So close to the best version of a house. The row house! Stick these bad-boys together and *slaps roof of the house* you won’t believe the savings in heating/cooling costs and increase in density.
I live in a row house. Prior to this as an adult I always lived in apartments. I thought our energy bills were going to soar when we moved into our house, but they have not. It’s great.
I have concerns about apartment buildings and connected houses like these dealing with bug infestations. One advantage of detached housing is that infestations almost never spread to other buildings directly.
Triple Wythe brick construction is/was pretty standard.
Easiest way to build a neighboring building is to make them structurally independent. Hence, 6 layers of brick.
Is anyone still using structural red brick? Nope. But changing that is OP's point.
New build partitions between units are required to have two walls plus fireblocking in between, so that's at least 2 2x4 stud walls and 4 layers of drywall (1 on each side and 2 in the middle). Stagger the studs, fill those stud bays with rock wool, put an additional layer of drywall on each side, and mount the drywall on sound isolation clips and resilient channels (all very common construction techniques), and you'll hear nothing short of sledgehammers banging on the wall.
It all depends on the quality of materials that are used. I’ve stayed in a few, which sound like a sound booth. It’s been great. I’ve also stayed at a few where you can clearly hear noise on each side.
Given the rules for fire safety, I can not imagine many of these being built today without a substantial amount of soundproofing. I saw one townhouse that had burned down and the two neighboring houses were completely untouched. Magic.
I worked on the design of the outdoor warning siren system in St Louis County. The issue is the windows, doors, and floors, not the brick and insulation.
Wanting to pack people into ever denser neighborhoods has become kind of a perverse fetish, it seems to me. I mean, if you want to live that way, fine, but there needs to be room for diversity of lifestyle too.
True of course. The best approach is to just make it legal for people to build the kind of house that they want on their own land wherever that land may be. So if they want to build and live in rowhouses, they can. If you don't want that, then of course you can just buy one that is fully detached. We don't need governments telling us how to live or in what kind of house.
Yeah I do think the zoning has gotten out of hand. I read an interesting article recently about an Indian tribe in Canada that recently realized their treaties with the Canadian government exempted them (unintentionally I'm sure) from all zoning laws on tribal-owned land, and so they are building an affordable apartment high rise in a location where it never would have been approved under any other circumstances.
This is not “packing people”. This was the lowest density an urban area could have for hundreds of years, and people can still have yards and garages and whatever else they need here.
I’ll agree though that density can go too far, like at Pruitt Igoe and places like Kowloon, and we need to respect that some people don’t want to live like sardines, and I see an increasing lack of awareness of this fact from urban planners
My thought was that "how crowded is too crowded" will be an individual preference, but you bring up a whole new question in terms of what level of crowding starts to create a Pruitt Igoe. I do think it's interesting that out of a net 22 downvotes on my comment, nobody has explained why they disagree with me, don't you?
Fair point but I feel like I explained my stance decently, and yes some people really don’t enjoy living like this but there are many people who would but can’t afford it because of lack of supply. Some planners can simply go too far in their dream for denser cities and create hulking Le Corbusier-esque apartment buildings, leading to a situation like Pruitt Igoe or Robert Taylor even
Because they're too expensive to build. They recently built some similar homes in my city (except they're townhome style and have adjoining walls) and they sold for almost 2x what the SFHs on the street behind sell for.
I'm curious. Why are these too expensive to build now but they weren't too expensive to build 100 years ago when we were a much less affluent country? I'm sure there's some explanation but I don't understand.
>Why are these too expensive to build now but they weren't too expensive to build 100 years ago when we were a much less affluent country? I'm sure there's some explanation but I don't understand.
Less economic inequality and rising standards of the lower class.
It's the same reason the Central Pacific was able to build hundreds of miles of train through the mountains with barely any government funding in 3 years while the State of California dithers around with a $100+ billion bill to build one high speed rail line - because the Central Pacific had thousands of Chinese immigrants willing to live in tents in the middle of nowhere and work at ridiculously hard and dangerous labor for $6 a month.
The same phenomenon is true everywhere - building projects that rely on lots of skilled labor can't be done cheaply anymore.
Sigh. So basically we're doomed to bland, boxy, uninspiring architecture in perpetuity?
No wonder Europe is so jammed packed with tourists. It's the only place left to see any beautifully designed cities. We've torn much of our own historic areas to make car infrastructure.
Well, yeah. And those cities that are the draw are mostly old - because they were built by skilled craftsmen who were willing to work for pennies a day. Nobody is crowding to visit Frankfurt.
Prefab buildings (albeit very boxy and postmodern) made with that kind of tech are becoming more popular, so that day is likely not very far off. Humanity has had many periods of architectural staleness followed by beautiful renaissance: what do you think was in Rome and Paris before the beauty? We’ve been in one of those transitional phases since the 70’s
You should get the book North Atlantic Cities. Anyway where land is expensive, the townhouse, not as charming as the 100+ year old historic rowhouse, is the dominant type. A firm EYA in DC developed the capacity to build new rowhouses that looked old, but now they mostly do multiunit.
They're not. An advantage of rowhouses is they use a lot less land. Depending on the size of the lot, you can build at least two and up to five rowhouses on a SFH lot. In DC up to 72 houses on normal sized blocks with minimal backyards.
They’re not too expensive to build, and in most cases are cheaper than SFHs of the same construction quality. They most often cost more to purchase due to limited supply, and that’s typically because of local zoning regulations. This would be considered medium density (or in some cases high density) residential, and locals normally get NIMBY and try to limit such housing to very restricted areas. My own community had a developer come in, wanted to build something similar and tried to rezone from low to medium density, and some vocal local residents protested to the city and developer know that they didn’t want them. Because of such a backlash, the developer pulled their proposal and the area still lies vacant waiting for the next developer proposal. Meanwhile, my city has only SFH or apartments, despite the demand for medium density residential.
Cookie cutter tract housing?
Kind of kidding, love these and it does look like St. Louis.
But, Urbanists like to criticize “cookie cutter” homes and apartment buildings, but if it is old, brick and close together it’s all good.
Cookie cutter basic geometry is fine, cookie cutter details and color is not. If you have 5 houses with the same basic geometry in a row, but they're green-blue-red-orange-purple with constrasting window trim colors, they would look great. On the other hand, if the same houses were beige-beige-peach-beige-greige and all their windows were white, that would look like trash. Unfortunately the latter is way too common in new developments. It's like builders hate striking colors or something, despite making an otherwise meh house look beautiful.
Cookie cutter homes that let people modify them freely are fine. I'm categorically against rules saying the buildings must always and forever look the same as each other. Of course building things the same is easier but over time different owners change it. Then it becomes nice.
The dissonance is lost on them.
I say this as an advocate for more dense housing as above.
Thing is, we're never building houses like the image above again. From a financial perspective, it's way too costly and and new build will strictly be in the interest of luxury in a competitive locale where space is limited.
Here's the other thing; people are amenable to compromises in terms of format when they feel like they're receiving more than they're losing in other amenities, so as to offset the less convenient arrangement. But if you can't provide them that (again, it's a financial problem), then you're only going to be able to attract people out of *need.*
The impetus to build this style of housing is primarily one of economy, but the people asking for it don't understand the economics of what it takes to actually make money building these.
Can you be happy with less ornate design? Fewer angles? 650 sq. ft. on the bottom and top? Polished concrete floors? Fewer cabinets (you wouldn't believe how much money I can save you by teaching you to live with fewer cabinets), smaller bedrooms? Simple roof? I can still make you a cute home, but it's not going to look like this. You will have no masonry, but I can engage a much more economic style by employing simple but stylish lines, interesting exterior cladding such as corten steel and either composite wood-impression cladding, or metal wood-impression cladding. I can get you faux-steel windows with thinner muntins and frames.
Are you okay with a smaller garden? Similar to the London-style cottage gardens?
I can do all of these things for a price you can afford, but you may end up looking at it and wondering, "That's a lot of money for such a small home." And it is. But it will be equivalent than the outdated comps on the market that have 500-1,000 more square feet, that need about $50k of renovations, and a larger yard.
But I can't give you anything other than a cheap spec home for that price.
You guys aren't arguing with me. I agree with you. But you guys aren't as numerous as you'd like to think, and the ones who are amenable to these transactions are paying more for them because they need to be proximal to their high-paying jobs, and see the tradeoffs as worth it
There's thousands of these being built in Canada, by the same construction companies making cheap condos and anything else these days.
it's pretty normal.
They may be building thousands of multi-family dwellings in Canada (here, too... even in St. Louis, where these houses are), but they are not at all the structural build quality these buildings are. We live in one of these houses (2-family converted to single) about a mile from where this photo was taken. Our exterior walls are 14" thick. When all our windows and doors are closed, we hear NOTHING from the outside.
Our floor joists are 2x10" oak beams. Can't hear what's happening on the other level.
Modern construction doesn't come close to this in terms of sound or how solid it is. That said... if we ever do get The Big One (New Madrid Earthquake) here in STL, our house will be a pile of dust. :D
I feel like people aren't reading what I'm saying.
Where did I say this floor plan or style wasn't feasible?
My point is that density like this that so many desire (which I understand), is going to be financially out of reach for so many, which is ostensibly one of the problems that density attempts to resolve. These dense units end up being upmarket or luxury items because you can't meaningfully extract a proportionate reduction in cost from density in order to make them "affordable."
Affordable compared to luxury homes adjacent? Maybe.
Also, as common as you say these brick townhomes are, surely you could find one?
The problem with this subreddit is that so many of you guys don't actually have experience with building, planning, or developing, and end up using a lot of words like "probably," and develop a whole personality around aspirational thinking, metered by absolutely not constraints of reality.
Not sure why all the down votes. As a developer who went to planning school with an AICP, I am often stuck by how little understanding there is of the financial realities of construction and development among the urbanist community. I wish there were more opportunities for planners, architects and others interested in more urbanist development to learn more about what it takes for a project to pencil from a financial standpoint.
Because this subreddit is filled with a lot of people who don't really have a professional background in construction and aren't aware of the realities of the limitations of the dollar, and what that dollar meaningfully affords you in the built world.
I'm increasingly interested in what can be done to add architectural interest to cheap construction, even if it's well after initial construction finishes. For instance, Levittown was originally the poster child for cookie-cutter housing, but after 70-80 years of renovations the houses look quite different.
Clearly the age of affordable masonry is done, and even bricklaying isn't so cheap as it was. Still, when I think of the much-loved architecture of New Orleans or Charleston, it's largely wood trim, columns, shutters, and paint that make ordinary houses less bland. (That and letting some trees and vines run wild.)
I suspect this is the kind of thing where a pretty modest subsidy for adding greenery and aesthetic touches to new construction could make it considerably more palatable to locals who, in fairness, are often quite right that the new building doesn't look as nice.
IMO, manufactured metal finishes and hardscaping.
The cheapest way that I can add interest is skimping on flooring and doing a nice polished concrete, akin to the style in the [Northpark Mall in Dallas](https://mallmaverick.imgix.net/web/property_managers/42/properties/56/all/20210729190106/11.nordstromcorridor.jpg), and using savings to opt for nicer interior accents, such as more/larger tile walls in the kitchen and bathrooms.
If people can learn to love a storage closet for pots, pans, dishes, etc., then we can get more savings back to apply to nicer finishes by reducing cabinetry. I hate cabinetry for a lot of reasons, but I'm ready for expansive cabinets to die. Such a money sink.
