. When tiny lots with tear-downs are $200K plus demo costs, how do you end with a $170K newly built house?
I guess I don’t see where the demand will come from. Small + low cost + low maintenance = condo. With the glut of condos on the market there will be stiff competition for the type of owner willing to purchase a small abode.
Maybe if there was a big parcel of land, and you could build 10 – 20 cottages cost effectively with small quaint yards and some nice community green space, and handle the parking and water/sewer issues effectively you could create a winning scenario. I am not sure subdividing existing lots will work.
Maybe the answer is more apartments like those over behind the snap fitness near the solarium – they are not stand alone dwellings but there appears to be a nice community feel to them
Wouldn’t revising the ordinance to permit these small houses pose a real threat to the city’s property tax base? As of now (guessing based on observation) tear-downs are often replaced by rather large homes, which obviously carry pretty large property tax bills. Every lot that can hold a 2,000 sq ft or larger house that has a 1,200 sq ft house instead represents a significant opportunity cost to the city in terms of tax revenues lost. I wonder whether the city would agree to revise the ordinance if it threatened the growth of tax revenues.
Just wondering.
I’m beginning to feel a bit like a broken record here but I’ll say it one more time…
It hinges on if and how the Task Force revises the accompanying land use. If a lot that could support a 2,000 square foot house can be legally subdivided to appropriately feature two 1,000 sq. ft. cottages (or some equal variation of the math), property tax valuation remains comparable.
No one expects anyone to build a 900 square foot cottage on an expensive lot that could support much more house. Sufficient densities would be required to balance out the numbers. The difference is that now the surrounding neighbors would have a viable alternative outcome (namely more tiny houses) to add to the one they currently have: one big hulking house.
Hum, interesting, take down one house and build two. I wonder what the implications would be on enrollment and tax digest per student? (one up, one down)
I guess we’d need to look at parcels on a case by case basis. But I suspect any undeveloped or commercial property that took advantage of this concept would be disadvantageous to our schools. It’d be pretty easy to calculate. I would suggest any proposal require at least an analysis of the implications (financial and otherwise) on our schools.
I can imagine scenarios where some odd parcels would be well suited to this idea, but any significant use would be a problem.
But hey, I just had a thought after reading Amanda’s post. If we’re after aging in place (I hope to) with this idea, why not set a special homestead exemption on the city portion of the tax digest for this type of property? Kinda off the wall, but maybe the city could structure a plan that avoids the obvious problems for the schools.
Please explain what you mean by “obvious problems for the schools.” We’re talking about increasing the tax digest without increasing enrollment. Where’s the down side for the school system?
I didn’t follow that either. Seems like we are talking about a similar outcome as you get with the downtown condos: significant contributions to the tax digest per square foot with little to no impact on school enrollment.
I’d answer in two ways. But I’m curious how you come to the conclusion that you’d be increasing the tax digest without increasing enrollment. Are we building a senior only community. (I’d be for that.)
1) with regard to an existing single family home that is being taken down to build two new smaller homes, as in the example provided by Scott. As of the 2000 census, with data updated from a study done my Judd and me a while ago, single family homes produce most of the students in the school system. There does not seem to be a correlation between the square footage of the home and the homes likely hood to have students. So if this property is going to be developed with one large home (more tax revenue) or two smaller homes (less tax revenue) than the schools are likely to get more students than tax dollars. Looking at it another way, for single family homes, the schools need about $400k of home value to break even.
2) As for a larger commercial parcel converted to this type of housing, we see the same analysis on a larger scale. Single family homes (that’s what they’re called) need to exceed about $400k per unit to pay their own way as far as school taxes and the expenses associated with them work out.
It’s a matter of size, Pat. In many instances where cottages are being explored, they’re often doing them in the neighborhood of 700 square feet (such as the example I showed) or maybe even less. That fits one decent sized bedroom and possibly a small sleeping loft or office, which simply makes it an unattractive option for families with kids.
Single family homes produce the most school enrollments because they have bedrooms to put kids in and good sized yards for kids and dogs to play in. Truly modest cottages, targeting young singles or couples or folks looking to age in place, for instance, offer neither so, in terms of attracting families, they tend to operate like our downtown condos.
You are correct though that the larger these small homes get — say, 1,200 or 1,400 feet or so — the more attractive and viable they become for family use. So the ordinance and land use rules would need to be crafted with a very specific intent.
We should do a survey of the growing number of cottages to get a sense for what portion have students. I don’t have this data set yet.
And yes, I know that size does matter. But not everywhere and from my analysis, in many parts of the city the lower the cost (size) of the housing the more likely it is to have students. But it seems that neighborhood, number of stories and detached/attached have of an impact as well.
But what about a city exemption for seniors, are you for that?
OK, didn’t read the follow-up discussion before posting my other reply.
Do you have exact square footages attached to the household data Pat?
Interesting as always Pat.
1) So, just to be clear, you guys looked at single-family homes and presence of students and it doesn’t decline with square footage? If that’s true, then families really are moving here for the schools. Any chance you can look at it in terms of income and square footage? Can you provide me with that data or go into more detail? I’d be really surprised if this were true and would be interested in posting about it. Also, I can remember if we’re all in agreement about high-rise condos. The city said that only 1% of downtown condos have kids in them. Do you have proof otherwise?
Hey DM, I’ll dig around and pull together what I can. Please feel free to email me directly and I’ll try and do a data dump.
Said Pat: “There does not seem to be a correlation between the square footage of the home and the homes likely hood to have students.”
This is an accurate analysis of Decatur but we must be cautious about extrapolating such results too far because they reflect a skewed data set. That is, they look at existing Decatur homes, where we have a 1,500 square foot minimum and, even for historic homes that fall below that standard, almost universally we’re looking at homes *designed* to house families. That was their intent and that is why they work so well in that regard.
The discussion here is really looking at a new kind of home. A much smaller one designed to appeal to the needs of people without families — young professionals or empty nesters predominantly. Am I saying they would never attract, for example, a single parent with a child? Of course not, just as our downtown condos have a small percentage of kids. My point is that they are not designed to *appeal* to family-minded folks and purchase decisions will reflect that.
The data shows that housing designed to appeal to families tends to attract families. Any marketer could deduce the same from simple observation, as it’s a fairly predictable phenomenon. But studying such housing doesn’t provide data useful in predicting purchase decisions for a type of housing we’ve never had before. Common sense will tell you that people leverage their available resources to buy things that best serve their needs and desires. A 700 or 800 foot, one bedroom cottage, to those looking to raise kids, is simply a poor contender.
Thank you, Scott!
Interesting post and information on Decatur’s zoning code. Housing scale (and design) and community character are issues being tackled across the nation. While historic preservation regulation is only one way to preserve community character, there are many others like revamped zoning codes and conservation districts. Here’s a link to an article on the Greater Greater Washington blog from earlier this year. Decatur has much in common with some of Washington’s inner-ring suburbs.
