This seems like an idea worth exploring and applying in Ohio communities.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/8/21/new-zealands-legalization-of-incremental-housing-is-bearing-fruit

Cincinnati just legalized ADUs in the city 

"Upzoning" and "missing middle" became Twitter buzzwords a few years ago.  People want these things to be "solutions" because they want to believe that there is some evil dragon out there (zoning) that they can slay with a few mouse clicks rather than the real solutions - which are physically moving and living with family members/roommates. 

 

I am aware that there is a housing "crisis" in Yellow Springs, OH, since the "debate" regularly spills into my social media world.  I've visited Xenia three times in the past month (which is about 8 miles south of Yellow Springs) and there are abandoned houses and apartment buildings as well as vacant lots right in the downtown.  Plus, about 15 miles west is Dayton, and its thousands of vacant homes and lots. 

 

The whole problem with the current "housing crisis" online teeth-grinding is that people are upset that things are more expensive in the exact sort of house or apartment they want in the exact section of town they want to live in.  Living one town over isn't good enough for these people - their personal identity is built around living a very specific way in a very specific place. 

 

 

 

Stores, non-chain sit-down restaurants, bars and such in the U.S. require more and more density to be located in walkable areas. Couchlock and online buying is so epidemic in the U.S. that it's hard for them to function without major population increases -- in the case of stores especially. Without things like roommates and multi-generational households it's practically impossible for businesses to keep up. Other countries still have those living arrangements and they didn't tear down all their old density in the '60s and '70s. They also support B&M retail. Functional walkablity is so scarce in this country that when it exists it has become very expensive. Down in Xenia it's typical of Ohio small towns in that it has a TON of creaky 1890s-1920s single-family houses with yards located on streets where the housing goes on for block and blocks with zero businesses to break up the monotony then a downtown that got half demoed for surface lots (mostly not due to the tornado) and fast food. This arrangement is so common in Ohio that its monetary value is very low.

The following comment from the article makes perfect sense to me.

"This opens the playing field to smaller-scale developers working on sites that won’t attract the interest of more conventional, large-scale builders."

 

18 hours ago, Lazarus said:

"Upzoning" and "missing middle" became Twitter buzzwords a few years ago.  People want these things to be "solutions" because they want to believe that there is some evil dragon out there (zoning) that they can slay with a few mouse clicks rather than the real solutions - which are physically moving and living with family members/roommates. 

 

I am aware that there is a housing "crisis" in Yellow Springs, OH, since the "debate" regularly spills into my social media world.  I've visited Xenia three times in the past month (which is about 8 miles south of Yellow Springs) and there are abandoned houses and apartment buildings as well as vacant lots right in the downtown.  Plus, about 15 miles west is Dayton, and its thousands of vacant homes and lots. 

 

The whole problem with the current "housing crisis" online teeth-grinding is that people are upset that things are more expensive in the exact sort of house or apartment they want in the exact section of town they want to live in.  Living one town over isn't good enough for these people - their personal identity is built around living a very specific way in a very specific place. 

 

 

 

The REAL solution is to live somewhere you don’t want to live and to live with roommates. These are both wonderful ideas and completely reasonable for all peoples’ living situations. In no way would simply allowing the types of density that many people prefer to be built address any of the housing shortages and resulting cost increases. People should just live far away from where they want to be so that they have to drive. But of course, people should ride bikes instead of driving, as long as they don’t cheat by using e-bikes. And protected bike infrastructure is a waste of money. 
 

Jake, for someone who hates Twitter as much as you do, you sure are comfortable with sharing terrible opinions via posting on the internet. At least you don’t have to keep your takes under 240 characters on this platform.

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The REAL solution is to live somewhere you don’t want to live and to live with roommates. These are both wonderful ideas and completely reasonable for all peoples’ living situations. In no way would simply allowing the types of density that many people prefer to be built address any of the housing shortages and resulting cost increases. People should just live far away from where they want to be so that they have to drive. But of course, people should ride bikes instead of driving, as long as they don’t cheat by using e-bikes. And protected bike infrastructure is a waste of money. 
 

Jake, for someone who hates Twitter as much as you do, you sure are comfortable with sharing terrible opinions via posting on the internet. At least you don’t have to keep your takes under 240 characters on this platform.