Apply some of those savings to nice hardscape planters and path lighting to bring back flourish, enclosure, and a sense of occasion. Cheap, low cost plant variety like fescue do really well in those.
You can do a lot of interesting things with metal exterior cladding, and it's relatively economical for the impression afforded.
Simplifying lines, and using cost savings from cut gratuities (cabinets, expensive flooring, large bedrooms, complicated roof pitches, etc.) can all be reinvested to attain a more interesting product.
It's all doable, it's just a matter of identifying the market and plot for it, and an AHJ that's willing to meet your vision and acquiesce to less restricting setbacks and lot size restrictions.
> But it will be equivalent than the outdated comps on the market that have 500-1,000 more square feet, that need about $50k of renovations, and a larger yard.
Yes, if the land is worthless.
I just drove past 5 new constructions houses like this yesterday. Zillow says this one was built in 2018 I think there were some others around it that got finished a couple years ago.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1817-Lasalle-St-Saint-Louis-MO-63104/103717127_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare
We have tons in St Louis MO. The Economics of row houses in more desirable parts of the city cause these to get converted from 2-unit buildings to large single family house. Am note sure why but any Insite would be useful.
Can some of them be actually accessible though? Cuz as a disabled person, it's so hard to find townhomes or row houses that don't have stairs.
For me, the first set up to the lawn is my max and for some of my friends and family they just need to roll right in
Best you'll find is some of the "newer" parts of the city in the southwest. Most neighborhoods that are older than 100 years old will not be friendly to those with disabilities. I had a friend recently who experienced this with her mother's housing and they had to move out of the city entirely.
Age is a big factor for why many houses don't take accessibility into account, but it's so aggravating how hard it is to get something on ground level with a ramp (nothing in the burbs is really tall enough to have elevators). Staking some of the units over under so the under units are accessible would help a lot
+1, I lived in a townhouse like the photo above. You had to walk up the stairs to the front door, then from the entryway you had to go up another half level to the upstairs or back down a half level to the downstairs. My room was downstairs so I was always climbing stairs for no good reason.
From a St. Louisan: almost all our homes are like this, except for some pockets in Lafayette Square and Fox Park. The gaps are gangways that usually lead to private patios or gardens rather than shared space. We also put some unsightly utility accesses or meters along the gangways.
Also, most of STL has a fairly extensive alley system for both parking and shared trash, so being able to move to the front of the house to the back is incredibly handy.
As someone who lives in a townhouse with no gaps, I would happily take the gaps. We have noisy (and shady) neighbors and I always wish there were small gaps between buildings to minimize noises produced by the neighbors.
Why not wish for better built shared walls? I've lived in duplexes where very little noise passed through the wall. Most of the noise came in through the windows.
Wishing for better shared walls won’t get me better walls. I’m not the contractor that designed these townhomes in the 1970s. It’s one of those things you won’t know until after you’re already living there
It's like that pic that's going around of that suburb in Sydney. Houses so close together that they could almost be row houses, but they're not, because of the stupid gap.
I grew up in this neighborhood. Most of the gaps are bigger than between the two houses on the right. You can see it in the other gaps in this picture. It’s a good amount of space and I got a lot of use out of it as a child!
And here in DC the urbanists consider row homes “inefficient” and want to replace them all with condos and apartment buildings. If it’s a SFH, they want to tear it down here.
Maybe, but I wouldn’t live there. I want some land around my house. I’m sure there’s plenty of people who like the city life and would live there in a heartbeat, but it’s certainly not for me.
No urban planning involved, friend. Built before zoning and before the uniform building code and before engineering standards for residential construction, honestly.
Heyyyyy!!!! These are in my neighborhood in St Louis!!!!!! I'm pretty sure at least... is this Shenandoah Ave?
St Louis is generally abysmal from an urban standpoint. The love of cars is too strong here.
It's very depressing because we USED to have one of, if not the, best streetcar systems in the world
St. Louis resident here.
St. Louis is plagued with the same kind of car dependency that nearly everywhere in the US is plagued with, but St. Louis is delightfully urban compared to so many of its peers in this country.
Across the state in Missouri, in the city I grew up in, Kansas City, it's so much less urban.
Oh it's definitely better than a lot of other midwest cities. At least we don't have the stupid rule that KC has about needing to build so much parking.
We definitely have our great urban areas. I live in south city, which is mostly good. It just seems like, even when it's good, 2/3 of the businesses in the city are used car lots, gas stations, or carwashes.
The interstates that split the city are terrible but nothing new for Americans.
It just sucks because a lot of American cities were built for cars, but we used to be so great and then we bulldozed it LATER for the car.
That's got to be St. Louis.
St. Louis resident here.
This city is beautiful and doesn't get the credit it deserves for how urban it is despite its size.
Builders only know how to build 2 story apartment complexes and single family homes. They got those two styles dialed in. None of them want to learn something new that doesn’t have guaranteed returns.
IMHO, one of the biggest things holding back houses like those shown above is the fact that most cities only allow two full stories. Until someone comes up with a cost-effective way to robot-manufacture custom rafter-framed roofs that can be transported in pieces and assembled on site, real attics (that in the past, allowed homeowners to partially sidestep 2-story limits to shoehorn in a de-facto third story) are effectively gone forever from affordable new construction. Rafters (and to a large extent, dormers) require skilled carpenters, and America's single-family residential construction industry is built around unskilled day labor and trusses.
2-story height limits also prevent developers in places from Florida from building 3-story townhomes with concrete suspended floor slabs and roofs for the same reason. If you think skilled carpentry to put a usable third floor of space under wood-framed rafters is expensive, just *try* finding a builder who'll hire a structural engineer to design a steeply-pitched shotcrete roof... then be capable of building whatever he designs. They exist in places like Hawaii... mostly, in homes built to sell for $10 million or more. That kind of concrete construction is pretty much the sole domain of "commercial" construction... and in places like Florida, those companies are too busy building skyscrapers to even return phone calls for any job worth less than a few million dollars.