A book called Triumph of the City really opened my eyes to how non-safety related zoning ordinances can make cities more expensive than they would be without them (of course, for those who already live there, sometimes that is exactly the intent).
It is disturbing to see the large number of “tear-downs” of smallish (less that 1800 sq. ft.), in many cases historic, bungalows throughout Decatur and all over intown Atlanta neighborhoods, and their wholesale replacement with huge, environmentally destructive homes that do not represent a “sustainable” community.
I think the post is spot on about the origins of the minimum sq ft requirement. If the 1200 sq ft minimum rule was not in place however, there would now be very few people/builders that would build small because of the price of land in Decatur. Just does not make economic sense to build a 1000sf home on a $200k lot.
What this minimum sf requirement does prevent is the construction of very small bungalows on smaller than standard lots. In Los Angeles I know this is quite common as a way to create entry level or retirement type dwellings that are affordable. They will take one standard lot, subdivide into three lots… and build three 750sf bungalows. I would love to see that here. But I think if the city tried to allow it, the NIMBY’s would make their predicted appearance.
The builders drove the big house craze as much as demand did (along with cheap labor costs in the South). Selling everybody up was an easy strategy when credit standards were essentially non-existent and few worried about saving money instead of plowing everything into a house, utilities, etc.
Great post, Scott.
I had no idea about new build square foot minimum. My favorite streets in Decatur are lined with smaller homes, and I look forward to seeing new builds that complement our old ones.
Pardon me for being out of the loop, but does anyone know the status of the “building additional small dwellings in Decatur backyards” idea?
I am all for small houses with small yards. If more of those had been available in good condition (we’re unhandy), that’s how we would have gone. The problem is that older small homes often come without amenities that unhandy folks need–updated plumbing, electric systems, central A/C, closet space, lots of light. My dream next home is a downtown condo but, if that is unaffordable, unavailable, or unacceptable to rest of family, then I’d love a small, new or totally renovated home or cluster home, with tiny, already landscaped yard that just needs upkeep. Don’t need a dining room, den, family room, fireplace, more than 3 bedrooms/loft rooms, or more than 2 bathrooms, as long as there’s good cable/wiring for internet connections, open floor plan, lots of light, a screened or glass/screened porch, updated roomy bathrooms, updated eat-in kitchen or kitchen plus eating nook, and TONS of closet space. Basically, an open great room/kitchen/eating nook area plus tiny bedrooms or loft space, full double sink bathrooms, gigantic closets, medium to large screened in porch, unleaky, solid garage or storage shed. The only difference between my vision and the cat lady cottages is that I want to do it now, while children are still around, so I need more bedrooms than just 1 loft, and probably more closet and bathroom space than they have.
“TONS of closet space”
That’s tough to find in a small house, much a less a “downtown condo.” When I ended my suburban misadventure and bought a condo downtown, I had to get rid of a lot of stuff that I didn’t really need. But the good part was I realized that, not only did I not NEED 7 winter coats or 3 tennis rackets, I didn’t have any desire for all that clutter either.
Yeah, I know that tons of closet space is probably unrealistic. I was just thinking that, if cottages could be designed specifically for cat ladies, perhaps they could be designed specifically who families who need personal storage space more than personal living space. There’s always storage rentals which is what needs to happen in a big way in our house. And any box that is not opened at least once in 10 years quietly disappears….
I’m at a point now, where I actually get as much joy out of seeing the full bags headed to the Goodwill and the freed up space it creates, as I do from buying pretty shiny new things. It’s nice to know where things are, and to not have difficultly accessing what you need.
I actually get more satisfaction out of getting rid of and giving away things than buying them (except for books, which I have to force myself to pare down periodically). It helps not being a collector, a hobbyist (except for the aforementioned books) or a sentimentalist.
I live in a 1026 square foot home in Woodland Hills near Emory that was built after WW II for returning servicemen and their families. I love my little house. Even though it is small it is really all I need, I rarely even use the spare bedroom. I would like another bathroom though.
I once talked to a man who was born in my tiny house on 2nd Avenue just after it was built in 1924. (side note – he kept chickens, played with deforest kelly, and rode the trolley to and from town.)
I asked him about having 4-5 kids in such a small house, and his repsonse didn’t surprise me. He hated it. He loved the neighborhood, but hated being cramped up in that small house. The only reason they lived there is because they couldn’t afford anything bigger. It wasn’t the so-called charm. It wasn’t craftsmanship (he said his dad helped build it). It wasn’t the curb appeal or the ” scale in keeping with…blah blah blah.’ It was necessity. If they could have built larger, they would have. if they could have afforded a second story, they would have done that too.
I always keep that in mind when some “expert” tells me about why small houses are better, more attracitve or otherwise more fitting with the original intent of the neighborhood. “Poppycock” I’d imagine my old friend saying.
A good perspective, but which experts suggest having 4-5 kids in a small house is a good idea?
“if they could have afforded a second story, they would have done that too.”
That didn’t stop people the last 10-15 years. And families got smaller while houses got bigger in that period.
Back up and pay attention. Nobody’s advocating tiny houses for growing family households. As a community, Decatur has now said we want choices. Current code doesn’t support choice.
The bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the universe.
-Dr. McCoy, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a real estate expert.
(stolen responsive quote from my hubby)
I think the average size household in 30030 is a 2.1 people, the average family size is 3. What size house do most people want or need to raise a family of three or four? I think most people’s appetite for square footage has definitely increased over the last couple of generations.
” I think most people’s appetite for square footage has definitely increased over the last couple of generations.”
Sure, but that appetite was whet by builders, lenders, and, indirectly, the government pushing the notion that people should buy as much house as they can “afford,” while defining affordability based on ratios they came up with and then not even sticking to those once the bubble began. Sometimes the supply creates the demand.
The government also pushed lenders to re-define traditional credit standards in making mortgage loans. Heck, even now, HUD actively facilitates the making of mortgage loans to people with downpayments as low as 3.5%. Within the last few weeks, several Senators on both sides of the aisle (including Saxby Chamblis) have been pushing back very hard on any attempt to require 20% downpayments for mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie (i.e., most of them). It is as if the housing crisis taught us nothing at all.
If we went back to the old underwriting criteria and required large downpayments, the demand for McMansions would be a fraction of what it is today.
“If we went back to the old underwriting criteria and required large downpayments, the demand for McMansions would be a fraction of what it is today”
That is almost certainly true. Heck, even a ten percent requirement would make a difference. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would also cut that demand, but there’s almost zero chance of that happening, given the perception that it is essentially a middle class entitlement (not to mention the real estate lobby that would fight it tooth and nail.)