Single family zoning has certainly been labeled the boogeyman by many ubranists and if they get rid of it, the housing shortage will be solved. That is such a simplistic view of things and I do not think that is the proper solution, nor would it solve the problem. Attacking single family zoning as the key problem is a scapegoat at best. 

 

Now, this is not to say that we do not need more multi family areas and neighborhoods and that we need to develop more of this type of housing but, 1) you cant get rid of all single family areas, and 2) realistically, you are not likely to get a significant mass by doing teardowns of single families in existing neighborhoods and building a 2-4 family dwelling. 3) You still will get sprawl because people with the means and money will still prefer to build larger houses in the suburbs when they want to settle down and get a house with more land and space. If anything, getting rid of single family zoning will have an effect to push the value of single family neighborhoods in the burbs with an HOA up even higher because you are essentially limiting the supply. Blanket policies always have a lot of unintended consequences.

 

This is not to say that policies to create density in more of the urban areas do not make sense. Things like allowing ADU's and allowing for more dense construction outside of the town center are good because they allow for more density in an area where the infrastructure is there (or at least some infrastructure). Building 4 families out in Avon on Brecksville (or whatever township) does not make as much sense because the amenities that cater to the smaller unit dweller are not there yet and likely not going to be developed for a long time. 

15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Single family zoning has certainly been labeled the boogeyman by many ubranists and if they get rid of it, the housing shortage will be solved

 

you understand absolutely nothing about urbanists' positions if this is what you think they believe. Upzoning single family districts is not about tearing down the neighborhood and rebuilding it with multifamily. This is what politicians say when they try to scare suburbanites, and I see you've drank the Kool-Aid. You can still have and build single family homes in a more diverse district that allows more dense options. And quite frankly I don't really care what outer ring suburbs do for the most part. They aren't going to accept denser environments, and the main benefits of dense environments are lost when you have to drive to everything anyway.

 

The biggest gains are going to made along major transit lines in cities where we can upzone in much larger quantities. Most "single family districts" should be allowed to house duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. But most of our gains are going to be made along major roads where we can provide frequent bus services for large multifamily mixed use buildings instead of a series of car-oriented fast food restaurants and strip malls. 

 

ADUs are largely going to be nonexistent anyway. It's a small step that I agree with, but it gets way more media coverage than it warrants.

27 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Single family zoning has certainly been labeled the boogeyman by many ubranists and if they get rid of it, the housing shortage will be solved. That is such a simplistic view of things and I do not think that is the proper solution, nor would it solve the problem. Attacking single family zoning as the key problem is a scapegoat at best. 

 

Now, this is not to say that we do not need more multi family areas and neighborhoods and that we need to develop more of this type of housing but, 1) you cant get rid of all single family areas, and 2) realistically, you are not likely to get a significant mass by doing teardowns of single families in existing neighborhoods and building a 2-4 family dwelling. 3) You still will get sprawl because people with the means and money will still prefer to build larger houses in the suburbs when they want to settle down and get a house with more land and space. If anything, getting rid of single family zoning will have an effect to push the value of single family neighborhoods in the burbs with an HOA up even higher because you are essentially limiting the supply. Blanket policies always have a lot of unintended consequences.

 

This is not to say that policies to create density in more of the urban areas do not make sense. Things like allowing ADU's and allowing for more dense construction outside of the town center are good because they allow for more density in an area where the infrastructure is there (or at least some infrastructure). Building 4 families out in Avon on Brecksville (or whatever township) does not make as much sense because the amenities that cater to the smaller unit dweller are not there yet and likely not going to be developed for a long time. 

This has very little to do with Jake’s post that I was criticizing. 

4 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

This is what politicians say when they try to scare suburbanites, and I see you've drank the Kool-Aid. You can still have and build single family homes in a more diverse district that allows more dense options. And quite frankly I don't really care what outer ring suburbs do for the most part. They aren't going to accept denser environments, and the main benefits of dense environments are lost when you have to drive to everything anyway.

You miss the point of my comment. I think if you read it closer you would find that we are likely in agreement more than we disagree. I do think even in urban areas, there is still a place for single family areas. However, it is important, especially near transit corridors to allow for and do what you can to spur more dense development. There are a number of single family areas that should be expanded to more easily allow for multi-family now, and also smaller development and infill (for example, in Cincinnati, look at Walnut Hills, Evanston and areas like Covedale (in its revitalization). I see what is going on in College Hill to be a perfect example of this strategy but there you have larger developers driving the bus because they can fight for zoning changes better. 

