“Density without ripping out single-family housing.” That’s how one proponent described new rules that would allow some Seattle homeowners to turn detached garages or other backyard structures into apartments.
It’s a great idea. Putting an apartment in your back yard can let your neighborhood accomodate new residents without changing its character. From the street, the neighborhood looks the same; the only change is that more people get to enjoy it.
And adding residents has a couple of nifty benefits. First, the rules could help keep housing affordable, both by increasing the supply of rental housing (which helps hold down rents) and by giving some homeowners an additional source of income (which can help them meet their mortgage payments).
And second, denser neighborhoods—at least as a general rule—are able to support local stores and services. Higher residential density helps make transit cost effective, and also increases the number of local patrons for shops and restaurants.
For some reason, rising density sometimes gets blamed for causing high housing prices. That’s completely backwards. Rising density is typically a consequence, not a cause, of rising housing prices. As demand for housing goes up, housing prices go up too; and the housing market responds by trying to create more places for people to live. (I know, I’m anthropomorphising. Sue me.) If anything, failing to densify—that is, creating zoning rules that prevent the housing market from responding to high prices—is what makes housing unaffordable.
By easing zoning restrictions, Seattle’s rules let the market do what it does best: respond to demand.
Of course, people are concerned that new residents will undermine quality of life in their neighborhood—by boosting traffic, taking up parking spots, and adding transient renters to an established neighborhood of homeowners. The real fear is here is change—which is a fear I definitely understand.
But it seems to me that many of the changes that happen when a neighborhood accepts new residents are good ones. New faces, new businesses, new transportation options—on balance, these are things that make a good neighborhood even better. I’m not sure there’s really much to fear here.
Steve Mooney
As I understand it, the proposal is an extension of the current in-law apartment law, which requires a dedicated off-street parking space for the apartment unit. This seems like an unnecessary and potentially harmful requirement if the goal is really to increase affordability and density—parking will both add cost and take up space. In particular, I think this requirement makes it harder to convert existing garages into housing, which seems like the cheapest, easiest way to build a backyard apartment for many people.(An aside: I believe that owing to the nature of the zoning code, single-family housing does not have a parking requirement, so it’s possible existing off-street parking previously used for the main unit could be officially dedicated to the backyard unit. I’m not a lawyer, though.)At any rate, I’d agree that there’s not much to fear here—my worry would be that the new rules don’t go far enough in making it easy to build backyard apartments and as a result aren’t much taken advantage of.
Clark Williams-Derry
Good points, Steve. The parking requirement was undoubtedly added to calm existing residents’ fears about new residents soaking up all the street parking. But it certainly adds to the cost of new units—and prevents the development of anything resembling a market for parking spaces. Even allowing for off-site parking—maybe in a local parking lot, or a neighbor’s unused spot—would be smarter than requiring on-site parking.
David Sucher
I wonder whether anyone really wants affordable housing..
Clark Williams-Derry
David -2 things:1) that is a *brilliant* post. brilliant. Oh, and did I mention brilliant?2) Good to see you over here in our new digs!
David Sucher
Thanks so much on both counts, Clark.
lisaB
This is something Vancouver (BC) has been trying to move forward on also. Currently, I think secondary units in accessory buildings are only allowed on large lots as part of a plan to retain old heritage buildings but hopefully it will expand to other properties.In any case – I did an inventory of part of the city a while back to document existing laneway houses, might be interesting to some: http://www.lisabrideau.ca/laneway/