Scott, I’m sure you’re familiar with the small house movement. Though small in size, look beautiful like the ones above.
Many of the people that live in them have a decent amount of land, just a desire to live more simply.
They use less water, less electricity, less everything. The cost of land in Decatur would keep many from doing something like that, but not all probably.
I’m interested in this concept, but not for intown living. It’s a great idea for being able to have an affordable place for getaways.
The Next Little Thing?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/garden/11tiny.html
Think Small
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/realestate/greathomes/16tiny.html?pagewanted=all
Check out the article about the tiny house movement in last week’s New Yorker.
yeah, as a owner of one of Decatur’s smaller homes…. I got a kick out of the ‘tons of closet space’.
Good luck with that…. you’ll have more closet space in most any of the areas apartments. However, if you can get past that… you may, as I do, find you fall in love w/ your little house.
Scott, by any chance do you work in construction, real estate, or any industry related to construction or zoning?
Are those little cottages in the picture in Decatur? Or are they somewhere else?
So what are the city ordinances for subdividing lots? I don’t know how much demand there would be for newly-built little houses nowadays, but as people note above, they’d probably be a lot more popular if they weren’t being built on $200,000 worth of land.
Whether or not there would be much demand, I don’t see any good reason for the city to mandate minimum square footage, and I also wouldn’t mind some subdivided lots. Little houses squished together like much of Cabbagetown is fine by me, and it might help a bit with helping mainwain some of Decatur’s economic diversity too.
The bulk of decatur is zoned R-50 which requires a minimum of 50′ street frontage to build. There are front, side and rear yard setbacks that impact the floor plan.
So in essence you have to have a minimum 100′ of frontage before you can consider subdividing in Decatur. There are not very many lots like that left. Decatur also requires physical water retention plans for any subdivided lot that is developed.
Thanks for the information. So Scott’s suggestion probably wouldn’t have much of an impact unless that part of the zoning was also changed.
That’s right. You’ll note I mentioned that the Zoning Task Force would need to set allowable densities, as well as the manner in which existing lots can be subdivided. In terms of economics and current regs regarding where and how you can build upon a lot, simply lowering the allowable size of a house would do nothing. There would need to also be associated changes to land use policy to enable cottage densities that can justify the cost of the land.
@Spaceman — Actually, most of Decatur is zoned R-60 (there is no R-50 designation), and that creates part of the size/scale problem that causes many infill housing complaints. For example, many lots in Oakhurst are only 50 feet wide, while R-60 zoning presupposes a 60 foot property width. Meaning, the set-backs in in R-60 zoning are designed for wider lots — and that forces the construction of tall narrow houses on many lots. I have asked about why there isn’t an R-50 designation, and the city commissioners had no interest in even discussing it.
That creates issues with building on any of the smaller lots. As as has been pointed out, some of the smaller houses couldn’t be rebuilt today their square foot minimums. The same goes for the footprint — a new narrower footprint would be required — regardless of square footage. In fact, many of the infill “renovations” that were more like teardowns did what they did in order to keep the wider footprint of the original house.
Our City Commissioners have know about this for at least 6 years since the last infilll regulations were passed (50 ft lots in R-60 zones) and they still have not done anything about it.
If you want to blame anyone for the tall skinny houses being built it is the City Commission’s inaction and inability to pass a new ordinance.
What I like about the Cabbagetown example is the mixed uses. On many corners are small commercial spaces, well they used to be before current zoning prohibited then,
“I don’t see any good reason for the city to mandate minimum square footage, and I also wouldn’t mind some subdivided lots”
Agreed.
I would think that, whether they’ll admit it or not, most people will not want a 1,200 square foot house being built next door, especially if their home is much larger. The fear of declining property values will creep into the discussion. And with the large numbers of 3,000 sq ft + homes in the city, I think there’s a be a lot of opposition to homes of that size being flanked by very small houses.
OK, I can imagine some people thinking that, but I don’t see it as a particularly compelling justification for the government to interfere with the market by mandating minimum house sizes.
Nor do I, TOK. Just speculating that when it comes down to it, the political will to permit building a dwelling of any size will not be there.
OK, fair enough. I wasn’t sure whether you were offering a justification for the restrictions or just noting a motivation people may have to keep them in place.
You’re right I know. And when I was buying as a single person, everyone said to buy the smallest house on a nice street rather than vice versa. So I did. But then I found out that it takes a sturdy psyche to live next door to beautiful, impeccably renovated homes when one’s humble abode has asbestos shingles, upstairs windows that spontaneously fall out, and formerly decorative vines in the backyard that have become undetangleable from the kudzu. So when little innocent children came along and I wanted to make sure that their playmates’ mothers would be willing to send them over for playdates, we renovated. That resulted in four good years and then the neighborhood improved in leaps and bounds and our renovation was already outdated.
So I say to heck with it. Let McMansions sit side by side with new cat lady cottages, historic starter craftsman homes, asbestos shingle disasters, and billion dollar renovations that result in LEED-certified, historically authentic, but completely modernized masterpieces using the original wood, marble, and stone. Our city and school system are so popular right now that a little tasteful architectural variation shouldn’t hurt it much. Keep the codes that maintain reasonable upkeep, sanitation, noise levels, concrete footprint, drainage, impact on other properties, etc. but don’t worry about size per se.
Uh, who cares if someone with a bigger house gets upset? Most houses in Decatur are not these overbuilt uglies (I dislike so much of the new stuff) and are actually overly tall monsters that don’t really have any more square footage than my 1910 bungalow but eat up every inch of the poor lots. People with smaller, shorter houses were there first. If there is a minimum, then there should be a maximum. If there are no real standards for the overbuilt houses, and those of us who find them a blight because they stick out like sore thumbs have no recourse, then small houses and the people who want them should have the same rights to build.
The smaller homes become interesting when you look at the West Coast where smaller, one story homes are being built in circle with an interior open space. These are homes for retirees and have been scooped up quickly.
We may be slowly ending the big homes as the economy continues drifting.
While I’m sympathetic to the point of removing government restrictions on the market, this particular discussion is nothing more than theoretical. As others have pointed out, our land values and the huge draw of CSD will effectively preclude any development of sub-1,500 sq/ft houses.
But that’s all the more reason to remove the restriction – even those opposed would have to agree that it won’t matter.
I think this is ultimately about inclusion and the ability to age in place, both of which are important issues. Not everyone wants to live in a condo or townhouse when they need or want a smaller space (and in many cases, the HOA fees are so outrageous that even a reasonably priced unit can become quickly out of reach financially). Having the option of buying a smaller detached home opens up better options for everyone.
Like so many other things, it boils down to having laws and regulations in place which are antiquated or just plain stupid. I’m all for having the option to build or buy a home that suits your needs; large or small.
