Way into it. I'd love to do something that that at 50% the size and 30% the cost somewhere down valley as "Market Rate Affordable".Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
Printable View
Way into it. I'd love to do something that that at 50% the size and 30% the cost somewhere down valley as "Market Rate Affordable".Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
One car garage...probably 2 in the driveway. None is the street/shared driveway. Generally disuades STR useage.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
This broken spell check is really exposing me.
Underground parking is really a non starter at 8,000+ feet with the bedrock granite. There are some newer projects in Downtown Fraser that have ground level parking garages. I'd love a "Town Lot" system that can function as overflow. I see it in my 'hood. 4 cars show up and 3 of them don't move for the week/weekend.
I think we undervalue public transpo and public parking in any solutions.
Out on the western slope I found some loft apartments with huge garage doors. You can pull a camper in there, build it out however you want. Rooftop decks. Riverfront. Seems like a pretty cool setup. I love the idea of a barndominium too but don't really want the land to maintain.
Yeah, these seem like a pretty reasonable design to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
They are still clearly designed for the second home/rental crowd (the floor plans literally include a lockable "owners closet", some of the renderings show triple-stacked bunks, etc.), but it is not as bad as some of the developments that have gone up around me in MT.
It has nicely separated living and bedroom spaces and it seems like a place you could actually live rather than a place that you treat as a bunk house while you ski.
Might be nice to see a 2 car garage too...the reality of a family of 4 living somewhere like Fraser is that you're gonna have 2 cars (and possibly more when the kids get older). Between gear, toys, cars...and SNOW...having a 2 car garage and 2-car-wide driveway seems like the kind of design feature that benefits actual residents. Single-wide appeals more to the vacation/rental crowd.
You don't need a big yard when you live somewhere like that...and a small yard is really not that much more useful than a tiny yard plus nice balcony plus freedom for the kids to run between units in shared outdoor space in the development.
Yes, excellent point.Quote:
having a 2 car garage and 2-car-wide driveway seems like the kind of design feature that lets residents fill their garage with disorganized crap that forces them to park both cars in the driveway & have visitors park on the street
visitors can't park on the street in Fraser. That's the problem (and the reason a 2 car garage/driveway is a good idea).
You guys get that parking is an ineffective use of space on a high density build right? Move parking = move down valley or get more money. A .25 acre SFH lot in the same hood is $300k.
And you'll have a high max that will preclude 3 story and that complex will be subject to an open space requirement. They most likely have the max paved area.
And LOL, to the 2+ car 4 person upvalley family. Like exactly how rich are you?
Sent from a 6 m/s face melting thermal
Basically no overnight street parking anywhere around here.
And you are seeing that these asks have a real impact on build costs right?
The County PZ Commission was struggling with the concept that giving a variance for less than one parking spot per bedroom reduces the affordability of an apartment building.
"If you have a 2bd unit with either a couple and kids or roommates, they need 2 cars because it's 15mins from anything and not served by public transpo.? How they gonna get to work, where they gonna park?"
Sent from a 6 m/s face melting thermal
Don’t know how much it would change things in Fraser, but in general I think minimum parking requirements add unnecessary costs to housing. Why shouldn’t a builder be able to build without parking for those who don’t need or want it? Especially in dense urban areas, or near public transportation hubs like train stations.
My take is that if there isn't realistic car-substitute infrastructure (ie some combination of walkable and public transport access to services and employment opportunities), not including parking in the plan ends up shifting the parking cost from the developer to the community, because residents are still going to have cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Street parking may be the answer, which would also mean that people have to get over the idea that they may not be able to park in their preferred spot in front of their own house and they may need to deal with looking at someone else's vehicle outside their window. But that does require a snow removal plan to work well.
My experience with one-car garages is that they make much better gear sheds and workshops than car parking. I think that's part of the equation--a lot of activities common in mountain towns involve fairly bulky gear (especially cycling and water sports with boats of various types), and even less-bulky gear adds up quickly when quivers are involved (eg skiing). I suspect that garage storage for gear is probably the most cost-effective option, especially on a tiny lot (assuming you can't add a shed).
