Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Minneapolis 2040 to end Single Family Home Zoning

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Price County, WI
    Posts
    805

    Minneapolis 2040 to end Single Family Home Zoning

    R1 Single Family Home Zoning -- seen by many as perpetuating racial segregation and/or the cause of urban sprawl -- will be ended in Minneapolis.


    The City Council approved "Minneapolis 2040", a new comprehensive plan which will do away with R1 and R2, in effect permitting three-family buildings (triplexes) in low-density residential neighborhoods.


    Opening up Minneapolis' wealthiest and most exclusive districts to triplexes, the theory goes, will create new opportunities for people to move for schools or a job, provide a way for aging residents to downsize without leaving their neighborhoods, help ease the affordability crunch, and stem the displacement of lower-income residents in gentrifying areas. Home ownership in Minneapolis diverges along racial lines...

    One of the opponents of new plan stated. "They are getting rid of all R1 and R2 low-density zoning, and I think everyone has accepted this as the most ambitious up-zoning proposal in the U. S. by far."


    http://slate.com/business/2018/12/mi...ng-racism.html
    Last edited by dado potato; 12-10-18 at 6:30pm.

  2. #2
    Senior Member razz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,112
    This is a very positive step for a community to choose. There are so many small homes being torn down and replaced with expensive monster-homes filling the entire lot that a triplex would be a positive step especially to invigorate declining downtown communities with pedestrians.
    Gandhi: Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony .

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,430
    Out my way these are called triple deckers and were very popular during the 19th and early 20th century to house immigrant extended families. One generation lived on each of the three floors, with the oldest at the bottom to avoid too many stairs.

  4. #4
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13,420
    The multi familiy buildings in my city tend to be duplexes or four plexes. I cant think of many 3 plexes.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Price County, WI
    Posts
    805
    I understand that the "first draft" of Minneapolis 2040 did contemplate four-plexes as the new limit in low-density residential neighborhoods, and that there was a kerfuffle.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Tradd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Suburban Midwest
    Posts
    3,127
    Those are known as 2 or 3 flats here in Chicago. Tons of them from the early 20th century.

  7. #7
    Senior Member razz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,112
    Dado, how much work will it require to adjust the infrastructure such as sewage and water services to accommodate the increase in population. If one thinks of a R1 with 4 people changing to 12 people over quite a number of units, it will take much more capacity. I am sure that this issue has been addressed but wondered about the details as I didn't get that type of info from the article.
    Gandhi: Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony .

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Price County, WI
    Posts
    805
    razz,

    Good question. With double or triple the population density there would be more throughput in the water and sewer system. On the fixed cost side, I suspect that the amount of street paving, curbs & gutters, watermains, fire hydrants, streetlights, etc., would be about the same for triplexes as for single-family detached houses. Just a hunch … perhaps there is an engineer among us who could shed some light.

  9. #9
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    4,148
    My guess, and it's just a guess, is that a lot of the infrastructure for sewers and the like is old. 22 years isn't that much time but IS time if the plan/need was to replace much of it anyway. Now, at least, the cost can be justified since future increased demand is baked into the cake.

    Before we left NYC 10 years ago the Wall Street area became a hot place to build huge residential towers. Doing so required a significant upgrade to the utility infrastructure so it was all done at once. They closed down streets for months/years at a time, ripped them up and put in capacity for the new homes. The new property taxes were/are sufficient to pay for it. Minneapolis will undoubtedly have to use bonds to do this, but hopefully in the end it will pay for itself assuming that it needed to happen anyway.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Rosemary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,643
    re: stress on infrastructure, I'm thinking that the gigantic high-rise condo buildings that are taking over downtown Minneapolis are going to cause more stress than the proportion of houses that may end up with more people in them.

    I think the proposal is a very positive move. Housing costs have greatly increased, as have real estate taxes; also, many people want to live inside the primary mass transit corridor, and increasing that density will decrease traffic as well as decrease the average cost per person of the buses and light rail.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •