Backyard Cottages To Increase Residential Density At Affordable Prices

 

 

Since 2006, Seattle has allowed homeowners to build stand-alone cottages -- officially known as “detached accessory dwelling units” -- behind existing single-family homes. At first, the zoning change only applied to a few neighborhoods on the city’s south side, including Columbia City. But in November 2009, Seattle expanded the pilot program throughout the city, to any residential lot of at least 4,000 square feet. In the 18 months following the expansion, 57 backyard cottages have been permitted, and roughly 50 of those are either completed or nearly finished.

 

- Like other mid-size cities that came of age in the first few decades of the 20th century, Seattle is made up largely of compact neighborhoods filled with single-family bungalows. Today, almost two-thirds of the city is zoned for single-family homes, so it’s harder for Seattle to accommodate its growing population -- the city swelled from 563,374 residents in 2000 to 608,660 last year -- without spreading farther and farther into the forests of the Pacific Northwest. That’s partly why the city saw backyard cottages as an attractive new alternative, a way to add affordable housing options without a wholesale redesign of the city’s signature neighborhoods.

 

- These structures are small: Seattle’s code limits them to a footprint of 800 square feet, and they max out at 22 feet tall. Construction costs typically range from $50,000 to $80,000, although more elaborate units can cost upward of $140,000 to build. Some homeowners use the freestanding cottages as home offices, or as extra room for when relatives visit. Others are building them as in-law apartments for aging parents, or as crash pads for post-college children who can’t yet afford their own place. But a large number of homeowners are actually renting the cottages to tenants.

 

- Backyard cottages are actually a throwback. Stand-alone in-law apartments, or “granny flats,” were common neighborhood features a century ago when multiple generations of a family lived together. By the 1950s, however, Americans were decamping for the suburbs, pursuing the dream of a single-family home on a large tract of land. Many urban zoning codes of the second half of the century essentially banned the construction of new backyard cottages.

 

- But as attitudes toward urban density have shifted in recent years -- and as affordable housing has become scarce in many places -- more and more cities have reconsidered the granny flat as an important part of a neighborhood. Portland, Ore., and Santa Cruz, Calif., both have strong backyard cottage programs. Chicago and Madison, Wis., have considered relaxing their prohibitions against ADUs. Denver last summer revamped its entire city zoning code and now permits stand-alone ADUs in certain neighborhoods. California in 2003 passed landmark legislation essentially forcing localities to allow ADUs.

 

 

 

Full article below:

http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/seattle-looks-cottages-affordable-housing-options.html#next

The pros and cons of options for creating an in-law unit

 

 

-Cities see them as a way to expand affordable housing options while promoting smart growth. More are passing rules to make it easier to build second units, also called accessory dwelling units or ADUs. Many of the laws are modeled after one advocated by the AARP and passed by Santa Cruz, Calif., in 2003 that prompted other cities in California and the Pacific Northwest to follow. Seattle began allowing detached backyard cottages in December 2009, and it received permit applications for 55 of them last year, plus 96 for attached units.

 

- But it's not just a phenomenon on the West Coast. ADU laws have recently passed in many places in the East, including Virginia's Arlington and Fairfax counties, and elsewhere. In June, Denver revised its housing code to allow second units, and in July, Hudson, Wis., gave the nod to garage apartments. "It's very widespread," says Michael Litchfield, author of a book, In-Laws, Outlaws and Granny Flats, who lives in an in-law suite with 12-foot ceilings and quarry-tile floors in Point Reyes, Calif. He says many of these units are converted garages, attics, unused rooms or basements, while others are additions or detached cottages.

 

• Basement conversion. This is especially cost-effective if there's already enough headroom and ground-level access to the outside. On a sloping lot, the downhill side can accommodate a wall of windows. Yet blocking noise from the unit can be costly, as can water problems if they occur.

 

• Garage apartment. It can be a good solution if the lot is small and a basement conversion isn't viable. It offers privacy and sound separation. Yet garages often have drainage and dampness problems and require structural reinforcement. Additional parking spaces may be needed.

 

• Carve-out. Remodeling existing rooms into a unit is the least expensive conversion and is well-suited for housing a relative or friend. Yet there can be sound and privacy issues because of shared walls, and it can be dicier to rent to strangers.

 

• Attic conversion. If there's enough headroom, this can be an economical option, and if there are enough windows and skylights, it can be light-filled and spacious. Yet it can be complicated to build, noisy for people living below and difficult to heat, cool and ventilate.