“(and in many cases, the HOA fees are so outrageous that even a reasonably priced unit can become quickly out of reach financially)”
Though this can be a problem, in my experience the lower utilities and maintenance costs offset the hoa fees.
Even if I preferred a house to a condo, in Decatur I would not be able to afford anything that wasn’t a fixer upper. I can’t imagine even a small detached house going for less than 400k. My point is, as others have made, that even if a small house would have to cost a lot because of the underlying land value.
And I forgot to mention regarding the condo hoa fees, in my case I also make use of the amenities you don’t get with a house in Decatur (pool, exercise room, etc.).
I vaguely remember one applicant last year sought a variance from the minimum square footage from the ZBA. The builder said that was what is in demand. It was promptly granted!
“Say whah?” Whah??? (Sorry. Couldn’t help meself.) I’m not afraid of small houses, just ugly ones.
All snark aside, even though I thoroughly despise huge houses that eat up nearly every square inch of the lot they sit on, I agree with those who believe that even if the ordinance changes, it won’t really matter. People with children are the ones moving to Decatur in droves, and those folks (even the ones with only one kid) almost never want smaller, they want larger. But I guess changing it could make the small-house advocates happy, even while not having any real effect on everyone else, so why not? With apologies to Lyrics Only Guy (and John Lennon): “All we are saaaaaay-innnnnng…is give us a choiiiice!”
Oh, but ain’t that America
For you and me
Ain’t that America
Somethin’ to see baby
Ain’t that America
Home of the freeeeeeee
Little pink houses
For you and me
Heh! Hearted.
More houses per parcel = more driveways + a common driveway = more concrete = less green space.
This idea becomes less appealing each time i look at it.
To put this in perspective, rumor has it Bruce will sell the Oakhurst church property for $3 million. Lets say a developer bought the property from Bruce and was able to build cottages and sell them for $200K each. To make this venture profitable, he would need to build about 20 cottages and enough parking spots for 1.5 cars per cottage. Does anybody think 20 cottages + parking will fit on that piece of property? The cottages would need to be small and might not fetch the 200K price.
More houses per parcel = more driveways + a common driveway = more concrete = less green space.
You solve this problem by having a maximum allowable percentage of impervious cover on the lot. Right now R-60 says “Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent.” If that includes driveways, problem solved. You’ll have more houses per parcel, but their footprints will be proportionately smaller. And shared driveways would also make the driveway amount per unit less.
How does that work? My sense is that a shared driveway is efficient–puts all the concrete together so leaves wider block of lawn available to each home. But does sharing actually result in less of a concrete footprin? In observing shared driveways that I know and love, they seem like twice the size of a single driveway or maybe even a little more than twice, to make sure that cars don’t scrape each other as they pass one another by.
Can’t speak for what TOK means, but most of the shared driveways I can think of consist of a single, regular-width driveway between two houses that splits and leads to two separate parking spaces (pad or garage or whatever). It’s not designed for two cars to drive on at the same time — the two households share it by taking turns. (Probably works best when only one family has a tendency to run late!) The total area covered by pavement is less than it would be if each house had its own driveway.
Another thing to consider is options for permeable surfaces. I’m starting to see new driveways that consist of two strips of pavement with grass in between; and some that include sod pavers. I believe there are also new materials available now that provide for permeability on so-called impermeable areas.
A cottage cluster development could use the old-fashioned back-alley plan, in which the only off-street parking is at the back of the property, accessible via an alley that runs the length of the block.
Yep, those were the sorts of things I had in mind. My overall point was that you get around no pain no gain’s greenspace worry just by having maximum impervious cover percentages written into your zoning. Then the developer can worry about how to configure the houses, shared driveways of the sort smalltowngal talks about, using alleyways, etc., in order to meet that standard.
alleys
Boy, I hope the Zoning Task Force is all over this. There are a lot of good reasons to try attracting a variety of household types to Decatur. For one thing — apparently, it can’t be said too often — we need as many tax revenue-positive households as we can possibly get (pay in more than they consume), and that means somebody besides growing families. Not everybody who wants less space wants to live in a condo. For another, diversity is good for human communities just like it’s good for gardens and oceans and jungles. And if nothing else, we’ve said, as a community, that we want this. So let’s look past the ends of our own noses and driveways, and work past the knee-jerk responses, and figure out how to get there.
It’s time to move beyond — way beyond — outdated concepts about housing and reflexive assumptions about what will/will not be good for property values. We need building and zoning codes that provide for maximum flexibility and choice while regulating what really matters. For instance, why assume a cluster of cottages would require parking for 1.5 cars per cottage? Why not a mix of those with and without a dedicated parking space, along with a small communal lot, totaling fewer than 1.5/cottage? Why not have requirements for permeable surfaces for driveways and parking?
To those who think the demand isn’t there: fine, it’s still consistent with our professed values and aspirations to have choices. The market can still dictate (which as of now, it can’t).
To those thinking this will bring the NIMBYs out: probably it will, but what doesn’t?
I could see why people would be reluctant to living in a 750 square foot condo, but not a stand alone home. Some people love the outside space for gardening, or just don’t want people on top & bottom. It’s nice to have things fixed when you need in a condo, but the extras you pay for monthly (gym/pool) don’t appeal to all.
A smaller place would certainly appeal to singletons, couples & older folks who don’t want so much house to keep up. Not people with kids I suspect.
Removing the lot & structure size requirements (in the smaller direction) at least allows for the options.
Yes, I could live in a condo because I have the experience of living in apartments and rented condos in big cities where it’s the norm to living in a box surrounded by other boxes in all six directions. And I like the idea of pool and common facilities. But I see the advantages of a single household home, no matter how small the structure and the yard, because there is nothing stopping you from going right outside. It’s still your kingdom, no matter how tiny. I actually rented a condo once on the first floor with a tiny patio. It was the only time I was ever a good gardener. That much dirt, plants, and watering I could handle. However, there was a neighbor who watched TV loudly late at night. I did not enjoy her choice of programs. The tiny patio and garden without the TV noise would suit me just fine.
You are just dreaming about a small, empty nest….
That occurred to me too but, I swear, I love my family to pieces. Maybe I want that small cat lady cottage…..right next door to the chaotic, messy, fingerprint-laden home that the rest of my family could live in and I could visit a lot.
If you’re starting to fantasize about not living under the same roof now, think about 10 years down the road — hard for them to move back in with you if you’re in a cat lady cottage!
Aaaargh, conflicting emotions are warring within me. My desire for peace, simplicity, quiet, and low-maintenance vs. my dread of when my children grow up and leave me vs. my rational understanding that it is important that children grow up to be independent, confident beings who can leave the nest. Could we perhaps settle in a cluster of cottages–one not too spiffy so my husband’s belongings won’t have an effect on the decor, my peaceful cottage consisting of just a bedroom, spa bathroom, kitchen with eating nook, 3 walk-in closets, patio, and 3′ X5′ lawn/garden. and the children’s/grandchildren’s cottage? Does R60 zoning permit pedestrian bridges so we could visit one another in our PJs or during inclement weather?