In my personal experience living in a walkable mountain town and having roommates, I think we averaged 2 cars/SUVs/trucks for three bedrooms over the four years I lived there. Most of us were able to walk to at least one job, but skiing required getting in a vehicle (as did hiking, climbing, etc). We could cram two vehicles in the driveway with some cooperation but usually parked at least one on the street, as it was far easier.
Most ski mountain towns I have been in do not allow overnight parking on the street in the winter. So no matter how idealistic the goal is to minimize parking to keep housing costs down, all it does is force the externalities elsewhere. Because everyone has a car -- everyone has to have a car in most towns, even ski resort towns -- and they just have to figure out where to park, sometimes illegally.
Now we're talking. In Pitkin County we'll start the convo at $10 million. If the property is your primary residence and the assessed value is below $10 mil, you're considered a teardown and are exempt from paying any property taxes. Everyone else can pick up the slack and they'll barely notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Yeah, I get that ski towns can have unique circumstances which would limit how many units like this would be desirable (though I don’t thing the number is likely zero).Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
But in a typical city? The city should implement whatever street parking laws they think are reasonable, then let er rip. Supply and demand will work themselves out.
FWIW, a one car garage + driveway parks at least 2 cars. A one car garage plus a 16' wide driveway parks at least 3 cars. It comes back to most people have unrealistically high standards these days- you dont NEED a 2 car garage and a 24' wide driveway like you would have on a 1/4acre in the burbs... you can make do with much less than that, in exchange for living in a really awesome place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
After I made my comment I went there you go. Maybe a 4-6 story parking structure that hold X amount of cars for the hood with bike parking (ala Netherlands) on the ground floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
I'm with ya in concept but I'm laughing a 6story parking garage in Fraser. I think the tallest existing building is 3stories. This is the sticks although it is 15mins from a large ski area. Old Town Fraser is about a 4x4 block old single family residential neighborhood (small city style lots). Main Street is about 2blocks with maybe 4bars/8 restaurants, a Murdoch's and a Safety.
Thats the extent of the walkable area. We have a decent bus system that runs along the Highway the the ski resort and a few neighborhood routes but I'd estimate 75% of the population in the upper valley lives more that a 1/4 mile from a bus stop. And it's fuckin' cold here. Walking home at night with a load of groceries is serious shit.
My comment on parking/density is simply that affordability often requires more people/residence with around here means more cars.
Unfortunately here, underground parking is almost mandatory.
Spots in town sell for 1mill +.
This is a really nice project, walk to skiing, jobs and mass transit.
But the 108 spaces for 79 units almost killed it, because it cost so much.
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/snow...-housing-plan/
Holy Fuck
I know Aspen is it own kinda of special but that seems insane. It may be what works and what is needed there but its a difference scene out here in the ghetto.Quote:
$86 million workforce housing project that could include up to 79 units
It will be $150 mil+ by the time it's finished.
Someone may have to sell a painting or name a building after themselves.
i was amazed at the extent of the underground parking in santiago. 4 ta 6 stories deep under all of the newer hotel, apartment and office buildings...
still a shitload of cars on the streets though.
fact.
FWIW, I don't like minimum parking requirements either...but it just goes to my "who is this building designed for" question. The reality is that people who want to live in mountain towns tend to want to have a lot of stuff and like it or not, most of that stuff requires a car because things are far away, there's little public transit, and the roads that connect things are often sketchy to ride bikes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
A middle class family of 4 in a mountain town can easily have 2 cars, 6 bikes, 8 pairs of skis, a kayak or SUP or two, etc. They have tools for maintaining their home (and maybe for their profession), they want to store the crap that a normal family accumulates over the years (christmas decorations, etc.). Not to mention anyone with a sled or a dirtbike or similar.
A wealthy second home family may have the same set of toys, but they drive up in one Suburban or they fly in and rent a car. Vacation renters do the same. One car in the driveway and a garage filled with toys and you're golden.