 

• Detached cottage. This can be easy to locate on a large lot, especially with an alley in back. It offers the best sound separation, elbow room and design options. Yet it can be moderately expensive to build, reduce yard space and require a long access path if far from the street.

 

• Bump-out. An addition doesn't have to take up much space, can be cost-effective because of shared walls and makes it easy to create a courtyard. Yet it may block light from the main house, make it look too big and create privacy and sound problems.

 

Full article below:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2011-08-17-real-estate-in-law-suites_n.htm

Four great things about Vancouver’s laneway houses

 

 

Vancouver, BC—the city that has served as a North American icon for creating liveable inner cities—is having its own “laneway” renaissance (as alleys are known here). However, in Vancouver, the revival was spawned by sky-high real estate prices, a lack of affordable housing, and an ingenious plan to create ‘invisible density’ in the city’s most desirable single-family neighborhoods. Whereas some might see these underutilized swaths of pavement as merely needing a little beautification, the City saw it as an opportunity to provide badly-needed rental units.

 

- Laneway homes are basically miniature versions of single-family homes – in the range of 500 to 1,000 square feet – that are built in what has traditionally been the garage location of a single-family lot: in the backyard facing the lane. They can’t be sub-divided or sold separately from the main house on the lot. They can only be used for additional family space or rental income. Their introduction into the frenetic Vancouver real estate scene was part of a larger “Eco-Density Initiative” invented by former mayor Sam Sullivan and championed by current mayor, Gregor Robertson. The intention is to “help reduce [the city’s] carbon footprint, expand housing choices, and ensure Vancouver remains one of the most liveable cities in the world.”

 

1. They add ‘invisible density’ to single-family neighborhoods

 

The concept of “laneway housing,” is actually quite ingenious. Think about it: what other city has successfully added density to long-established, single-family neighbourhoods filled with $1 million-plus homes? The very thought of it conjures up images of staunch NIMBYism. The City of Vancouver’s deft branding and effective outreach smoothed the roll-out of its laneway housing bylaw, keeping NIMBY opposition to a minimum.

 

.....

 

2. They’re ultra-green

 

Since World War II, our homes have gotten successively bigger, consuming a large amount of resources to build, furnish, heat and cool. Of course, the smaller your home, the less energy and resources it consumes. Laneway homes, by virtue of their size, are already nearly as energy-efficient as condos, and at least one builder of laneway homes is taking it a step further to see just how green these homes can be.

 

.....

 

3. They provide a totally new housing option for those who can’t afford Vancouver’s sky-high home prices

 

Most of the public conversation about laneway housing has centered on sustainability and boosting the rental housing stock. But I wondered what it was like to actually live in one of these backyard micro-homes. After all, they really are a rare type of housing: a free-standing structure the size and cost of a condo. So, I contacted Mathew Arthur, who lives in the first laneway house built in Vancouver. At the time I spoke with him, he’d been living there for over a year.

 

 

 

 

Full article below:

http://daily.sightline.org/2011/09/08/home-home-on-the-lane/

I love this stuff.  In a funny way its a return of the back house (as they are called in Buffalo) or alley house (as they are called in Chicago), the way Great Lakes cities increased density within a paradigm of detached housing on city lots (vs the rowhouse/tenement thing on the East Coast)....yet all these examples are on the West Coast.

 

The concept isnt too new.  When I was living in Califas in the 1980s Sunset Magazine was pushing this.  They were premitting these "Granny Flats" in the Bay Region suburbia, and Sunset had a design competition for this typology.

Hey Jeffrey,

 

Have you read "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander? There are a couple of patterns in that book that describe these little houses.

 

My grandparents owned a large cleveland double on W11th and my grandfather's brother owned the large double in the backyard!

another example of going back to the future -- there are tons of these in cleveland. my bro lived in one in german village in columbus. i recall friends who lived in one in maumee as well where there are more than a few along the river in the lots behind the larger homes. i guess its a new experience in development for more booming regions like the pacific northwest.

 

It would attract my deadbeat brother.

Don't want!

It would attract my deadbeat brother.

Don't want!

 

LOL  LOL 

These are all over Los Angeles.  I have mixed feelings about this type of development as a means to increase density.  At least in LA, it often leads to disjointed looking lots and turns the attention from the street to the driveway...kind of turning the orientation of the house, where the back is more important than the front.  On a widespread scale, it really contributes to the whole "fortress LA" idea that people love to cite.