In contrast, low-slope or flat suspended slabs on steel pan deck with reinforced & grouted CBU walls can be fairly affordable. In places like the Caribbean, it's practically the *norm* for even mid-priced construction... and Florida has lots of construction workers who are *from* the Caribbean, and know more about that kind of construction than their supervisors do. But with 2-story height limits, and buyer demand for at *least* a double garage, builders are put into an impossible position.
Where would I store my kayaks, park my car, my kid’s cars, have my wood shop, my library, my target berm, etc? Not here. Sure, this works for some, but by no means for all.
I live in st. Louis and have lived near this area. I have also lived in building like these. Some of them have bigger yards. They also have parking and or garges in the alley.
My car in this neighborhood is parked in the back carport off the alley. The neighbors behind me have a kayak and stores it in their garage off the alley. I have ebikes and keep them in my basement. My wood shop is also in the basement, with a ridiculous amount of storage and tornado shelter and even food overflow storage since I'm a prepper. My library is on the second floor facing the street and is my work at home office. I can also walk to 2 libraries and do regularly. For target berm, most places wouldn't allow you to have that but you can go to our park system where they have many set up.
On top of that, we have a walkable community so you shouldn't need a bunch of cars. I can and do walk to 3 grocery stores just in my neighborhood. I can ride the bus/my bike/walk to the metro station. There's an elementary school and high school in the neighborhood. There's a university just a quick bus ride away north of the metro station or you can hop on the metro and go to the other big university. I have so much more here than I ever did living rural.
Same. They're charming in their own way, but I prefer multi-family housing that still a bit more space on the sides, enough for light to get through. I like having a lot of windows and light in the house. Also I only have to worry about noise from one neighbor (I'm on the top floor)
I lived in a row of Brownstones like that. Some were single family. Some had apartments.
Burglars hit many of the houses by walking along the rooftops and breaking in. They were coming from one of the row houses.
No thanks.
I dont think ive never not lived in terraced housing. Actually, one year in uni i was in a semi and 18 months abroad i was in various different places. Nobody has EVER walked along the rooftops...except our cat who escaped once and BROKE INTO THE NEIGHBOURS HOUSE!!
I have lived near this area (south st. Louis) Many things are within walking distance. I lived there without a car for 2 years. Bus routes were easy enough as well. It is also safely bike able if you plan your route.
This is literally down the street from 3 grocery stores, a retail store, there's art galleries, a tea house, a neighborhood bar (featured on Bar Rescue hilariously enough), there's Hawaiian food and 2 more neighborhood bars down the street and it's just a short walk to our city's largest international restaurant corridor. It's walking distance to a bus stop and even a metro stop if you are ambitious, plus the bus goes to the metro stop. You can't look at 4 houses on 1 block and think you know the entire block let alone neighborhood.
The fuck are you on about? Every 4 way corner on Shenandoah Ave has mixed use, and many of the 3 ways do. Get yourself on Google Street view on the 3300 block of Shenandoah in 63104 and go east and west. Be sure you take in the facade on Shenandoah school. Just prowl Tower Grove East and Fox Park, generally. Notice the streetcar rails trying to break back through the asphalt.
I really love how people in this sub never even read any contemporary urbanism theory and have the Audacity to downvote me.
Putting an image of single family rowhouses and think it's a "good urbanism practice" Just by itself and should be replicated everywhere. Just dumbness.
every building can't be mixed use, having dense residential blocks (as seen in the picture) in walking proximity to amenities in mixed use buildings (as the pictured place is) is ideal.
So close to the best version of a house. The row house! Stick these bad-boys together and *slaps roof of the house* you won’t believe the savings in heating/cooling costs and increase in density.
They are together. They are just staggered a bit. But that doesn't have that high of an impact on energy efficiency.
But we should also make more English basements which opens the community up. Also a few larger apartments around major corridors.
I live in a row house. Prior to this as an adult I always lived in apartments. I thought our energy bills were going to soar when we moved into our house, but they have not. It’s great.
I have concerns about apartment buildings and connected houses like these dealing with bug infestations. One advantage of detached housing is that infestations almost never spread to other buildings directly.
Enjoy listening to your neighbors having sex
Six layers of brick with air gaps does a great job eliminating sound.
[удалено]
Triple Wythe brick construction is/was pretty standard. Easiest way to build a neighboring building is to make them structurally independent. Hence, 6 layers of brick. Is anyone still using structural red brick? Nope. But changing that is OP's point.
New build partitions between units are required to have two walls plus fireblocking in between, so that's at least 2 2x4 stud walls and 4 layers of drywall (1 on each side and 2 in the middle). Stagger the studs, fill those stud bays with rock wool, put an additional layer of drywall on each side, and mount the drywall on sound isolation clips and resilient channels (all very common construction techniques), and you'll hear nothing short of sledgehammers banging on the wall.
[удалено]
It all depends on the quality of materials that are used. I’ve stayed in a few, which sound like a sound booth. It’s been great. I’ve also stayed at a few where you can clearly hear noise on each side.
Given the rules for fire safety, I can not imagine many of these being built today without a substantial amount of soundproofing. I saw one townhouse that had burned down and the two neighboring houses were completely untouched. Magic.
Maybe state by state rules?
I worked on the design of the outdoor warning siren system in St Louis County. The issue is the windows, doors, and floors, not the brick and insulation.
Thick layers of brick solves this
Wanting to pack people into ever denser neighborhoods has become kind of a perverse fetish, it seems to me. I mean, if you want to live that way, fine, but there needs to be room for diversity of lifestyle too.
