The skinny house scourge
A huge complaint of Seattleites over the years has been the proliferation of skinny houses, tall thin abodes jammed onto lots and eating up open space. But skinny houses are proliferating in Portland as part of in-fill strategies there, and some neighborhoods aren't happy about it. The current plan is to encourage the building of hundreds of such homes in the city, whether neighborhoods object or not.
That's infuriated local neighborhood activists like Eric Goranson who complains in an Oregonian op-ed: "Like invasive weeds, infill homes are creeping into more and more Portland neighborhoods. Many, if not most, take hold before they are recognized for their destructive nature." Goranson would like to see a halt to construction until an overall city plan is in place, and he'd like to see property owners within four blocks of such in-fill projects be given the right to approve or reject them. He doesn't want Portland to look like "another Jamaica, NY."
The battle over neighborhood "character" is being fought in thousands of small brush fires throughout the Northwest, but is likely to heat up as cities like Seattle and Portland push density goals from the top down. Seattle would like to see more density, more townhouses, more detached dwelling units permitted in single family neighborhoods, along with mother-in-law apartments or what they call in Vancouver, BC, "granny pads." And both cities want to concentrate development in transit areas.
But "character" issues are both real and complicated, and highly subjective. We can't always quantify what it is, but most of locals know it when it ain't.
Seattle land use and environmental attorney Chuck Wolfe has an interesting blog post, "Learning how to grow: Nothing can come from nothing", in which he says we need to "take care" when importing ideas from overseas: you can't build an Italian hill town in Seattle without risking it becoming like Leavenworth's Bavaria or Las Vegas's Paris.
In building walkable neighborhoods, he advises, "We should emphasize the qualities and characteristics we seek, but remember our history is short and contextual and cannot recreate what evolved over thousands of years." In other words, there is much that is organic and cultural that cannot simply be imported by design.
The flip side is that while Portland and Seattle are young cities, neither are they blank slates. It's essential to understand local character, not so that all change can be resisted, but so that designers can help create neighborhoods that are integrated and work in the details. I suspect skinny house objections are a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself.









Comments:
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 12:01 p.m. inappropriate
Basically, some people think having a house means the city shouldn't accommodate others, or should do so by sprawling.
Single-family neighborhoods aren't museums. They need to help us accommodate our inevitable growth, even while we protect their character to a point.
Personally I think townhouses (on arterials, near commercial streets, etc.) and granny flats are important partial solutions. Townhouses are the only major way we can increase the amount of family-sized, ground-level housing in this city. Granny flats and garage houses "invisibly" add housing, generally at very low cost. Both revitalize neighborhoods. Even badly designed townhouses at least provide density, bring more people to within walking distance of the nearest business street, allow more people to live near transit, etc.
(Typical disclaimer: I work for a general contractor but we don't build these types of projects.)
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 3:54 p.m. inappropriate
Funny thing. People love London. They adore Paris. They are crazy about Rome. All high-density cities. So, why not Seattle? The problem is not “skinny houses” but rather pedestrian unfriendly streets, poor mass transit and lack of public spaces .
If the City of Seattle allows more density, which is the green thing to do, it must require improvements in these other quality of life amenities.
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 3:55 p.m. inappropriate
As to (above): "Even badly designed townhouses at least provide density"- density is not the answer to all Planning problems. JG
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 5:19 p.m. inappropriate
I agree Jerry. But even bad density typically has some positive outcomes. It uses less land. Even if the residents drive, in theory they're not driving as far. It's probably ok to generalize that even the most driveway-dominated six pack produces some pedestrians who occasionally walk to neighborhood businesses, or at least more than the single house there before.
I'm not defending driveway townhouses.
But it would be interesting to dive into the economics behind them, and the economics of the code changes people advocate. We're talking about adding significant requirements and cost for denser forms of housing. Growth in the suburban fringes often doesn't have a corresponding level of requirements. I'd hate for denser formats to have a major new disadvantage that would contribute to sprawl. Also it would be unfortunate to restrict housing supply in-town, which would keep prices of older units out of reach for too many people (at the same time as new units are always too expensive for these people).
It's important to keep the growth management restrictions reasonbly tight in King County. And to tighten them in other counties. When land is expensive, people will use it more efficiently on the edges as we already do (to a point) in the middle.
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 11:33 p.m. inappropriate
Wheezer,
And along with NYC, traditional dense cities are places where lots of people love to visit but would never want to live.
Density is not a moral value.
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 11:40 p.m. inappropriate
...oh, and for the newcomers who think single-family neighborhoods should just suck up the City's plans to de facto duplex their communities up, you might want to consider that when the City of Seattle adopted a very ambitious plan to capture a disproportionate share of the region's grown way back in the early/mid 1990's, it solemnly promised those skeptical of the impacts this would have on the quality of life of existing residents that they would not have to do substantial upzones in urban centers or villages, and that they would leave single family zoned areas strictly alone.
Of course, they also promised the rest of us that new development in urban villages would preserve parking, open space, setbacks, and affordable housing. That's worked out REAL well.
Posted Tue, Jun 23, 11:43 p.m. inappropriate
I live in a Portland neighborhood (Kenton) that is rife with skinny-houses, most built in the past 5 years, and I'd have to say that the biggest problem with them is not that they are skinny per se, but that they are all-garage on the front. This makes them ugly. A street full of them crowding out the older bungalows is not a pretty sight, but otherwise, face it, they do fulfill a need. Maybe if we didn't all demand covered and heated homes for our cars, we could have streets full of new and "skinny" but *attractive* little cottages or row-houses instead.
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 10:52 a.m. inappropriate
bubbleator, the Comp Plan of the early 1990s was a 20-year plan if I recall. It wasn't intended to be forever.
Further, a large percentage of our four-packs are going into the urban village areas defined by the Comp Plan. These don't go into pure-SFR areas.
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 9:40 p.m. inappropriate
At least in the U-District, the townhomes are not even providing density and they're really hurting affordability. There have been several cases of old houses north of 50th (long ago carved into apartments) being torn down to build $500k townhouses. Often there are fewer townhomes than there were units in the old building.
Posted Wed, Jun 24, 10:32 p.m. inappropriate
mhays,
I would take that argument more seriously if DPD and DON hadn't been making concerted annual efforts to abrogate all of the aforementioned promises from the moment the ink dried on them.