urbanMSP

Are they proposing fourplex zoning so that the duplex zoning we might end up with seems like a great compromise?

If not, the politicians will quickly find that what they're proposing is not very well aligned with the views of their electorate.

I kinda feel like this is where we're headed. Or perhaps some hybrid of fourplexes allowed on all arterials with duplexes permitted everywhere else.

I have to say that I'm a bit mystified by the idea that a fourplex is more likely to be badly designed than a single family home.

If the whole point of the zoning change is to quickly create a lot more apartments there is a risk some corners will get cut on the way to achieving that.

I don't think it will be political suicide. I think a lot of people in the neighborhoods will realize they can make money off it. Financing one of these conversions will be really easy.

If the whole point of the zoning change is to quickly create a lot more apartments there is a risk some corners will get cut on the way to achieving that.

Luckily, that's not the point. The point is to allow natural density growth where people want to live, versus having to stuff as much demand onto the few pockets of R4 and R5 as possible.

I know somebody who owns a fourplex in the Seward neighborhood. The economics are compelling. This could create a massive amount of wealth for existing owners of single family homes.

If this came down to a Council vote--if it gets that far--what would a majority for this look like? If you assume the opposition of those quoted in the article, plus the members who are pretty obviously poor fits for this proposal (Goodman, Palmisano, Reich) you would basically have to run the gauntlet with 7 of the remaining 8. Would Warsame vote for something like this? Would Cano? That math looks pretty challenging to me.

I have to say that I'm a bit mystified by the idea that a fourplex is more likely to be badly designed than a single family home.

Like, have you seen the new single family homes they've been building in the city?

I have to say that I'm a bit mystified by the idea that a fourplex is more likely to be badly designed than a single family home.

Like, have you seen the new single family homes they've been building in the city?

Actually I haven't. Where should I look?

Actually I haven't. Where should I look?

This one is pretty new (just put down that sod in August of last year): https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9197067 ... 312!8i6656

Alas, the two that are now here are not yet on Street View, but take my word that one of them is hideous (the other kind of nice): https://www.google.com/maps/@44.908307, ... 312!8i6656

Check this one out: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9104185 ... 312!8i6656

There are two here: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9102297 ... 312!8i6656

Density (residential & commercial) follows transportation, so if you’re not on or next to a corridor of some sort, you probably won’t see fourplexes. Just look at how missing middle housing followed the streetcars—or how apartments follow highways nowadays.

So if you’re on a little sidestreet, you probably won’t see any fourplexes at all; not for a while.

Will the fourplexes require parking of any sort? If not, then the corridors of demand will most likely be transit corridors.

Alas, the two that are now here are not yet on Street View, but take my word that one of them is hideous (the other kind of nice): https://www.google.com/maps/@44.908307, ... 312!8i6656

These are the two I mentioned: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX2qZjkVMAAz49X.jpg

Density (residential & commercial) follows transportation, so if you’re not on or next to a corridor of some sort, you probably won’t see fourplexes. Just look at how missing middle housing followed the streetcars—or how apartments follow highways nowadays.

So if you’re on a little sidestreet, you probably won’t see any fourplexes at all; not for a while.

Argee with the conclusion, and I guess all of these are "near" transit, but then pretty much all of the city is: https://twitter.com/ajm6792/status/972117015057108993

Great Twitter thread. Sure, you can find missing middle housing examples just about anywhere, but they are naturally clustered most frequently around transit.

I was just reading an article about how the shoreline of Brooklyn developed density around the development of ferry service.

Use 3D mode in Apple Maps or Google Maps, then browse around Mpls—or St. Paul or Brooklyn or Boston or anywhere east of the Mississippi—and you’ll see that missing middle housing around the boulevards and avenues and main streets where transit was. Lots of missing middle on Grand Ave., Selby Ave., Univ. Ave., Snelling Ave., etc. in St. Paul; Lyndale Ave. S., Xerxes Ave. S., 38th St. S., Broadway, Central Ave. N., etc. in Mpls.

Yeah, Johnson's comments were pretty disappointing (but given who he represents, I suppose it's not totally unsurprising). I'm not in a position to buy at this point, but I sometimes look at property just to see what my rent dollars could buy (result: pretty much nothing, but I admittedly have a pretty sweetheart deal).

I suppose it depends on how you define starter home, but if you're looking at stuff under $200,000, pickings are pretty slim. It's pretty much the stuff that needs to be completely gutted and/or in fairly unappealing neighborhoods. Johnson's ward has just two properties that are at least 2BR/2BA for under $200K. It jumps up to around a half dozen if you change that to 2BR/1BA.

I imagine that a number of people who've bought homes in that ward (and others) in the past several years would not even be able to do so today, due to the property value increases.

I don't think it will be political suicide. I think a lot of people in the neighborhoods will realize they can make money off it. Financing one of these conversions will be really easy.

The other element is that the majority of Minneapolis residents are renters. The arguments about keeping rents under control may be more compelling to the electorate than the traditional homeowner centered agenda.

Related to parking on the street. SCOTUS ruled that police need a warrant to search a vehicle parked in a driveway. Park in the street, no warrant needed.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 7_7lio.pdf

I'm not sure that's a fair summation of the recent decision. They ruled that the officer needed a search warrant to search underneath of a tarp that covered a vehicle which was parked undoubtedly within the curtilage of the home. The way that I read it, an uncovered vehicle outside of the curtilage is still fair game for a motor vehicle search warrant exception.

[Not so much land use, but absolutely related to courts]

Fascinating Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on high schools, high school kids driving, and school activities.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-su ... 501043061/

A 16-year-old drove teammates to a cross country meet in Sioux Falls, SD, outside the normal season. The kid crashed their vehicle into a couple’s vehicle killing the driver and leaving the passenger seriously injured.

The family of the kid and the victim family reached a settlement, but the survivor sued the school claiming the school was negligent in supervision. Lower courts ruled that letting a kid with a license for only six months drive a car full of other teams long distance across the state had no foreseeable negative consequences.

The MN Supreme Court ruled 4-2 that at a minimum it was a very close call and should have gone to court, overruling the lower courts.

The amount of kids being allowed to drive themselves to school activities might certainly plummet. I wonder how much schools’ desire to avoid liability leads to schools limiting how much kids are allowed to drive to anything at school now.

Maybe deciding to put schools so far away from residents that driving is a rational choice over walking and biking will be reduced?

A proposal to change building codes statewide to permit single exit stairwell buildings up to 75 feet.

https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2024 ... buildings/

And the proposal: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.p ... n_number=0

Would this help create more infill on smaller lots, like having a small 5-story missing middle housing development that's *not* a full block long & deep?

That's the idea!