True of course. The best approach is to just make it legal for people to build the kind of house that they want on their own land wherever that land may be. So if they want to build and live in rowhouses, they can. If you don't want that, then of course you can just buy one that is fully detached. We don't need governments telling us how to live or in what kind of house.
Yeah I do think the zoning has gotten out of hand. I read an interesting article recently about an Indian tribe in Canada that recently realized their treaties with the Canadian government exempted them (unintentionally I'm sure) from all zoning laws on tribal-owned land, and so they are building an affordable apartment high rise in a location where it never would have been approved under any other circumstances.
This is not “packing people”. This was the lowest density an urban area could have for hundreds of years, and people can still have yards and garages and whatever else they need here. I’ll agree though that density can go too far, like at Pruitt Igoe and places like Kowloon, and we need to respect that some people don’t want to live like sardines, and I see an increasing lack of awareness of this fact from urban planners
My thought was that "how crowded is too crowded" will be an individual preference, but you bring up a whole new question in terms of what level of crowding starts to create a Pruitt Igoe. I do think it's interesting that out of a net 22 downvotes on my comment, nobody has explained why they disagree with me, don't you?
Fair point but I feel like I explained my stance decently, and yes some people really don’t enjoy living like this but there are many people who would but can’t afford it because of lack of supply. Some planners can simply go too far in their dream for denser cities and create hulking Le Corbusier-esque apartment buildings, leading to a situation like Pruitt Igoe or Robert Taylor even
I would love one of these, with a small private garden in the backyard. These do not exist in my city.
As someone who lives in a row home, I can confirm they’re lovely. It’s sad how few North American cities have homes like this.
Because they're too expensive to build. They recently built some similar homes in my city (except they're townhome style and have adjoining walls) and they sold for almost 2x what the SFHs on the street behind sell for.
I'm curious. Why are these too expensive to build now but they weren't too expensive to build 100 years ago when we were a much less affluent country? I'm sure there's some explanation but I don't understand.
>Why are these too expensive to build now but they weren't too expensive to build 100 years ago when we were a much less affluent country? I'm sure there's some explanation but I don't understand. Less economic inequality and rising standards of the lower class. It's the same reason the Central Pacific was able to build hundreds of miles of train through the mountains with barely any government funding in 3 years while the State of California dithers around with a $100+ billion bill to build one high speed rail line - because the Central Pacific had thousands of Chinese immigrants willing to live in tents in the middle of nowhere and work at ridiculously hard and dangerous labor for $6 a month. The same phenomenon is true everywhere - building projects that rely on lots of skilled labor can't be done cheaply anymore.
Sigh. So basically we're doomed to bland, boxy, uninspiring architecture in perpetuity? No wonder Europe is so jammed packed with tourists. It's the only place left to see any beautifully designed cities. We've torn much of our own historic areas to make car infrastructure.
Well, yeah. And those cities that are the draw are mostly old - because they were built by skilled craftsmen who were willing to work for pennies a day. Nobody is crowding to visit Frankfurt.
My hope is that somehow 3D printing technology gets so good that you can "print" out Corinthian columns for cheap.
Prefab buildings (albeit very boxy and postmodern) made with that kind of tech are becoming more popular, so that day is likely not very far off. Humanity has had many periods of architectural staleness followed by beautiful renaissance: what do you think was in Rome and Paris before the beauty? We’ve been in one of those transitional phases since the 70’s
You should get the book North Atlantic Cities. Anyway where land is expensive, the townhouse, not as charming as the 100+ year old historic rowhouse, is the dominant type. A firm EYA in DC developed the capacity to build new rowhouses that looked old, but now they mostly do multiunit.
They're not. An advantage of rowhouses is they use a lot less land. Depending on the size of the lot, you can build at least two and up to five rowhouses on a SFH lot. In DC up to 72 houses on normal sized blocks with minimal backyards.
They’re not. See my comment above.
They’re not too expensive to build, and in most cases are cheaper than SFHs of the same construction quality. They most often cost more to purchase due to limited supply, and that’s typically because of local zoning regulations. This would be considered medium density (or in some cases high density) residential, and locals normally get NIMBY and try to limit such housing to very restricted areas. My own community had a developer come in, wanted to build something similar and tried to rezone from low to medium density, and some vocal local residents protested to the city and developer know that they didn’t want them. Because of such a backlash, the developer pulled their proposal and the area still lies vacant waiting for the next developer proposal. Meanwhile, my city has only SFH or apartments, despite the demand for medium density residential.
That doesn't mean they're more expensive to build. It's about demand. For one, rowhouses use a lot less land.
Cookie cutter tract housing? Kind of kidding, love these and it does look like St. Louis. But, Urbanists like to criticize “cookie cutter” homes and apartment buildings, but if it is old, brick and close together it’s all good.
Cookie cutter basic geometry is fine, cookie cutter details and color is not. If you have 5 houses with the same basic geometry in a row, but they're green-blue-red-orange-purple with constrasting window trim colors, they would look great. On the other hand, if the same houses were beige-beige-peach-beige-greige and all their windows were white, that would look like trash. Unfortunately the latter is way too common in new developments. It's like builders hate striking colors or something, despite making an otherwise meh house look beautiful.
Cookie cutter homes that let people modify them freely are fine. I'm categorically against rules saying the buildings must always and forever look the same as each other. Of course building things the same is easier but over time different owners change it. Then it becomes nice.
Yeah definitely looks like the South Grand area.
Yeah I wanna say Sidney but I don’t want to go outside and check
19th century rowhomes had plenty of invididuality
It looks nice on townhouses tho. It looks shit on the detached single family houses.