The extended family compound is an ancient settlement pattern that is getting revived now as “villages” of purposeful diversity in age and family size. I’ve seen 2-3 articles in recent months, have only paid attention with one eye, but have the impression some are physical — actual housing developments designed and built to accommodate extended “families” (related by intention, not by actual kinship) — and some are virtual, i.e., networks of people who join and swap services and various kinds of support.
If Decatur forges ahead and creates building/zoning code that allows for the density we need to stay afloat economically and the age/lifestyle diversity we need to thrive socially, then who’s to say an extended family couldn’t subdivide and develop a compound for themselves?
I love the idea of a family compound! Someplace where family members could experience both togetherness and privacy! Kind of like the Kennedy compound, minus the wealth, beachfront, fame, and drama!
Karass, what kind of weird, non-dysfunctional family do you have, that corralling everybody into a single residential compound wouldn’t produce drama?
Plus, all those extra folks to help take care of and milk the goats!
Goats, yes. In-laws? Ummm….. Vindictive ex-sister-in-laws, definitely no.
I lived an extremely small studio for some years with people on all sides and top & bottom. Wouldn’t do it again if someone let me live in it for free. A small house would presumably at least have some sort of a yard space that you could use for outdoor living if you wanted, even if small. I don’t swim enough that having a pool would be a selling point (maybe better for resale though). Living in proximity to a pool and a park would satisfy me just as well. But all of these personal preferences, are why options are good thing!
You know, it’s encouraging to read through all of these comments. For most of my 9 years in the South I lived in the City of Atlanta, where conversations around redevelopment opportunities quickly devolved into shouting matches, even at the neighborhood level. Something about Decatur brings the civility out in people, which is so essential when dealing with zoning and subdivision topics.
My own view is that we should most definitely remove restrictive zoning ordinances that make it harder for those with less income to live in Decatur. That’s exactly what we’d be doing if we got rid of the minimum square footage requirement. For those questioning where demand would come from, it would be from all over. Anyone who can only afford a smaller home, singles, families starting out, retirees, etc. Affordable homes in Decatur are snatched up pretty quickly, as just happened to the late 1940s, 1,200 square foot home next to mine.
I guess I should say “Hi, neighbor”! Or do you happen to coincidentally live next door to another late-1940’s, 1200 square foot home that was very recently snatched up it’s first day on the market?
Watch out for the OTP Rash I am convinced is covering J_T
Actually, my current diet (pending kitchen readiness) of Farm Burgers, Las Brasas chicken and snoballs seems to have mostly cleared it up!
Mmmmmmm….Las Brasas…now I gotta get me some of that. Might top it off with a trip to Morelli’s!
For the love of God, please quit mentioning Moreelli’s when I’m at work. You’re killing me!
See…I can’t even think or spell straight with Morelli’s on the brain!
You know you want some sea-salt caramel…or some Mexican chocolate…oh, gads– I’m doing it to myself!!!
Oh Lord, I’m sorry I started this. For the love of Ben and Jerry’s, please stop the madness! Yes, I know I’m the one who usually brings up Morelli’s, and I would do very bad things for the promise of a franchise in Decatur, but it’s just wrong to do this at lunchtime. Now excuse me while I get me an Arnold Palmer from King of Pops…
Just an observation- in my neighborhood, 3 bedroom 2 bath houses are selling before they hit the market. Moat are around older, 2,000 sqft-ish and priced around $400,000. The bigger, newer houses are sitting on the market for months, and even years. Many come off sale because owners give up.
I agree that the smaller houses are selling faster . Unfortunately at least half of them are then “renovated” to become the bigger, newer type houses that aren’t selling.
This is because there is a real lack of “move up” buyers due to increased competition by foreclosure houses. In other words, the people who would ordinarily buy a larger more expensive house can’t sell their own house because of competition with foreclosures (or because they are “underwater”). Once the foreclosures work their way through the market a larger amount of these houses will probably start moving.
I have toyed around with the idea of purchasing a lot or a tear down and building. I am currently single with no kids. My plan was going to be to start with a small house that could be added on to as my needs changed. I spoke to an architect and was told that this could easily be done, and because the addition’s would be part of the original plan, the house would have proper flow and the “finished ” house would look like it was all original. With the 1,500 sq. Ft. minimum, my first and second stages of the plan, would be illegal. Also as an alternative, I considered building a carriage house/garage for me to live in and building a separate house as my needs changed. Although I don’t see the demand for smaller houses, the current inventory of older renovated homes more than covers demand, I also do not see a need for minimum size requirements.
Also, most of the newer small houses do not have garages, or at most a one car garage, I would want a requirement for off street parking for a minimum of two cars per lot before I would support subdividing lots with higher density. There are already areas in Decatur where street parking is hard to find, image how bad it will be with double the density
Scott,
My reaction may or may not be reasonable, but frankly I don’t appreciate having a picture of my house posted on the web associated with the phrase “community cancer.” Images live forever on the internet – and can get separated from the textual context of your blog entry. I know you are fully within your rights to look up the details of my home in the county records, and to stand on a public street and take a photo. But for the record, I feel your artwork, out of context, could be interpreted to reflect poorly on my home. Not a very neighborly thing to do.
Scott,
You can take a picture of my house and say anything you want about it and I won’t think poorly of you.
[edited]
Ah, the joys have having a common name. The neighborly thing to do would be to use a pseudonym!
Wouldn’t the TRULY neighborly thing be to use your real name or initial? Especially when making comments that you hope will influence public policy?
Nope. Not at all. Any other questions?
Are you planning on leaving these types of messages on every post by a contributor? You have already made your point many times over and you’re starting to sound like a broken record.
I really do get what you’re saying, but I would be willing to bet the city commissioners and school board folks reading the comments posted here on various stories, get the general vibe and message from all of us responding to the posts, whether people post under their name or not.
Instead of asking who he is, maybe you should ask what you really want to know.
“What is your agenda for posting this story?”
I doubt DM would allow a developer or someone who stood to make a windfall from changing regulations, to use his site to influence an agenda like that.
Anyhow, his personal deal has come up in other stories here in the past. Use your investigative reporting skills to figure it out, if you don’t already know. My suspicion is that you do, and you’re just being belligerent regarding the matter.
Thanks for the back-up, Rebeccab. And to reply to Diane directly, you may cynically assume that my goal is to influence public policy in some nefarious way or reap the untold riches clearly awaiting anyone who puts forth ideas on DM, but you would be incorrect on both accounts. My goal, as a Decatur resident, is to encourage civic participation by presenting ideas that interest me and that I think are important, because I think we all benefit when ideas are hashed out. And DM, it just so happens, has the kind of considered readership where such discussion is possible. This thread (at least the part devoted to the issue) is testament to that fact.
