Living Car Free - Interesting housing proposal in Midtown Sacramento

This proposal making it's way around our local city government is an interesting idea to increase housing density in the mid-town area. Its exciting to even think it is being considered and reflects growing awareness about traffic, population density and urban renewal. There is already a lot of bicycle use in our mid-town and East Sac areas and this would also undoubtedly increase that percentage significantly.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1438334.html

To summarize the proposal in case the link goes dead:

Some local Sacramento architects who have already done successful smaller in-fill projects are proposing that many of the urban lots here in mid-town which are long and narrow (40 x 160), could be split and have housing built at the back of the lot, thus doubling the density. In actuality it would more than double the housing capacity on the lot since they are proposing the back unit would have 2-3 small condos on that many levels, and a garage facing the alley. These lots are all in areas that have alleys running in the middle of the blocks so access would be from the alley.

The existing homeowner would receive a significant financial benefit from the arrangement as an incentive. Also, since many of our older homes in the inner area are 2-3 stories, and we have a lot of trees, this would not necessarily create aesthetic issues if it were done right... The only drawback I see might be the loss of some land area for inner city gardens but we are not talking about that many lots overall. I think it is a great idea and would add a lot of new close-in housing that would not require commuting and further suburan sprawl.

That could be nice--as long as they're not cutting down a lot of trees. Parking could be a problem. I assume there will be more cars unless they're restricting it to carfree people (fat chance). I have a friend who lived in a cute little house behind another house on a big city lot. There are several of these little "backhouses" on that block, and it's kinda charming. I think they used to be garages but they're nicely renovated.This is in Lansing, another state capital.

This is actually a pretty old concept, which was ditched when people started wanting huge lots, you know "The Good Life". There tended to be lower income housing, servants quarters etc. in the back of lots. Zoning and desire for yards got rid of this. As long as it's done well, why not? I really want to start an Ally revitalization project in my neighborhood. Not new units, but just making them place to walk and hang out in. I think they are great places.

This is actually a pretty old concept, which was ditched when people started wanting huge lots, you know "The Good Life". There tended to be lower income housing, servants quarters etc. in the back of lots. Zoning and desire for yards got rid of this. As long as it's done well, why not? I really want to start an Ally revitalization project in my neighborhood. Not new units, but just making them place to walk and hang out in. I think they are great places.

midblock walkways (crossways to the alleys) are a useful addition. If there are enough alleys and midblock walkways, you start to get enough alternative infrastructure to make walking and low-speed cycling very attractive. Crime and gang activity can wreck it all, however.

I used to live in Natomas, an obsure area immediately north of the American River, right above Old Town Sac. I cut my long range biking teeth there, it is biking nirvana (and quiet rafting). From Folsom and more that way back to Davis and all over. If the local people can build this project and fill it with biking types you'd have a healthy extension of the whole Davis thing going on. I'd move back!!!!

midblock walkways (crossways to the alleys) are a useful addition. If there are enough alleys and midblock walkways, you start to get enough alternative infrastructure to make walking and low-speed cycling very attractive. Crime and gang activity can wreck it all, however.

A problem with alleys in this area is that the trash is collected from there and the collectors drop bottles enough that you get a higher chance of tire punctures. It seems like the city doesn't run the street sweepers through the alleys. There are a few alley houses in the city still being rented. I'm not sure that they are legal.

I grew up in midtown Sacramento, and it was relatively high density compared to the rest of town, and certainly more so than the typical suburban environment. The backyards are typically not huge, and having an outdoor area fenced off from the surrounding busy environment made for a wonderful sanctuary. I think this proposal is a bad idea, and is probably primarily being driven by the immense profits that will be realized by property owners and developers/contractors if it goes through. It's quite enlightening to read the comments from locals following the article.

I grew up in midtown Sacramento, and it was relatively high density compared to the rest of town, and certainly more so than the typical suburban environment. The backyards are typically not huge, and having an outdoor area fenced off from the surrounding busy environment made for a wonderful sanctuary.
Well, Midtown seems high-density because the rest of Sacramento is sprawled out for miles, which creates the previously mentioned problems. But it is actually pretty low density compared to most urban areas with over a million people. Sure, 6-8000sf is not a large yard to begin with, but even with a unit on the other end and less yard it would have more open space than many inner city areas have.

Just look at the high rise build out in Vancouver, BC for example. It would still be a much more livable environment than that. And you still have an incredible amount of greenspace along the riparian corridors in Sacramento for recreation, including the American River Parkway with a 35 mile long bikepath running all the way to Folsom.



I think this proposal is a bad idea, and is probably primarily being driven by the immense profits that will be realized by property owners and developers/contractors if it goes through. It's quite enlightening to read the comments from locals following the article.
No, it is being driven by the need to have housing close to the jobs. Sacramento has a high percentage of white-collar and government workers who will buy close-in if quality housing is available. As far as the comments by some of the locals - would you expect anything different?

I grew up in midtown Sacramento, and it was relatively high density compared to the rest of town, and certainly more so than the typical suburban environment. The backyards are typically not huge, and having an outdoor area fenced off from the surrounding busy environment made for a wonderful sanctuary. I think this proposal is a bad idea, and is probably primarily being driven by the immense profits that will be realized by property owners and developers/contractors if it goes through. It's quite enlightening to read the comments from locals following the article.

Why is it wrong in this case for property owners to make a profit? (Usually that's the reason that people own property in the first place.)

One problem with in-filling is that it takes a while to get accustomed to the new population density. I know in moving from the sprawl of Des Moines to a typical Canadian city, I get a little feeling of claustrophia... Of course that would soon be rectified and then it would dawn on me that there's less lawn to mow. :thumb:

As for most cities I see, the back alley would not be a viable solution because the backyards aren't that huge. It's the stupid front yards where all the useless lawn grows. I don't know how you could fit more housing in that scenario.

A good option might be to turn the garages into apartments for either in-laws, older children or even as a business proposition. I personally have only a one-car, but most of my neighbours have large garages that would easily accomodate two or even three bedrooms.

It does depend on the width and depth of the lots. In most older cities, the lots are narrow and houses are lessthan 10 feet apart from wall to wall. That spacing allows for dense population even when the lots are deep enough to provide nice frontyards and backyards.

in the last place I lived in Oakland, CA, the block was full of these long lots with small condos or houses. It seemed to work really well. It still felt like a relatively non-dense neighborhood just because half the houses were not directly on the street. Parking was not bad either. I'd wholeheartedly support developing more neighborhoods like this.

In most older cities, the lots are narrow and houses are lessthan 10 feet apart from wall to wall. That spacing allows for dense population even when the lots are deep enough to provide nice frontyards and backyards.

I see a lot of this in older neighbourhoods in Ontario. Lots are pretty deep and narrow as you say. However, the front yards are pretty much non-existent. About 20 feet. Just enough for a small veranda and maybe a very small flower garden in front of that. Back yards are quite nice and mostly set up with small gardens, verandas, tool sheds, etc.

Having a very small front yard is a great thing IMHO. Of course, you don't have a lot of useless lawn space and you don't have long driveways that need to be shoveled (or blown out with gas-guzzling snowblowers...). Also, having the house closer to the street makes you feel less removed from the community somehow... your private space is in the back and you have ample room in the front for talking to people who pass by.