 

My point was that you cannot have a blanket policy at the federal level and that this should be handled more on a local basis and encouraged more at the local level to target the areas that could benefit most from these policies. 

38 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

…

My point was that you cannot have a blanket policy at the federal level and that this should be handled more on a local basis and encouraged more at the local level to target the areas that could benefit most from these policies. 

Allowing things to be controlled at the local level is the original source of the housing crisis. (Of course the housing crises is not nearly as bad here as on the coasts.) State and Federal overruling of bad local policies is critical to addressing the challenge of providing affordable housing to all. 

6 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Allowing things to be controlled at the local level is the original source of the housing crisis. (Of course the housing crises is not nearly as bad here as on the coasts.) State and Federal overruling of bad local policies is critical to addressing the challenge of providing affordable housing to all. 

Except it never works out that way. Housing policy needs to be driven by local needs not a one size fits all federal approach. That will create a mess and make things much worse in the long term. Yes, the Feds can offer resources to allow local towns to offer certain programs and initiatives that support the needs of that community, but a national policy is such a horrible idea, it will create a lot of bad effects then the policy it is seeking to solve. 

16 hours ago, GCrites said:

 Down in Xenia it's typical of Ohio small towns in that it has a TON of creaky 1890s-1920s single-family houses with yards located on streets where the housing goes on for block and blocks with zero businesses to break up the monotony then a downtown that got half demoed for surface lots (mostly not due to the tornado) and fast food. This arrangement is so common in Ohio that its monetary value is very low.

 

 

Both Xenia and Yellow Springs have bad highway access.  One uses this isolation to its advantage (Yellow Springs is an exotic sort-of tourist town) and the other does not.  Xenia has really failed to capitalize on becoming a walkable satellite city to Dayton, in the way that Hamilton has unexpectedly transitioned into Butler County's "Over-the-Rhine", with some hi-end stuff taking root.   

 

4 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Jake, for someone who hates Twitter as much as you do,

 

The social media platform algorithms intentionally amplify irrational arguments to keep people engaged.  This means that anything "trending" re: cities on Twitter is automatically going to be ridiculous.  And unfortunately a lot of otherwise intelligent people in and out of the professional media are unable to recognize this, or (much) worse, go along with things they know are wrong because it's a)easy or b)confers power. 

 

People say that they want an affordable house.  They say that they want an affordable apartment.  But they don't want that house or that apartment in that neighborhood.  They're not one of those people.  All of the people who are anti-segregation are for some reason willing to spend huge money to self-segregate around people like them or the people they aspire to be.

 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Except it never works out that way. Housing policy needs to be driven by local needs not a one size fits all federal approach. That will create a mess and make things much worse in the long term. Yes, the Feds can offer resources to allow local towns to offer certain programs and initiatives that support the needs of that community, but a national policy is such a horrible idea, it will create a lot of bad effects then the policy it is seeking to solve. 

 

Federally imposed “one size fits all” programs have done miserably so many times in the past (see GCRTA) that people are automatically suspicious of them.   There’s a belief that they are all about forcing people to live in an “approved” manner, and while this is largely untrue there’s enough of it in the background to justify said concerns.

 

This of course splashes back on other urbanist goals.

One part of the problem is regulator. Eliminating Single-family exclusionary zoning allows for existing SFH but may also allow for townhomes, 2-4 unit buildings is fine. Communities don't regulate Multi-family well in due to the stigma of rental. The way I see it, its not about complete elimination of SFH, just allowing the development market to have more options.

 

The other problem is market/developer driven. You can eliminate all density restrictions in a place but if there's no market and no developer interest, then nothing is going to happen that is outside the status quo.

 

Yellow Springs Zoning Code allows for more density (townhomes and ADU's) but its biggest hurdle is lack of developable land. Aside from Glen Helen, they have a green belt around the village which prohibits development through ownership in a land trust. This means undeveloped land in the Village is marketed at a premium. 

 

Xenia does have some assets but no amenities or destinations for visitors. There are some signs that the City wants to evolve and I think they will get there. 

46 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

that Hamilton has unexpectedly transitioned into Butler County's "Over-the-Rhine", with some hi-end stuff taking root

You could almost argue that this was possible because of the Butler County Highway that opened up Hamilton as an option to many people in the Northern burbs. As Liberty Township and some of the areas North of Fairfield grew closer to Hamilton, it makes Hamilton a more natural area that they would choose to frequent more often instead of taking the highway to another Cincinnati burb, or choosing to live in a different area with better road access. In a way, that highway has served its purpose and allowed the city to have connectivity to the region.