If you disagree with or want to build upon the ideas I’ve presented then, please, jump on in. That’s what the post is for. But if your goal is to sidestep ideas and focus on personalities, I’d suggest you move on to a more suitable forum, such as Us Weekly.
Yup, I get it. You all love attacking me, anonymously, for asking that people who are commenting publicly about important local issues either identify themselves, or disclose any personal interests that may influence their comments.
I’m not trying to attack anyone personally. Why this has led to personal attacks upon me, I don’t quite understand.
You don’t believe that your original question wasn’t an attack on Scott? Sorta like asking someone “Are you an arsonist?”. Asking the question itself isn’t a judgmental-free act.
No, I don’t believe my original question was an attack.
I don’t know who Scott is, nor where he’s coming from, and whether he had any affiliation that would color his opinion. I wondered and asked the question.
I didn’t think being a developer was a pejorative. I don’t know Scott at all.
I was just wondering.
@Diane
You have brought your concerns up more than a few times if I’m remembering correctly, and then on Allison’s post a couple of weeks ago. DM addressed you directly about it but yet here it is again.
I don’t understand what are you hoping to accomplish by repetitively posting the same thing over and over. Is it your hope that DM will submit to you, and start forcing contributors and commenters to use their last names? I seriously doubt badgering he and his contributors incessantly every time they post a story (if that’s what you continue to do) will change how he operates his site.
DM and Scott have both addressed your concerns directly. If you don’t trust DM’s judgement and the contributors he has chosen, and you need people’s last names to feel that the information you are provided is reliable, then nothing anyone says here will satisfy you.
Diane, I think what everyone is trying to say to you (some less kindly than others) is that we’re not really interested in stripping either our posters’ or our bloggers’ anonymity. I’m sorry you feel attacked, but honestly, you’re kind of asking for it, so you shouldn’t be surprised when people here respond to you the way we have. I’m sure your investigative reporting skills are much more appreciated over at The Patch, which ostensibly pays you to write for it. Wouldn’t you better serve your readership at that site by actually spending more of your time commenting over there???
I’m not getting pulled into this again, but it’s not BEING a developer that’s a pejorative, it’s asking whether someone is after they’ve just written a post from the POV of a concerned citizen. The distinction is quite clear.
On a larger scale, if you’re not willing to engage the folks who made valid counterpoints to your points and instead just write them off as insults – as you simultaneously question the integrity of the site and the contributors in different ways over and over again – then I’m not going to waste my time discussing this anymore.
You value journalist ethics and rules to get people the information they need. I see the value in that, but I also believe in the value of good conversation. And anonymity is essential to that. You’ve now shown your intent to repeatedly get in the way of those conversations. I don’t allow first-timers from the far-reaches of the internet to threadjack before I moderate them (or even Gibbets for that matter, historically) and I feel like I’ve broken my own rules to allow this to go on and on. But I thought we could come to some sort of truce.
I guess not. I guess one or two disagreements negates any courtesies I’ve shown you over the years and justifies the disrespect you’ve exhibited over the past months.
+1
(Off/on the wagon for, what?a year or more now.)
+1…and BOOM.
“What is your agenda for posting this story?”
Yep. It’s also worth pointing out that, even if Scott does have an agenda, it doesn’t follow from this that he isn’t making some good points about Decatur zoning laws. Inferring that his points aren’t good ones on this basis is fallacious.
See <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html"?Circumstantial ad hominem:
“A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person’s circumstances (such as the person’s religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A’s interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A’s circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.”
Oops. Here is the correct link.
DM, any chance for a preview function in the next upgrade?
I love Nizcor.
I think it’s kind of silly when people reply with “+1″ but really, all I have to say is +1!
Uh oh, is there a threading or layering problem again? Just to be clear, my +1 was to Rebeccab’s comment, not Diane’s!
I think it’s because I deleted an offensive comment that “A different Kate” replied to. Everything else is affected for some reason.
I promise the deleted offensive comment was not mine this time.
But I would be happy to furnish one, if requested.
Go on, then…
At Russ–Can I kick it?
Diane,
I hardly ever post on here, but have noticed your comments re: real names numerous times. I’m surprised someone who seems to be a fairly competent and frequent user of the internet is unaware of the very real security and privacy issues associated with using one’s real name online. A few reasons people might not want to use their real names include:
1. People talk about their children on here and perhaps wish to respect the privacy of their children.
2. People talk about controversial issues here. Though it’s hard to admit, there are always safety concerns with taking a stand on an issue, and if you’re just participating in a discussion, there’s no reason to post your real name and subject yourself to potential danger.
3. If you post on DM constantly and use your real name, odds are good that, in a google search for you, DM would be the first thing to come up. For a variety of reasons, this is not desirable. Perhaps people want their linkedin names to come up, their websites, etc. Or maybe they just believe they have a right to privacy.
I think the better question is this: why are you so fixated on gaining people’s real names? It is this kind of fixation that encourages me to continue to use a pseudonym — one that, it’s worth noting, my friends on here will recognize as my initials.
You’ve articulated some of the reasons I prefer anonymity but haven’t identified well until now. I read this blog for many months before ever posting. I started reading it when there was a posting about a Renfroe lockdown that had not yet been communicated to parents. After that, I started checking whenever I thought there might be breaking news in Decatur and then I gradually got interested in the conversations. Without anonymity, I never would have posted a comment, nor would I now.
Leprosy.
No.
I appreciate the feedback, Kate, but am not sure what you’re asking me to do as reparation for writing something in defense of your home and others like it. I understand how images live independently on the internet, outside of written context, and that’s why the image says nothing about Decatur, GA. In the abstract, it could be any collection of homes anywhere in the U.S.
That’s just my perspective, of course, and I recognize you’re viewing things from a totally different vantage point so, if you want to let DM know the image in question, I’d be happy to have it blacked out.
Scott- The “community cancer” label is unsettling to me too. While the caption’s well intended, that doesn’t make it any less painful for folks whose lives have been impacted by cancer to see it used in such a way. It trivializes what they’ve been through. Please, please, please put that brilliant brain of yours to work to come up another line– double bonus points for also fixing Kate’s concern!
Thank you, Scott! You ROCK!!! :0)
You could win the double bonus points with sarcasNow if only Kate & I hadn’t used the term in our comments… hmmm…
Reckon the dog wants to go out NOW! Trying to say you can fix Kate’s dilemma with quotey marks.
Adding quotation marks might fix Kate’s “dilemma” but it would also dilute the message. Keep it or change it, but don’t water it down!
Kind of silly if you ask me.
The word “scourge” offends me as someone who has been flogged and whipped.
