urbanMSP

What's the address on that? I want to look up the zoning designation and also if it needed any special approvals.

I wonder if that exact structure would be permitted today, in light of the recent zoning code amendments that regulate height and setbacks more rigidly for dwellings of 1-4 units (aka the response to the SW Minneapolis teardown moratorium).

But yes, I agree, we need more of that everywhere please.

3824 Grand looks to be the address. Zoned R5. Google's non-oblique aerial view shows it, and it measures at ~30' wide on a standard 40' lot. Looks like it's shifted to the northern edge of the lot - 3-4' to fit a sidewalk - giving enough space for full egress windows to get light down to the lower unit. This was previously an empty lot, so great to see. Tough to tell from the aerial what the parking situation is, but a 40' wide lot would be tight to fit 4 full spots out back. I would imagine it's a 3 stall garage facing the alley.

Edit... This sheds some light.

And the staff report: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 098036.pdf

So I think this vaguely falls into this category. A friend from undergrad sent me these photos of the house I lived when I was at the U. Address 959 17th Av SE if you want to see it without the addition.

I mean this is definitely incremental density but its also.... super weird? Why even attach the units? They are so different. I can imagine the entire thing is still supposed to be one unit because it was already a 4 bedroom house.

I guess I'm just curious what you all think about it.

Ooof.

We're running out of places to live and GoGophers rentals have been building on like mad.

We're running out of places to live and GoGophers rentals have been building on like mad.

My aversion is not to its existence but the non-continuous roofline. It just looks rough. Obviously they wanted something bigger than the existing second story, but I feel like they should have built it as its own structure.

The suburban architectural style (particularly the different-sloping roofs) and the fact that Minneapolis generally has so few attached units both serve to exaggerate the weirdness here. Not that weird to see attached buildings with different rooflines in more urban environments.

yes. more of this needs to happen

Perhaps a move to soften NIMBY/opposition to larger, denser projects on major corridors and near commercial nodes? Can't imagine this has much of a chance as a blanket proposal. Still, forward thinking at least.

It makes the most sense as a blanket proposal, though. By affecting the whole city at once, it spreads out the impact and doesn't densify any single neighborhood super quickly. It also tackles the scale of the housing shortage in a way that isolated large projects can't.

Not to mention the council is progressive enough now that this has a decent chance of going through.

We're going to have the dumbest possible fight over it, with the opposition screaming about how every single house is going to go away.

Meanwhile, in reality, there will just be a few du, tri and quad plexes here in there, like there already are.

Even if this gets watered down to just duplexes or triplexes, that would still be significant.

We're going to have the dumbest possible fight over it, with the opposition screaming about how every single house is going to go away.

Meanwhile, in reality, there will just be a few du, tri and quad plexes here in there, like there already are.

"But where will they park?" "Actually this will make housing more expensive!" "Duplexes ruin the character of the neighborhood!"

“Will somebody PLEASE think of the children!?”

"Duplexes ruin the character of the neighborhood!"

I'm willing to personally visit the neighborhood of anyone who says this and take pictures of the duplexes that are already there.

"Duplexes ruin the character of the neighborhood!"

I'm willing to personally visit the neighborhood of anyone who says this and take pictures of the duplexes that are already there.

I'm tempted to do the same on Nextdoor, which is already starting to heat up (odd that it always seems to be people from Linden Hills, Lowry Hill, or ECCO). Anyway, already hearing the following:

1) current zoning is meant to protect SFHs in our "historic neighborhoods". Fourplexes will ruin the existing housing stock and damage the fabric of the neighborhoods!
2) the new fourplexes they are putting up in Lowry are too big and don't have enough parking
3) this is all just a gift to developers

Meanwhile in the south east reaches of the city, I've been pleasantly surprised at support for this and more neighbors on Next Door. A few people voicing those things, but mostly support.