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