Please keep your hobbies to yourself. We are proudly anonymous here!
You actually took pics of two houses next door to me!
Is your house the McMansion in the middle? Kidding …
Interesting discussion but how would you actually achieve this?
How would you propose to divide a 50’X200′ lot? That is probably the average sized Decatur lot. You are going to have two 25’X200′ lots? Or someone gets have a house in the backyard of someone else?
I really don’t think that the economics of such would work out. If you took this theoretical lot (which would probably cost $250k), and built two 1400 sq ft houses @ $150/ sq ft, you are looking at $335k for each house just to break even. Then add 10% for a builders’ fee and you are at around $370k. Even if you built relatively inexpensively @ $120/ sq ft you are still at $300k.
Actually, in the country from which my husband hails, that happens all the time. Not saying it would work here, just saying other people do it.
Not two 1,400 sq ft houses. Two 1,000-1,100 sq ft houses. Or three 700-750 sq ft houses. Put the parking at the back, accessible via the alley, and site the houses so each tiny yard/garden adjoins the others and feels more spacious. (Example: 50×100 lot with alley access and the long side oriented east-west: Slice off what you need for the smallest possible parking pad at the back (2 or 3 spaces), divide the rest into three (each 30×50 maybe). Site the houses to face the center, offset from each other — the one in the middle backs up close to the north side and the other two back up to the south side. Create a permanent easement for a winding walkway from front to back (street to alley).
If one could get hold of two adjacent 50×100 lots, the possibilities increase exponentially.
It’s feasible to live in Decatur and not have a car, and if we follow through with the new strategic plan, it will become easier and easier, even if you’re not right downtown.
Obviously, I’d rather be planning the next iteration of our urban paradise than doing my paying work.
Great idea
Here is a link to a Google shot of one of the properties I know of in Los Angeles. This one took up two deep lots. Just click on the link… then zoom in. Believe it or not, these homes were on the market for $500k each.. sold like hotcakes! Gotta love west coast real estate prices!
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=920+maltman+ave+90026&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x80c2c746cf2500cb:0xe9c1d7d59fbd6a7d,920+Maltman+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90026&gl=us&ei=ukZBTuKVL4qhtwe8suDDCQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ8gEwAA
It’s a nice looking street. Certainly doesn’t have the “there goes the neighborhood” look from what I could see.
Repeating macarolina – alleys!
There are many alley ways in Oakhurst, maybe throughout Decatur. Alleys provide access to 50′ x 100′ lots subdivided from 50′ x 200′ lots.
And about lot sizes – mine is zoned R60 and just happens to be 50′ wide. Is there really an R50 zoning?
There is an old R50 zoning and many lots have been grandfathered into the R60 regs. Trust me, when some builder was throwing that lot eating monster up on Underwood a lot of people called Amanda Thompson, hoping that the builder could be stopped, and that was the answer. I believe that is how the other lot eater on Fayetteville proceeded as well.
Mooncat was correct in responding to my earlier post. Decatur did away with R-50 zoning and applied R-60 setbacks to all lots. There are many lots that are 50′ and that is still the minimum strteet frontage, but they are now zoned R-60. R-50 zoning no longer exists, but 50′ remains the minimum street frontage to create a new buildable lot in Decatur.
The largest impact is that Decatur has minimum 10′ side yard setbacks (meaning you can only build a 30″ wide house) as opposed to 7.5′ setbacks in the old zoning (and current DeKalb). The effect can be narrower, taller, longer houses
Thank you for the lot size history. I fortunately have a small house, one story under 1500 sq ft heated even after I added a 2nd bath matching existing retro style and a CLOSET plus screen porch and new deck. During plan approval is when I learned about my 50′ lot – my side setbacks are 13′ on the driveway side and 5′ on the other. LOVE my home.
The thing I have always loved about Decatur is the diversity of the houses….cottages next to larger homes all with their different architecture..but now it seems that everyone wants to enlarge their cottage to be a two story cottage —then we will all have two story cottages and the diversity will fade away. I overheard a neighbor who already has a large home (about 3500 square feet) who wanted a two story garage because they “just really needed the space”–just move to Dunwoody.
Aging-in-place is accurate, but is elderly one of the new no-no words? Plenty of elderly people are active, and doesn’t immediately imply frail. Plus it’s easier to type.
My parents and their retirement community friends seem to like “seniors” as though they are all retired Senior Vice Presidents or Senior Advisors or something. I think the stigma eventually catches up with whatever the latest politically correct term is and then a new term has to be coined. What about “Gifted in years”? “Age-advanced”? Longterm survivor? Age Leader?
I came across this last night and was reminded of this exchange. One of the women featured is from GA.
I hope this isn’t a trend for aging-in-place/seniors. I was looking forward to getting to an age where I no longer cared how high anything was still sitting.
The Golden Years, Polished With Surgery
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/health/09plastic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
My parents called their elders (and later themselves) “the old folks” — usually with affection, often mixed with exasperation. Good enough for them, good enough for me. And by the way…
And you know that you’re over the hill
When your mind makes a promise that your body can’t fill
Doin’ the old folks boogie
And boogie we will
‘Cause to us the thought’s as good as a thrill
+1 for the Little Feat reference!
Well, my first thought was that it would be the coolest thing ever if every single one of us just ignored Diane’s latest attempts to thread-jack. But since we aren’t doing that this time (bet we get another chance before long), I have a comment and a question.
Speaking strictly for myself (re. Diane’s comment to a different Kate): When I make comments in hopes of influencing public policy, I make them directly to public officials. Which is not to say our public officials don’t keep an eye on these discussions along with many other indicators of opinion and sources of ideas around the community. But my comments here are always primarily a way of engaging with my neighbors about topics of interest.
Question: Diane, who’s paying you to beat this poor, dead horse?
Here’s my personal interest-someone come buy my small house (3BR, 2Bath, 1500sqft) so I can get the heck out of DeKalb County!
Thanks Scott for starting this discussion! The Zoning Task Force will be starting up in the next month or so and there will be plenty of opportunities to participate in person and online. The regulations for single family homes were updated in 2006 and 2008 based on the work of the Infill Task Force. As part of that update, the City adopted restrictions on lot coverage, building heights, allowable floor area and reduced the required off street parking from 2 spaces to 1 space. As you can imagine, the community was very divided on how to define a “reasonable single family development.” Does everyone need a garage? How about that home office or outdoor patio? We haven’t even touched on the saving the tree versus building the deck versus the where will my garden go debate!
The 2010 Strategic Plan has given us a clear charge to create a building environment that supports aging in place and affordable housing. The members of the task force and I look forward to your help in crafting regulations that meet the goals of the Strategic Plan.
Amanda Thompson
Planning Director, City of Decatur
Also consider zoning to accommodate accessory units (aka backyard cottages, etc). Here’s a good blog on it: http://seattlebackyardcottage.blogspot.com/p/aging-in-place.html.
And it would be helpful to create incentives (financial or non-monetary) for developers who build accessible new homes. Homes that meet basic residential accessibility standards should be as popular as EarthCraft Homes in a progressive community like Decatur. They promote social inclusion of people with all abilities, reduce the need for expensive home modifications, and prevent unnecessary permanent nursing home placements.
Hear, hear!
I really support both of these concepts- accessory units and accessability promotion. The accessability bend in design is starting to get there with market forces on their own, but would be great to give it a push further into mainstream with some incentivizing.
Accessory/granny units are great on a number of levels– in a homeowners’ early years, the rent could help subsidize their homeownership, getting them into the community and in a home they will stay in for a long time, when maybe they couldn’t have otherwise or would have to go small house then move shortly after, never fun. If the homeowner has health, child or elder care needs, that granny unit could help manage the care provider costs. And then for students or young professionals, the granny units would be a great way to be introduced to and captivated by Decatur.
Does Decatur have any co-housing communities? If so, are they regulated by single family or multifamily zoning requirements? If not, what would we have to change in the zoning code to facilitate them? I think they address some concepts of smaller dwellings with communal space/resources that have been discussed above, and certainly are of benefit to the aging in place/single parents/2 working parent families in Decatur.
I plead ignorance-what’s that?
collaborative housing where each family/individual can have its own dwelling, but also has a common house/grounds/garden etc. Ofen there are shared dinners at the common house, shared after school care, neighbors to look in on the aging in place. A nearby example is in Lake Claire, just off of DeKalb Ave. Better description here:
http://www.cohousing.org/what_is_cohousing
I like this idea and this may be what I was hoping for in what STG is calling a family compound. . Isn’t there something similar in East Lake? I didn’t know about one in Lake Claire–where is it? Does it have a website? I think this would fit Decatur. In fact, there’s days when I feel like Decatur itself is one huge co-housing experience, something between Mayberry, Peyton Place, and a kibbutz!
Yes, there’s also co-housing at East Lake Commons (off 2nd Ave). All of the homes there are Visitable (usually defined as having 32″+ wide doorways, one or more zero-step entrances, and an accessible ground-floor bathroom). See http://www.ConcreteChange.org for more info about Visitability or Basic Home Access. Accessible housing is a key element for aging in place.
Lake Clair Cohousing is at Dekalb Ave just before Arizona, coming from Decatur. East Lake Cohousing is on 2nd Ave, just beyond Glenwood Ave. My son and his Mom lived there for a while. What I loved was the several acre organic farm (with a full time farmer).
I think smaller homes on smaller lots are something that would really be worth looking into. We have all known people that have left Decatur so they could continue to live on their retiirement incomes. Condos are not attractive to everyone, and the fees often seem to cancel out what at first seems like a doable alternative.
Hope that someday Decatur allows some flexibility in this regard.
Great thread before it got jacked!
This piece complements a venture I have invested in. Made-in-China Homes seeks to deliver furnished, prefabricated, affordable homes in a standard shipping containers. No warranty is provided for on-street parking, but garage units are being prototyped already. Marketing will definitely have a photo that demonstrates quality.
Wow, i saw a whole row of them over of DeKalb Ave near Inman Park.
Will the shipping containers meet code for housing too?
So I was looking at Scott’s collage a little closer, and noticed that most of them are really attractive homes. Love the diversity and creativity, and also appreciate the effort that everyone puts in to make their properties look so good.
We had some old friends up from Florida a couple weeks ago, and on a tour through the neighborhoods and downtown, we had the opportunity to look at Decatur from their eyes. And it made us appreciate it all over again.
Sorry for the thread-jack; I just wanted to comment on Scott’s pictures.
Many projects are approved in Decatur which do not conform to the zoning code. Obtaining a variance seems to be a routine procedure for folk who “need” just a little bit more room or to ooch their project just a titch beyond the legal setback and closer to the property line.
It seems that a truly legitimate request for a more modest house than specified by code would be readily approved.
I understand that economic return on investment drives many decisions, but it
is entirely reasonable for someone to build a smaller home, even on a large lot if it suits their lifestyle, budget, and/or concerns about not being a gluttonous consumer of materials, energy, and time to maintain a more comodious abode.
The comments above have assumed that a small house would automatically be built on a small lot. Imagine the appeal of a small house on a large lot which could accomodate vegetable gardens, flower gardens, play space, and some plain old elbow room.
I’d be happy to see that sensibility in my neighborhood any day.
Don, please reread the first reply to the first comment.
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2011/08/08/why-are-we-afraid-of-small-homes/#comment-130663
Oh, good grief.
This thread got so tangled up, can we take up this topic again soon, please, DM and Scott? I think it’s a very important conversation, and with the Zoning Task Force gearing up, a timely one.
Just tried to add a comment to the tail end of this thread but it seems to have appeared way upstream. So I’m trying again:
This thread got so tangled up, can we take up this topic again soon, please, DM and Scott? I think it’s a very important conversation, and with the Zoning Task Force gearing up, a timely one.
We can have another thread about this soon, but in case anyone cares, I think I fixed the thread.
Wow, that must have been like untangling gum from hair!
I will resist the thread jack urge.
well I live in CoD in a tinyyyyyy house, 903sq ft to be exact. The only thing I’d ever change would be to replace the toolshed in the back that was installed in the 50s and had to be taken down last year when a limb fell onto it and crushed the roof. Wife would love for me to get all of the tools out of the house!
I think small houses are great. Ideally I’d like to have a basement, but I can’t complain!
Not sure why this is so far up here? I didn’t click any specific comment to reply to, just the general reply at the bottom… wordpress issues maybe?
Great discussion and long overdue. I’ll have to fall back on a quote by William S. Burroughs to get my point across succinctly. “Bigger is better and biggest is best.” Although, he was quoting a dinosaur.
Has the economic downturn taught us nothing? Quit overbuilding. Reuse the small houses which are already here. Decatur is STILL supporting a building boom which results in bigger houses which results in more taxes which we THINK are going to improve our schools. Any boundary expansion (think annexation) results in greater demand on city services. I contend we are expanding upwards and for a short time, everyone thinks the expanded tax base is great. But then our schools get overcrowded and quality slips. We are reaching a tipping point which pushes what is desirable and sustainable. Decatur is turning into an economically “gated” city.
Build cluster developments of new little houses? Why not save the ones we have and truly make Decatur green? When developers create towns like Seaside,what is their inspiration? Towns like ours which already have a variety of house/condo/apartment sizes within walking distance of commercial areas. You don’t need “neo-traditional” when you’ve got the real thing.
Yeah – what Joe said. This thread needs some de-tangler!