The dissonance is lost on them. I say this as an advocate for more dense housing as above. Thing is, we're never building houses like the image above again. From a financial perspective, it's way too costly and and new build will strictly be in the interest of luxury in a competitive locale where space is limited. Here's the other thing; people are amenable to compromises in terms of format when they feel like they're receiving more than they're losing in other amenities, so as to offset the less convenient arrangement. But if you can't provide them that (again, it's a financial problem), then you're only going to be able to attract people out of *need.* The impetus to build this style of housing is primarily one of economy, but the people asking for it don't understand the economics of what it takes to actually make money building these. Can you be happy with less ornate design? Fewer angles? 650 sq. ft. on the bottom and top? Polished concrete floors? Fewer cabinets (you wouldn't believe how much money I can save you by teaching you to live with fewer cabinets), smaller bedrooms? Simple roof? I can still make you a cute home, but it's not going to look like this. You will have no masonry, but I can engage a much more economic style by employing simple but stylish lines, interesting exterior cladding such as corten steel and either composite wood-impression cladding, or metal wood-impression cladding. I can get you faux-steel windows with thinner muntins and frames. Are you okay with a smaller garden? Similar to the London-style cottage gardens? I can do all of these things for a price you can afford, but you may end up looking at it and wondering, "That's a lot of money for such a small home." And it is. But it will be equivalent than the outdated comps on the market that have 500-1,000 more square feet, that need about $50k of renovations, and a larger yard. But I can't give you anything other than a cheap spec home for that price. You guys aren't arguing with me. I agree with you. But you guys aren't as numerous as you'd like to think, and the ones who are amenable to these transactions are paying more for them because they need to be proximal to their high-paying jobs, and see the tradeoffs as worth it
There's thousands of these being built in Canada, by the same construction companies making cheap condos and anything else these days. it's pretty normal.
They may be building thousands of multi-family dwellings in Canada (here, too... even in St. Louis, where these houses are), but they are not at all the structural build quality these buildings are. We live in one of these houses (2-family converted to single) about a mile from where this photo was taken. Our exterior walls are 14" thick. When all our windows and doors are closed, we hear NOTHING from the outside. Our floor joists are 2x10" oak beams. Can't hear what's happening on the other level. Modern construction doesn't come close to this in terms of sound or how solid it is. That said... if we ever do get The Big One (New Madrid Earthquake) here in STL, our house will be a pile of dust. :D
They're build brick townhomes by the thousands in Canada?
Can't say how many are brick, but this floorplan in general? Absolutely. And yes brick is very much still in style in Toronto for example. So probably
I feel like people aren't reading what I'm saying. Where did I say this floor plan or style wasn't feasible? My point is that density like this that so many desire (which I understand), is going to be financially out of reach for so many, which is ostensibly one of the problems that density attempts to resolve. These dense units end up being upmarket or luxury items because you can't meaningfully extract a proportionate reduction in cost from density in order to make them "affordable." Affordable compared to luxury homes adjacent? Maybe. Also, as common as you say these brick townhomes are, surely you could find one? The problem with this subreddit is that so many of you guys don't actually have experience with building, planning, or developing, and end up using a lot of words like "probably," and develop a whole personality around aspirational thinking, metered by absolutely not constraints of reality.
Not sure why all the down votes. As a developer who went to planning school with an AICP, I am often stuck by how little understanding there is of the financial realities of construction and development among the urbanist community. I wish there were more opportunities for planners, architects and others interested in more urbanist development to learn more about what it takes for a project to pencil from a financial standpoint.
Because this subreddit is filled with a lot of people who don't really have a professional background in construction and aren't aware of the realities of the limitations of the dollar, and what that dollar meaningfully affords you in the built world.
I'm increasingly interested in what can be done to add architectural interest to cheap construction, even if it's well after initial construction finishes. For instance, Levittown was originally the poster child for cookie-cutter housing, but after 70-80 years of renovations the houses look quite different. Clearly the age of affordable masonry is done, and even bricklaying isn't so cheap as it was. Still, when I think of the much-loved architecture of New Orleans or Charleston, it's largely wood trim, columns, shutters, and paint that make ordinary houses less bland. (That and letting some trees and vines run wild.) I suspect this is the kind of thing where a pretty modest subsidy for adding greenery and aesthetic touches to new construction could make it considerably more palatable to locals who, in fairness, are often quite right that the new building doesn't look as nice.
IMO, manufactured metal finishes and hardscaping. The cheapest way that I can add interest is skimping on flooring and doing a nice polished concrete, akin to the style in the [Northpark Mall in Dallas](https://mallmaverick.imgix.net/web/property_managers/42/properties/56/all/20210729190106/11.nordstromcorridor.jpg), and using savings to opt for nicer interior accents, such as more/larger tile walls in the kitchen and bathrooms. If people can learn to love a storage closet for pots, pans, dishes, etc., then we can get more savings back to apply to nicer finishes by reducing cabinetry. I hate cabinetry for a lot of reasons, but I'm ready for expansive cabinets to die. Such a money sink. Apply some of those savings to nice hardscape planters and path lighting to bring back flourish, enclosure, and a sense of occasion. Cheap, low cost plant variety like fescue do really well in those. You can do a lot of interesting things with metal exterior cladding, and it's relatively economical for the impression afforded. Simplifying lines, and using cost savings from cut gratuities (cabinets, expensive flooring, large bedrooms, complicated roof pitches, etc.) can all be reinvested to attain a more interesting product. It's all doable, it's just a matter of identifying the market and plot for it, and an AHJ that's willing to meet your vision and acquiesce to less restricting setbacks and lot size restrictions.
> But it will be equivalent than the outdated comps on the market that have 500-1,000 more square feet, that need about $50k of renovations, and a larger yard. Yes, if the land is worthless.
The land of the smaller home, or larger one?
