site banner

Friday Fun Thread for September 20, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Would you want to live in this cute, perfectly-code-compliant neighborhood?

(Yes, I was too lazy to add radii to the driveway corners. Sue me.)

Too much wasted space while the houses are tiny. The road between the houses is bigger than the houses themselves, and double-wide driveways are hideous.

I would do the following:

  • slim down the road as much as possible (one-way, pedestrians have priority, no setbacks etc)
  • somehow classify on-street parking as off-street parking, then each lot will have three parking spaces
  • if that's not possible, turn setbacks into driveways (6m/20ft deep setbacks)
  • make the houses as wide as the fire safety code allows and as shallow as necessary, aiming at 33sqm/330sqft per occupant

Example implementation

Note that parallel-parking spaces are 8 ft * 22 ft rather than 9 ft * 20 ft, so the lots have been changed from 60 ft * 100 ft (6000 ft^2) to 66 ft * 91 ft (6006 ft^2). Also, the installation of underground utilities presumably will require a lot of easements somewhere.

At my current stage of life, no. But it does look better than the various slum efficiency and sub-basement units I lived in when I was younger.

Is there a particular reason for all the side yard space and front drives? Is it supposed to be generally preferable to row homes or town houses? I would rather have slightly more personal square footage and a small back garden, than a side yard and code minimum sized bedroom. You could have a back alleyway, shared front parking diagonally in the center of a long cul-de-sac, or even resident street parking (parallel or diagonal), if parking is necessary.

Another option that would have similar density, but more interior square footage, for a development would be a n-over-one or "stumpy." It's not cute, but real-estate developers in North America clearly think they offer the best net balance for medium density right now.

I also thought that they were below-code size, but I see now the minimum size requirements were removed from the International Residential Code in 2015. I had no idea. Also did not realize they added appendix AQ, specifically with respect to "tiny homes." I guess that's a win for density.

Is there a particular reason for all the side yard space and front drives?

Under the International Zoning Code:

  • The densest single-family residential zone has lots of at least 60 ft * 90 ft and 6000 ft^2. The lots in this image are 60 ft * 100 ft.

  • At least two 9 ft * 20 ft off-street parking stalls must be provided for each dwelling unit. I've made the driveways double-width for the larger houses, to accommodate multigenerational households.

Is it supposed to be generally preferable to row homes or town houses?

I didn't consider anything but single-family houses in this particular flight of fancy.

I prefer attached garages.

A garage is a needless luxury, just like a closet and a pantry.

(In response to deleted comment "Where's the garage???" by @sarker)

I deleted it because I figured the big black blocks are garages and driveways, but I guess I was mistaken.

The big black blocks are driveways without garages.

Garages are kino. You can park your car there, have a gym, or a woodshop, or a metal shop, etc etc.

A basement can serve most of the same purposes.

Not all areas have need for basements: if you're not digging to get below the frost line (warmer climates), soil is shallow, or the water table is near the surface (the entire Gulf coast), a basement is really expensive to build as an option, and they aren't very common choices. I'll keep my garage.

G-d preserve me from schlepping heavy equipment to a basement.