You absolutely don't NEED it, but these are $1.2m homes with high end finishes. You don't need any of that either. But who buys $1.2m homes in the mountains with limited storage space and high end finishes? 2nd/vacation home buyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
And in a generation when those high end finishes aren't so high end anymore and it starts to move into the "normal resident" housing pool...it will still be a home with limited storage/parking and a bunch of features that aren't optimal for local resident families.
FWIW, I think a totally reasonable solution for a multi-home development like this is a smaller version of what liv2ski suggested...some sort of shared carport/storage structure and/or just some dedicated off street parking spots (if snow isn't too big of a concern). Something that makes it livable, not just vacationable.
I think this development here gets a lot of that right:
https://www.trailviewhomes.com/model-td
(but they are mostly deed-restricted affordable housing, so they are designed to be primary residences)
Or compromise and go duplex and use the cost/land savings to build the garage out and actually do a quality job building the shared wall so you don't hear your neighbors.
I know this thread leans mountain town housing issues, but I’m not limiting myself to that, which I tried to clarify.
Still, just because there wouldn’t be a huge market for parking free housing in mountain towns doesn’t mean it should be forced on those who may not need it.
@Single I don't disagree with you but I'm not sure what you are saying. For sure, in the Upper Fraser River Valley a majority of the spec developments are catering towards second homeowners because 80 of the homes (and condos) are owned by second homeowners. And pretty much by definition, more garage and more driveway is less residential density.
Re: Duplex the cost savings are basically limited to two less exterior walls to put finish on. The coding for fire (primarily) mandated that the separation wall is from foundation to roof. So basically it is two single family homes butted up to each other. They are very soundproof. And separate utility service is mandated. You do get more square footage per lot because you skip one side set back. Again, not considered the most profitable product for developers.
I think it is a pretty well know compromise that you go up valley for less square footage and storage or you go down valley and have a longer drive to the ski area. And its 30mins from the High School in Granby to Winter Park. Where do you want to live with your middle class family?
@Jong I don't disagree with you either but how do you extrapolate that idea? What are Planning and Zoning and Building and Infastructure requirements are you opposed to?
Got 900 grand? You could own this gem! https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1...13180140_zpid/
103 yrs of history right there.
But hopefully not designated "historical". Because whoever buys that very likely will want tear it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
The lot is prob worth what 700?
Based on the location, 900 is my guess.
Historic piss and vomit from yours truly.Quote:
Originally Posted by frorider
Priced like a typical CU student rental. Boulder is getting wacky.
The "Frozen" Montana Housing Market
https://www.kbzk.com/news/montana-ne...xR3vULZc0huxGA
That was a pretty good article.
We couldn't afford our home right now, nor do we want to anymore. Two year plan is in effect, hopefully the economy doesn't crater before we blow this popsicle stand.
That article is exactly why we left the state. Fuck trying to get in on that market right now. We’ll make our money elsewhere and then reassess in x number of years.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Excellent Hollywood lighting in the bathroom. [emoji1787]Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Quoted "Every sq in not devoted to living space is less profit. It doesn't mean that these people won't need transportation. Or that it should not be part of the plan. Unless you're willing to act as taxi for them"Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
^ This
https://city.ridewithvia.com/stamford
Then your government decides to pick up the tab for the problem they created
by allowing housing without parking.
But who is really paying (taxes) to support this ?
Don't we already have private on demand services ? Uber & Lyft
The only places i have seen significant reductions in parking allowed are when a development goes in across the street from large public transit (lightrail stop, bus station (not just stop) or when the development is an old folks home where the residents dont have cars and the only cars are the workers. Otherwise, parking reductions are pretty minor if allowed at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski220
What we all could do, is shrink traffic lanes and sidewalks and getting rid of planter strips between streets and sidewalks to allow for more parallel street parking. It would have the added benefit of slowing down traffic in many areas making them safer overall, and forcing fatass americans to walk a little more to get from their car to their frontdoor resulting in a healthier populace.