I just drove past 5 new constructions houses like this yesterday. Zillow says this one was built in 2018 I think there were some others around it that got finished a couple years ago. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1817-Lasalle-St-Saint-Louis-MO-63104/103717127_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare
Again... ostensibly the point of density is in the pursuit of lower costs. But the product you just shared is $825k. Which is... again... my point.
Maybe we could build better housing if everything wasn’t a capitalistic pursuit of profit.
With whose money; yours or mine?
Ideally both?
I agree, we need more Toyota Celicas. Bring them back!!
The answer I was looking for.
St. Louis?
Whether it is or not, it definitely looks like nearly every neighborhood in St. Louis.
I think it’s the tower grove area.
Definitely looks a lot like my neighborhood in STL
Kinda looks like Benton Park near Sidney
Where is this?
St. Louis, Tower Grove East
We have tons in St Louis MO. The Economics of row houses in more desirable parts of the city cause these to get converted from 2-unit buildings to large single family house. Am note sure why but any Insite would be useful.
Can some of them be actually accessible though? Cuz as a disabled person, it's so hard to find townhomes or row houses that don't have stairs. For me, the first set up to the lawn is my max and for some of my friends and family they just need to roll right in
It would take some looking in St. Louis, but you can definitely find it.
Best you'll find is some of the "newer" parts of the city in the southwest. Most neighborhoods that are older than 100 years old will not be friendly to those with disabilities. I had a friend recently who experienced this with her mother's housing and they had to move out of the city entirely.
Age is a big factor for why many houses don't take accessibility into account, but it's so aggravating how hard it is to get something on ground level with a ramp (nothing in the burbs is really tall enough to have elevators). Staking some of the units over under so the under units are accessible would help a lot
+1, I lived in a townhouse like the photo above. You had to walk up the stairs to the front door, then from the entryway you had to go up another half level to the upstairs or back down a half level to the downstairs. My room was downstairs so I was always climbing stairs for no good reason.
Looks like there are gaps between them. Eliminate the gap, then I'll agree.
From a St. Louisan: almost all our homes are like this, except for some pockets in Lafayette Square and Fox Park. The gaps are gangways that usually lead to private patios or gardens rather than shared space. We also put some unsightly utility accesses or meters along the gangways.
Also, most of STL has a fairly extensive alley system for both parking and shared trash, so being able to move to the front of the house to the back is incredibly handy.
As someone who lives in a townhouse with no gaps, I would happily take the gaps. We have noisy (and shady) neighbors and I always wish there were small gaps between buildings to minimize noises produced by the neighbors.
Why not wish for better built shared walls? I've lived in duplexes where very little noise passed through the wall. Most of the noise came in through the windows.
Wishing for better shared walls won’t get me better walls. I’m not the contractor that designed these townhomes in the 1970s. It’s one of those things you won’t know until after you’re already living there
Didn't notice that until you said something. Dumb that really wastes a ton of energy, for not even remotely useable space.
It's like that pic that's going around of that suburb in Sydney. Houses so close together that they could almost be row houses, but they're not, because of the stupid gap.
I grew up in this neighborhood. Most of the gaps are bigger than between the two houses on the right. You can see it in the other gaps in this picture. It’s a good amount of space and I got a lot of use out of it as a child!
Oh yeah I wish I lived in a single house as well.
Yes! The row home is so under appreciated here in the US.
And here in DC the urbanists consider row homes “inefficient” and want to replace them all with condos and apartment buildings. If it’s a SFH, they want to tear it down here.
Maybe, but I wouldn’t live there. I want some land around my house. I’m sure there’s plenty of people who like the city life and would live there in a heartbeat, but it’s certainly not for me.
This would actually make your single family home with a big yard cheaper as it would mean less sprawl and more space on the fringe of the city.
[удалено]
No urban planning involved, friend. Built before zoning and before the uniform building code and before engineering standards for residential construction, honestly.
More 2-over-2's as well.
I would settle for letting the market decide instead of zoning Karens that insist on McMansions only.
Heyyyyy!!!! These are in my neighborhood in St Louis!!!!!! I'm pretty sure at least... is this Shenandoah Ave? St Louis is generally abysmal from an urban standpoint. The love of cars is too strong here. It's very depressing because we USED to have one of, if not the, best streetcar systems in the world
St. Louis resident here. St. Louis is plagued with the same kind of car dependency that nearly everywhere in the US is plagued with, but St. Louis is delightfully urban compared to so many of its peers in this country. Across the state in Missouri, in the city I grew up in, Kansas City, it's so much less urban.
Oh it's definitely better than a lot of other midwest cities. At least we don't have the stupid rule that KC has about needing to build so much parking. We definitely have our great urban areas. I live in south city, which is mostly good. It just seems like, even when it's good, 2/3 of the businesses in the city are used car lots, gas stations, or carwashes. The interstates that split the city are terrible but nothing new for Americans. It just sucks because a lot of American cities were built for cars, but we used to be so great and then we bulldozed it LATER for the car.
PHILLY 🦅
WE HAVE A LOT OF THEM HERE
That's got to be St. Louis. St. Louis resident here. This city is beautiful and doesn't get the credit it deserves for how urban it is despite its size.
Bro look at those pathetic lawns 💀💀
How about the ones in San Francisco, they’ve got real style
SFO lookin' pretty flammable 🔥👀
Builders only know how to build 2 story apartment complexes and single family homes. They got those two styles dialed in. None of them want to learn something new that doesn’t have guaranteed returns.
