15 Oct
2012
15 Oct
'12
1:01 p.m.
I've posted two sets of photos on the Glenwood CAC Facebook page to help
illustrate what may happen if the UDO definitions for the backyard cottages
is adopted.
The first shows a very narrow, long
house<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.493427184009082.119783.1…
Method. I've heard planners scoff at the idea that anyone would build
or
live in a 10-foot wide house such as my example Backyard Party Palace. I'd
long thought this was a tiny house on stilts, but it actually two stories,
with two levels for outdoor entertainment. It's larger than a backyard
cottage could be, but still image 80% of this building along rear fence
lines throughout your CAC.
The second shows a chicken coop made from scrap
material<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.493463740672093.11978…
across the fence from an avid gardener in my CAC. This used to be a
heavily wooded area. The new owners may have made the front of the coop
attractive, but the view from neighboring garden sitting area shows
unpainted scrap wood.
One picture shows this coop from the lowest point in the neighboring
garden. Remember that the height of backyard cottages will be measured from
their fronts, not from the lot-line side. Imagine the Method house made of
scrap material and positioned along this fence.
Please note that I'm glad people can have chickens in Raleigh, but wanted
to illustrate that not all backyard construction will be charming cottages,
even when the owners live on the property.
... Linda Watson
Chair, Glenwood CAC
16 Oct
16 Oct
7:51 a.m.
Linda, all:
I imagine "backyard cottages" will also be subject to the same inspections and
code standards as other dwellings built in the city. They won't allow people to build
shanties--at least not in the University Park area.
To add to the conversation, some examples:
I just bought a house near Raleigh Blvd. and Oakwood. The woman across the street from me
is a grandmother whose household includes her husband, her sister, her sister's kids
and the occasional grand kid.
Behind this woman's house is an accessory dwelling. I won't call it a cottage
because it isn't that quaint. Frankly it looks more like a converted shed. The
woman's niece lives there with her two young children.
A couple of assertions:
- Although we live directly across from them, this arrangement has not disturbed us at
all.
- This arrangement allows the grandmother to provide housing and economic aid for her
relatives, something she wants to do, and that they definitely appreciate.
- This arrangement increases the density of my neighborhood (including the number of
children), which I consider a good thing.
I've seen this work well for several friends of mine too, mostly low-income people of
color. For the older woman I know, it provides a sense of privacy and security to live in
an accessory dwelling. For the younger couple I know, it gave them an affordable
alternative to the standard apartment setting, and I can tell you there's a lot of
hunger for that right now. In University Park, an older man I know is seeking this exact
kind of arrangement because he wants to live surrounded by the green of a private yard and
not by the parking lot of the nearby crummy apartment complexes he could otherwise afford.
Every other house on several streets in Cameron Park has an accessory dwelling. Has
anyone asked how it has worked out for them?
While I think "backyard cottages" definitely warrant scrutiny and limitations,
overall they stand to be a boon for low-income people, older folks, young couples wanting
a sense of privacy--not to mention the homeowners who maintain them. The specter of
shanties doesn't align with the reality of what I've seen.
Ana
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Linda Watson <linda(a)lindawatson.com> wrote:
I've posted two sets of photos on the Glenwood CAC
Facebook page to help illustrate what may happen if the UDO definitions for the backyard
cottages is adopted.
The first shows a very narrow, long house on Method. I've heard planners scoff at the
idea that anyone would build or live in a 10-foot wide house such as my example Backyard
Party Palace. I'd long thought this was a tiny house on stilts, but it actually two
stories, with two levels for outdoor entertainment. It's larger than a backyard
cottage could be, but still image 80% of this building along rear fence lines throughout
your CAC.
The second shows a chicken coop made from scrap material just across the fence from an
avid gardener in my CAC. This used to be a heavily wooded area. The new owners may have
made the front of the coop attractive, but the view from neighboring garden sitting area
shows unpainted scrap wood.
One picture shows this coop from the lowest point in the neighboring garden. Remember
that the height of backyard cottages will be measured from their fronts, not from the
lot-line side. Imagine the Method house made of scrap material and positioned along this
fence.
Please note that I'm glad people can have chickens in Raleigh, but wanted to
illustrate that not all backyard construction will be charming cottages, even when the
owners live on the property.
... Linda Watson
Chair, Glenwood CAC
_______________________________________________
RCAC mailing list
RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org
http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac
17 Oct
17 Oct
9:15 a.m.
Ana, thanks for your thoughtful comments. My key concern is this:
In University Park, an older man I know is seeking this exact kind of
arrangement because he wants to live surrounded by the
green of a private
yard and not by the parking lot of the nearby crummy apartment complexes he
could otherwise afford.
Sound idyllic! He can live in a house surrounded by the neighboring
gardens. The neighbors will see his house and his parking space, which will
be required even if he doesn't have a car. Their houses will lose value,
becoming more affordable to others as a result. Because there are no design
standards, his house could be as ugly as a shanty as long as it is safe as
defined by the building code. In fact, using a mix of scraps could be seen
as a positive green approach, even for an eyesore. (I predict that the
requirement for a parking space won't last, which will allow more people to
build backyard houses.)
*This is an instance of the tragedy of the
commons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons>ns>.
*My R-4 neighborhood used to consist largely of houses build in small glens
on wooded lots, with lawns and natural areas in front. Recently, builders
have begun clear cutting their
lots<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=466921409992993&set=pb.…
the glens of their houses go to the lot lines, with the woods provided
only by the neighbors. Clear cutting lots will make it easier to add second
houses on the lot, doubling the density of the neighborhood.
And where does convenience and support for the individual home owner at the
expense of the neighborhood end? I sometimes dream of converting my
basement to a cooking school, but know that my neighborhood is not zoned
for that type of use. The neighbors might be inconvenienced by the traffic
and potential noise. (All that popcorn!) It would be a convenient form of
income for me. How does this differ from letting me build a second house to
rent in the backyard?
As Russ Stephenson says, let's get the right rules in the right places.
Let's have a variety of neighborhood types in the city. Backyard houses
could be part of new development or approved exceptions; they don't need to
start as the city-wide default. Enjoy your 360-degree density, but let me
and others who bought into settled neighborhoods keep our public space in
our front yards and private space in our backyards.
... Linda
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Ana Duncan Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Linda, all:
I imagine "backyard cottages" will also be subject to the same inspections
and code standards as other dwellings built in the city. They won't allow
people to build shanties--at least not in the University Park area.
To add to the conversation, some examples:
I just bought a house near Raleigh Blvd. and Oakwood. The woman across
the street from me is a grandmother whose household includes her husband,
her sister, her sister's kids and the occasional grand kid.
Behind this woman's house is an accessory dwelling. I won't call it a
cottage because it isn't that quaint. Frankly it looks more like a
converted shed. The woman's niece lives there with her two young children.
A couple of assertions:
- Although we live directly across from them, this arrangement has not
disturbed us at all.
- This arrangement allows the grandmother to provide housing and economic
aid for her relatives, something she wants to do, and that they definitely
appreciate.
- This arrangement increases the density of my neighborhood (including the
number of children), which I consider a good thing.
I've seen this work well for several friends of mine too, mostly
low-income people of color. For the older woman I know, it provides a
sense of privacy and security to live in an accessory dwelling. For the
younger couple I know, it gave them an affordable alternative to the
standard apartment setting, and I can tell you there's a lot of hunger for
that right now. In University Park, an older man I know is seeking this
exact kind of arrangement because he wants to live surrounded by the green
of a private yard and not by the parking lot of the nearby crummy apartment
complexes he could otherwise afford. Every other house on several streets
in Cameron Park has an accessory dwelling. Has anyone asked how it has
worked out for them?
While I think "backyard cottages" definitely warrant scrutiny and
limitations, overall they stand to be a boon for low-income people, older
folks, young couples wanting a sense of privacy--not to mention the
homeowners who maintain them. The specter of shanties doesn't align with
the reality of what I've seen.
Ana
Sent from my iPhone
4801
days inactive
4803
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Ana Duncan Pardo -
Linda Watson