Also, I think this type of development can really only occur in immigrant rich, growing cities.  Alley/driveway/backyard housing is often a way to squeeze more people into a lot than orignally planned for.

 

One of you might know the history of this type of housing...I'd be curious to know if it developed primarily for family expansion uses? This would explain their historic proliferation through much of the Great Lakes cities and the current day use in Western cities...both had/have booming populations largely fueled by immigrants, and are mostly detrached single family home cities. 

 

I can't think of many examples of this type of housing in Cincinnati, but then again Cincinnati never experienced the large immigrant wave that Cleveland and Detroit did, and is much more comprised of row housing.

Part of the reason these are uncommon in Cincinnati is because most of Cincinnati's single-family neighborhoods don't have alleys.  Over-the-Rhine and the West End used to have a decent number of accessory structures in the rear, since these neighborhoods have alleys, but those buildings were some of the first to be demolished as the neighborhoods deteriorated. 

Jeffrey, do you know if it's legal to build these in Cincinnati now?  I contacted the city about two months ago asking that question and they never responded.  have a 25x30 foot space behind my patio that is basically useless.  If the city requires a 5-foot setback then I can do a 15x20 cottage no problem.  If the requirement is 10-feet then I can only do a 5-foot wide house.  That would suck. 

The short answer appears to be "maybe."  Cincinnati allows two accessory structures of a maximum 800 square feet in area and 15 feet in height in just about every residential zoning category.  Side and rear setbacks are also limited to three feet in most cases. 

 

However, the zoning code does not appear to have any provisions for accessory dwelling units, it's not even in the definitions.  All but the least dense single-family zones allow two "rooming units" but they do not have kitchens or necessarily separate entries. 

 

In general it doesn't seem like there's any provision for multiple dwelling units on a single lot.  That said, there doesn't seem to be any specific ban on them either, as most zones have a somewhat vague provision for accessory uses not listed in the tables.  It really depends largely on what zoning classification your house is in.  You'll probably have more luck in some of the higher-density residential/mixed zones than any of the single-family ones. 

 

There are provisions for accessory dwelling units in some of the form-based codes, but I haven't looked into those.  They only apply to College Hill, Madisonville, Walnut Hills, and Westwood so far, and I don't know if any of the neighborhoods other than Madisonville have adopted the new code yet.  I know Cranley isn't going to help further that project.

 

You can read the existing zoning code here: http://library.municode.com/HTML/19996/level1/TIXIZOCOCI.html

 

You might also have better luck contacting Alex Peppers with the city planning department: [email protected]

Thanks for the contact.  He deferred me to two people in the permit department who haven't gotten back to me.  I sense a "maybe" as well, since he didn't respond with a firm no. 

 

I find it interesting that there isn't a greater demand for the ability to build and rent these things.  If you can keep the construction cost low ($20,000 or less), you should be getting a return within five years. 

 

Yes, obviously these are popular in Los Angeles, Kato Kaelin was perhaps the most famous cottage dweller of all time! 

Prospect, in Longmont, Colo., is loaded with these. I'll post a Prospect thread soon. Here's one shot with cottages on the alley:

There are also tons of them in Athens, all shapes and sizes.  I lived in one of them, before it was a "thing". 

I think as particular neighborhoods get more desirable then there will be more demand for accessory dwellings.  As it is, you can get a whole house for pretty cheap in most neighborhoods, and apartment rents are quite reasonable too.  Of course there's exceptions, but it's not as if there's mile after mile of completely unaffordable housing here.   

Prospect, in Longmont, Colo., is loaded with these. I'll post a Prospect thread soon. Here's one shot with cottages on the alley:

 

I like it.

The short answer appears to be "maybe."  Cincinnati allows two accessory structures of a maximum 800 square feet in area and 15 feet in height in just about every residential zoning category.  Side and rear setbacks are also limited to three feet in most cases. 

 

However, the zoning code does not appear to have any provisions for accessory dwelling units, it's not even in the definitions.  All but the least dense single-family zones allow two "rooming units" but they do not have kitchens or necessarily separate entries. 

 

In general it doesn't seem like there's any provision for multiple dwelling units on a single lot.  That said, there doesn't seem to be any specific ban on them either, as most zones have a somewhat vague provision for accessory uses not listed in the tables.  It really depends largely on what zoning classification your house is in.  You'll probably have more luck in some of the higher-density residential/mixed zones than any of the single-family ones. 

 

There are provisions for accessory dwelling units in some of the form-based codes, but I haven't looked into those.  They only apply to College Hill, Madisonville, Walnut Hills, and Westwood so far, and I don't know if any of the neighborhoods other than Madisonville have adopted the new code yet.  I know Cranley isn't going to help further that project.

 

You can read the existing zoning code here: http://library.municode.com/HTML/19996/level1/TIXIZOCOCI.html

 

You might also have better luck contacting Alex Peppers with the city planning department: [email protected]

 

I got through to someone at the city today.  They are only permitted in city neighborhoods that have adopted the form based code.  So no luck in Clifton, Corryville, or CUF.  It does appear to me that there might be a few grandfathered in on Ohio Ave., but otherwise I've never seen a rear or 1/2 address anywhere in Cincinnati.  They're all over in Athens. 

 

 

Seems like something to talk to your community council about changing.

Minneapolis has started a push to eliminate zoning rules that bar single-family homeowners from building an additional unit on their property, sometimes known as a “granny flat.”

 

So-called accessory dwelling units are illegal in Minneapolis’ single-family residential zones, outside of an area around Ventura Village established in 2001. Advocates say they are a more affordable addition to the city’s housing stock, potentially accommodating extended families or more traditional renters.

 

“It’s … another way to provide housing options within neighborhoods aside from multifamily buildings,” said Council Member Lisa Bender. “So it’s a way to add smaller units within neighborhoods.”

 

Read more:

http://m.startribune.com/?id=263226851

That crap amazed me in LA.

I have neighbors who have a compound in Cincinnati. It's new construction, tho with at least 2 houses & multiple garages.

Frankly with Cincinnati demolishing 250 homes in the first quarter of this year I am against increasing urban density. Lets devote our energies to fixing up and restoring existing homes before we even think about adding garage apartments. Im way to busy turning illegally converted triplexes back into single family to start thinking about  increasing residential density and I am trying to raise values in my neighborhood not support more affordable housing (form based code is pushed by HUD to promote more low income housing in every neighborhood)

 

In Cincinnati this would take the form of more section 8 housing plain and simple

Frankly with Cincinnati demolishing 250 homes in the first quarter of this year I am against increasing urban density. Lets devote our energies to fixing up and restoring existing homes before we even think about adding garage apartments. Im way to busy turning illegally converted triplexes back into single family to start thinking about  increasing residential density and I am trying to raise values in my neighborhood not support more affordable housing (form based code is pushed by HUD to promote more low income housing in every neighborhood)

 

In Cincinnati this would take the form of more section 8 housing plain and simple

 

That's just so f-cked up I don't know where to begin.

So cottages are now Agenda 21?

Frankly with Cincinnati demolishing 250 homes in the first quarter of this year I am against increasing urban density. Lets devote our energies to fixing up and restoring existing homes before we even think about adding garage apartments. Im way to busy turning illegally converted triplexes back into single family to start thinking about  increasing residential density and I am trying to raise values in my neighborhood not support more affordable housing (form based code is pushed by HUD to promote more low income housing in every neighborhood)

 

In Cincinnati this would take the form of more section 8 housing plain and simple

Frankly with Cincinnati demolishing 250 homes in the first quarter of this year I am against increasing urban density. Lets devote our energies to fixing up and restoring existing homes before we even think about adding garage apartments. Im way to busy turning illegally converted triplexes back into single family to start thinking about  increasing residential density and I am trying to raise values in my neighborhood not support more affordable housing (form based code is pushed by HUD to promote more low income housing in every neighborhood)

 

In Cincinnati this would take the form of more section 8 housing plain and simple

 

That's just so f-cked up I don't know where to begin.

 

Let's start with the fact that form-based codes have absolutely nothing to do with low-income housing, despite what Mary Kuhl and other Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists want to believe.

I know this is a link from a for-profit site but it's a pretty nice residential renovation of a detached 2-car garage in Portland, OR:

http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/54160457?utm_source=Houzz&utm_campaign=u1866&utm_medium=email&utm_content=gallery3

 

 

Today's article in Citylab doesn't really touch on anything we haven't touched on already:

https://www.citylab.com/housing/2017/03/the-push-for-granny-flats-in-pricey-neighborhoods/520866/#disqus_thread

 

People don't seem to understand that apartment dwellers in an area comprised primarily of single-family homes add an element of vitality that the area can't have otherwise.  A mix of ages and a mix of lifestyle phases mean a more eclectic and healthier business district, at the very least.  In Cincinnati, Clifton and Hyde Park each have a wide variety of owner-occupants (young with no kids, raising kids, and kids have moved out) along with a wide variety of renters.  That's why they have remained the two best neighborhoods in the city for the past 100 years. 

 

Jesus Christ look at this thing:

https://cincinnati.craigslist.org/apa/d/little-carriage-house/6738773773.html

It's ADORABLE!!!

I'd be way too lazy to climb that ladder at bedtime.

First time seeing this thread. In Cleveland, they're called "Granny Flats" and they're very common in Ohio City and Tremont. I love these!

I'm actually not a fan.  One of the root problems we have in Midwest cities like Cleveland is that we've taken essentially rural house forms and wedged them closely together and cut them into multi unit housing in order to cobble together a dense urban environment.  We'd actually have better city streets if we used more urban-style development patterns such as rowhouses, walk up or high rise apartment buildings, or mixed use structures.  I'd rather see us focus on that than trying to wedge even more single family homes closer together.

^ In the case of the one @jmecklenborg posted the Craigslist ad for, it's behind a rowhouse. But generally, I agree that a real urban form is preferable to a retrofitted form like in Capitol Hill in Seattle. When I'm visiting a city and immediately outside the downtown I start seeing a bunch of single-family houses with yards, I get a bad taste in my mouth. Even if the houses have been retrofitted with apartments and granny flats.

Edited December 6, 20186 yr by Robuu

3 hours ago, X said:

I'm actually not a fan.  One of the root problems we have in Midwest cities like Cleveland is that we've taken essentially rural house forms and wedged them closely together and cut them into multi unit housing in order to cobble together a dense urban environment.  We'd actually have better city streets if we used more urban-style development patterns such as rowhouses, walk up or high rise apartment buildings, or mixed use structures.  I'd rather see us focus on that than trying to wedge even more single family homes closer together.

 

Fine, you let your mother-in-law stay with you in the same damn house! ? 

There was some discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units on the Walnut Hills/ East Walnut Hills forum and I found this as well. Does anyone have addresses or images of existing (grandfathered-in) carriage houses/granny flats in Cincinnati? Wanted to compile some images. I see that @jmecklenborg posted a Craigslist ad but it's expired. Thanks! 

 

There has been a little bit of movement in recommendations toward allowing them from several sources though no formal discussion. DCED supported it in their report on balanced development. LISC just recently did a council presentation that included ADUs as a potential reform. And it was an item in the Property Tax Working Group's list of recommendations though that seems to have stalled due to COVID. Given that Smitherman is sponsoring the working group and the democrats on council have an interest in affordable housing, it seems like a possible political win without getting into the form-based code fight again. 

^I don't see any real reason why they shouldn't be permitted, since as I explained here (or maybe on another thread) that they are very expensive to build and so the numbers don't make much sense here in Cincinnati.

 

The real way to quickly create a lot of affordable housing is to permit mobile homes and travel trailers in back yards, side yards, front yards, and on vacant lots, but no city with a housing crisis has allowed this, to my knowledge.  

10 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The real way to quickly create a lot of affordable housing is to permit mobile homes and travel trailers in back yards, side yards, front yards, and on vacant lots, but no city with a housing crisis has allowed this, to my knowledge.  

 

Bring on the tiny homes!

^Even an Airstream travel trailer is very expensive - well over $50,000.  I just don't think that many housing advocates are willing to accept that housing of any type is super-expensive to build and very expensive to maintain and there's no real trick or breakthrough to be had unless we move to permitting dormitory-style apartment buildings with shared bathrooms and kitchens.  Even then, we might only reduce per-unit construction costs by 20-30%.  

 

 

22 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

^I don't see any real reason why they shouldn't be permitted, since as I explained here (or maybe on another thread) that they are very expensive to build and so the numbers don't make much sense here in Cincinnati.

 

The real way to quickly create a lot of affordable housing is to permit mobile homes and travel trailers in back yards, side yards, front yards, and on vacant lots, but no city with a housing crisis has allowed this, to my knowledge.  

Yeah I think mobile homes are a tougher political sell. Above from 5+ years ago, you had it at positive return in 5 years if you keep costs below 20k but I know that's unlikely. I could see the value moreso in COVID quarantine scenarios, recessions/recent college grads, or truly as a MIL/granny flat rather than in full-time renting out. Most importantly, like you said... Why not allow it? Thanks. 

3 hours ago, shawk said:

Does anyone have addresses or images of existing (grandfathered-in) carriage houses/granny flats in Cincinnati? Wanted to compile some images

 

These two estate houses on Madison between Dexter and Wold have sizable carriage/guest houses in back.  Again, no idea what their occupancy situation is.    https://goo.gl/maps/bARmPzE39wDp2sUe7  

 

This one in East Walnut Hills has always fascinated me.  It's hard to see on street view because of the trees.  It's more of a side yard cottage/carriage house, with some weird additions.  It may not be occupied either, but it's one of the bigger examples.  https://goo.gl/maps/ToZ4ipw91LUg2weDA  

 

Same street, just down the block, is this garage with an upstairs apartment of some sort.  Note that currently, accessory buildings are limited to 800 SF and 15' tall (Cincinnati measures half way up gable roofs to establish height).  https://goo.gl/maps/Vg1bjRLn2494GQKN7  

 

Here's another two-story garage/apartment on Observatory in Hyde Park.  https://goo.gl/maps/fidvAnJFYJTWDvzH6 

 

And another on Upland Place.  https://goo.gl/maps/DSSL5XBDgfxHEijD9  

 

Here's one on Nassau that looks more like an office.  I'm not even sure which is the primary structure.  https://goo.gl/maps/yr3XVhiMNndRGFry5 

 

Here's a Clifton example that's actually on an alley for a change. https://goo.gl/maps/DubCuFRzLMrzCXU76 

 

Noticing a pattern?  These are all pretty expensive houses.  I'm not saying that's the only factor, but it's a big one.  With a lack of alleys, they were generally the only properties big enough to fit such accessory buildings and access to them.  I suspect that made them mostly servant or in-law apartments versus public rentals though, because you had to pass through the front/side/rear yard of the main house to get there.  Even where there are alleys, most of Cincinnati's are so narrow that they're not even used as utility easements, and garbage trucks can't fit down them either.  So unless you're on an alley/street corner, they can be pretty desolate and non-conducive to development.  

 

 

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

^Even an Airstream travel trailer is very expensive - well over $50,000.  I just don't think that many housing advocates are willing to accept that housing of any type is super-expensive to build and very expensive to maintain and there's no real trick or breakthrough to be had unless we move to permitting dormitory-style apartment buildings with shared bathrooms and kitchens.  Even then, we might only reduce per-unit construction costs by 20-30%.  

 

 

 

I watch tiny home videos on YouTube from time-to-time and they regularly get comically expensive.

I was wondering if the financials for ADU's would only work for homes under renovation in the extremely hot markets.

1 hour ago, Dev said:

 

I watch tiny home videos on YouTube from time-to-time and they regularly get comically expensive.

 

When I worked at Kentucky Fried Chicken there was a guy there who told me he lived in a pop-up camper next to his dad's trailer.  A camper obviously doesn't have a bathroom in it, but if you want to live for really, really cheap, there have been ways to do it for a long time.  The tiny house "movement", more than anything, seems like one of those things where people spend a lot of money to show off how much they're "saving". 

 

Actually I just remembered a caller who called in to Dave Ramsey's show about 10 years ago who got divorced and moved to a campground to save money.  He was actually making really good money but his ex-wife made off with the house and half of his retirement, so he lived in a tent at a KOA campground next to his truck for like 18 months to save up for a down payment on a new place.  I don't think that the average American is willing to dig that deep to get ahead. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

Noticing a pattern?  These are all pretty expensive houses.

 

Here are a couple I've come across that follow this pattern - large, grand houses:

 

This one on Hosea in Clifton - tough to see from the street but it's a one or two bedroom unit above a garage behind the main house:

 

https://goo.gl/maps/pBK6hsnsZ5gQCbF79

 

North Avondale:

 

https://goo.gl/maps/iz4SLTZh1GDNqdA2A

 

 

A new LA Times feature on ADU's in California:

https://www.latimes.com/business/real-estate/newsletter/2023-03-29/how-to-decide-whether-to-build-an-adu-in-california-you-do-adu

 

Trouble in paradise:

“It’s a very, very complicated project ... because there are hundreds of things that make it complicated,” Acton said. “An ADU for the Joneses is not going to work for the Jacksons next door. Every lot is different. Setbacks are different. Utility hookups are different. Motivations are different. Financing is different.”