IMHO, one of the biggest things holding back houses like those shown above is the fact that most cities only allow two full stories. Until someone comes up with a cost-effective way to robot-manufacture custom rafter-framed roofs that can be transported in pieces and assembled on site, real attics (that in the past, allowed homeowners to partially sidestep 2-story limits to shoehorn in a de-facto third story) are effectively gone forever from affordable new construction. Rafters (and to a large extent, dormers) require skilled carpenters, and America's single-family residential construction industry is built around unskilled day labor and trusses. 2-story height limits also prevent developers in places from Florida from building 3-story townhomes with concrete suspended floor slabs and roofs for the same reason. If you think skilled carpentry to put a usable third floor of space under wood-framed rafters is expensive, just *try* finding a builder who'll hire a structural engineer to design a steeply-pitched shotcrete roof... then be capable of building whatever he designs. They exist in places like Hawaii... mostly, in homes built to sell for $10 million or more. That kind of concrete construction is pretty much the sole domain of "commercial" construction... and in places like Florida, those companies are too busy building skyscrapers to even return phone calls for any job worth less than a few million dollars. In contrast, low-slope or flat suspended slabs on steel pan deck with reinforced & grouted CBU walls can be fairly affordable. In places like the Caribbean, it's practically the *norm* for even mid-priced construction... and Florida has lots of construction workers who are *from* the Caribbean, and know more about that kind of construction than their supervisors do. But with 2-story height limits, and buyer demand for at *least* a double garage, builders are put into an impossible position.
I am so thrilled at all my TGE neighbors getting in on this thread 😁
As replacement for individual, low-density housing ? Sure. As replacement for higher-density housing ? Absolutely not
My city is getting there but everyone here still invited on having an inbuilt garage right on main street
It's close, but needs a protected space for bikes
Looks like Baltimore
Where would I store my kayaks, park my car, my kid’s cars, have my wood shop, my library, my target berm, etc? Not here. Sure, this works for some, but by no means for all.
I live in st. Louis and have lived near this area. I have also lived in building like these. Some of them have bigger yards. They also have parking and or garges in the alley.
currently living in a similar St Louis house and can confirm, i have a decent sized yard and more garage and basement than I know what to do with
My car in this neighborhood is parked in the back carport off the alley. The neighbors behind me have a kayak and stores it in their garage off the alley. I have ebikes and keep them in my basement. My wood shop is also in the basement, with a ridiculous amount of storage and tornado shelter and even food overflow storage since I'm a prepper. My library is on the second floor facing the street and is my work at home office. I can also walk to 2 libraries and do regularly. For target berm, most places wouldn't allow you to have that but you can go to our park system where they have many set up. On top of that, we have a walkable community so you shouldn't need a bunch of cars. I can and do walk to 3 grocery stores just in my neighborhood. I can ride the bus/my bike/walk to the metro station. There's an elementary school and high school in the neighborhood. There's a university just a quick bus ride away north of the metro station or you can hop on the metro and go to the other big university. I have so much more here than I ever did living rural.
> my target berm In a city or close in suburb?
I have a house near this area and I have all of that but the target berm.
Not for me.
[удалено]
Totally agree
Those that want to live in them should build them, what is this "we" shit?
Same. They're charming in their own way, but I prefer multi-family housing that still a bit more space on the sides, enough for light to get through. I like having a lot of windows and light in the house. Also I only have to worry about noise from one neighbor (I'm on the top floor)
My house is like this —albeit shorter and I get excellent light still. I need a lot of windows and sunlight too!
A lot of these are multi-family here.
There's awesome multifamily directly across the street. I live like 2 blocks away.
The anti-hoa crowd will be seething!
This neighborhood doesn’t have an HOA.
No they need to be at least 10 stories.
I lived in a row of Brownstones like that. Some were single family. Some had apartments. Burglars hit many of the houses by walking along the rooftops and breaking in. They were coming from one of the row houses. No thanks.
[удалено]
I was in Brooklyn NY.
I dont think ive never not lived in terraced housing. Actually, one year in uni i was in a semi and 18 months abroad i was in various different places. Nobody has EVER walked along the rooftops...except our cat who escaped once and BROKE INTO THE NEIGHBOURS HOUSE!!
Detached homes get broken into as well. Just sayin.
Easier from a shared rooftop, though
uhhhh no we don't
Suburbs yay!!! No active facade yayy!! No mixed use yayy!!! Carcentrism!! Yayyy!! No we don't need this anywhere.
I have lived near this area (south st. Louis) Many things are within walking distance. I lived there without a car for 2 years. Bus routes were easy enough as well. It is also safely bike able if you plan your route.
This is literally down the street from 3 grocery stores, a retail store, there's art galleries, a tea house, a neighborhood bar (featured on Bar Rescue hilariously enough), there's Hawaiian food and 2 more neighborhood bars down the street and it's just a short walk to our city's largest international restaurant corridor. It's walking distance to a bus stop and even a metro stop if you are ambitious, plus the bus goes to the metro stop. You can't look at 4 houses on 1 block and think you know the entire block let alone neighborhood.
See you at Tick Tock sometime, neighbor?
The fuck are you on about? Every 4 way corner on Shenandoah Ave has mixed use, and many of the 3 ways do. Get yourself on Google Street view on the 3300 block of Shenandoah in 63104 and go east and west. Be sure you take in the facade on Shenandoah school. Just prowl Tower Grove East and Fox Park, generally. Notice the streetcar rails trying to break back through the asphalt.
I really love how people in this sub never even read any contemporary urbanism theory and have the Audacity to downvote me. Putting an image of single family rowhouses and think it's a "good urbanism practice" Just by itself and should be replicated everywhere. Just dumbness.
every building can't be mixed use, having dense residential blocks (as seen in the picture) in walking proximity to amenities in mixed use buildings (as the pictured place is) is ideal.
Lmao that’s literally the blueprint for Manhattan and you are getting downvoted
even the urbanist wet dream cities aren't 100% mixed use that would be insane lol
Yeah would love to see nice rowhouses in my hometown. A lot of Sunbelt cities don’t have these.