29 minutes ago, JYP said:

One part of the problem is regulator. Eliminating Single-family exclusionary zoning allows for existing SFH but may also allow for townhomes, 2-4 unit buildings is fine. Communities don't regulate Multi-family well in due to the stigma of rental. The way I see it, its not about complete elimination of SFH, just allowing the development market to have more options.

Eliminating SFH zoning should not be what you go for. There should be areas where it should be curtailed and there should be areas where multi-family zoning is allowed. However, Single Family has its place. Has it been overused, yes, but there are still places where it makes good sense. Instead of taking an axe to the problem, it is always better to use the scalpel. 

12 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You could almost argue that this was possible because of the Butler County Highway that opened up Hamilton as an option to many people in the Northern burbs. As Liberty Township and some of the areas North of Fairfield grew closer to Hamilton, it makes Hamilton a more natural area that they would choose to frequent more often instead of taking the highway to another Cincinnati burb, or choosing to live in a different area with better road access. In a way, that highway has served its purpose and allowed the city to have connectivity to the region.

 

Way back, before the plan for I-74 was finalized, there was a dotted line between Hamilton Ave. and Colerain Ave. that could have been extended to Hamilton.  That would have made a big difference.  Instead, Hamilton was cut off from civilization to an extreme degree. 

 

It's like, everyone complains about the highways tearing down poor neighborhoods.  But Hamilton didn't have *any* highways and nearly shriveled up and blew away. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Eliminating SFH zoning should not be what you go for. There should be areas where it should be curtailed and there should be areas where multi-family zoning is allowed. However, Single Family has its place. Has it been overused, yes, but there are still places where it makes good sense. Instead of taking an axe to the problem, it is always better to use the scalpel. 

Dude, that is the scalpel. 

6 minutes ago, JYP said:

Dude, that is the scalpel. 

If adding a heavy handed federal policy to apply uniformly nationwide in every community is your definition of a scalpel, I hate to see what you would consider the axe 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

Way back, before the plan for I-74 was finalized, there was a dotted line between Hamilton Ave. and Colerain Ave. that could have been extended to Hamilton.  That would have made a big difference.  Instead, Hamilton was cut off from civilization to an extreme degree. 

 

It's like, everyone complains about the highways tearing down poor neighborhoods.  But Hamilton didn't have *any* highways and nearly shriveled up and blew away. 

 

 

 

I thought I read that 75 was supposed to be routed closer to Hamilton but the residents at the time fought against it and because of it were left isolated for 50 years. It is nice to see some growth and opportunity come back to downtown Hamimlton.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I thought I read that 75 was supposed to be routed closer to Hamilton but the residents at the time fought against it and because of it were left isolated for 50 years. It is nice to see some growth and opportunity come back to downtown Hamimlton.

 

I don't think it's true that 75's path was ever going to be anything other than a direct line between Cincinnati and Dayton.  I have looked up this subject and have never been able to find evidence of a realignment of 75 eastward after an earlier plan closer to Hamilton. 

 

What I was saying was that there was going to be a "Colerain Expressway" that would have linked Northside to Hamilton via College Hill, Mt. Healthy, Fairfield, etc.  ODOT only recently took the plan completely out of long-term planning (around 2005). 

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If adding a heavy handed federal policy to apply uniformly nationwide in every community is your definition of a scalpel, I hate to see what you would consider the axe 

I didn’t say anything about fed policy. Local reform. 

4 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

I don't think it's true that 75's path was ever going to be anything other than a direct line between Cincinnati and Dayton.  I have looked up this subject and have never been able to find evidence of a realignment of 75 eastward after an earlier plan closer to Hamilton. 

 

What I was saying was that there was going to be a "Colerain Expressway" that would have linked Northside to Hamilton via College Hill, Mt. Healthy, Fairfield, etc.  ODOT only recently took the plan completely out of long-term planning (around 2005). 

 

 

Super 127.

 

Now OH-4 definitely goes out of its way to go through Hamilton and it doesn't appear that 747 was "Old 4" then 4 was moved into town to throw Hamilton a bone or anything like that. But "Bypass 4" happened in 1971 to pull people out of town.

Edited August 29, 20231 yr by GCrites