Medium-Density Low-Rise Housing

An Urban Design Study on

MEDIUM-DENSITYLOW- RISE HOUSINGin Atlanta’s In-town Neighborhoods

An Urban Design Study on

MEDIUM-DENSITYLOW-RISEHOUSINGin Atlanta’s In-town Neighborhoods

6

Contents

7

Introduction

How to Read this Catalogue

Multi-Dwelling Unit House

Plex

Slab Apartments

Courtyard Perimeter Block Apartments

Row House

Further Variation

Conclusion

References

8

The subject of this study is an investigation of me-dium-density low-rise housing in Atlanta’s in-town neighborhoods.

<<The imperative is residential intensifi cation. As growth occurs in suburbs and exurbs, there is a need for residential intensifi cation>> The relevance of this subject matt er is signifi cant forseveral key rea-sons. First, the urban form of every city and neigh-borhood is unique to its block size, and subdivision over time. Midtown Atlanta’s block size is twice the size of a typical block in Portland, Oregon. Mean-

while, Inman Park’s winding streets do not compare to Midtown’s rectangular grid form. Additionally, lots vary in dimension and may be subdivided in a variety of ways over time. The point being that the context of a neighborhood is an important factor in developing medium-density low-rise housing.

Secondly, there is and always will be a need for me-dium-density low-rise development. It would seem much of the housing development being construct-ed over the past few years - post-recession - seems to have taken on the form of high-rise towering apart-

Introduction

endnote endnote

9

ment complexes.

This study helps to point out how medium-density low-rise development helps with the transition of suburban neighborhoods into more urban neighbor-hoods. Secondly, there is a need for medium-densi-ty low-rise development to serve as a type of urban form that transitions from higher density areas into lower density areas.

“Medium-Density Low-Rise” (or, MDLR) is de-fi ned as buildings 1-3 stories in height with dwell-ing units of less than 20 dwelling units. This defi ni-tion requires the building to situate within a single parcel. I often found that buildings over the 20-unit threshold required the aggregation of multiple par-cels or required additional height to accomodate the additional units. Those buildings with higher unit counts lost the ability to fi t within the surrounding neighborhood context and served bett er as perim-eter block types. These types are found along the edges of the neighborhoods often to support transit and commercial corridors or areas.

<<Perception of MDLR>> Quite often the perception of higher-density development within single family neighborhoods evokes feelings of opposition among those wanting to preserve the character of their

neighborhoods. <<This is mostly due in part to per-ceptions of public housing projects built mid-centu-ry that are associated with urban decline. cite this? Frequent concerns of MDLR is that they lower prop-erty values, detract from the quality of the neighbor-hood, create traffi c congestion, and overload local services>>

However, this demonstrates that good quality de-sign off ers a contribution to neighborhoods. for medium-density low-rise development as a way to mediated the transition between higher-density development and low-density development. The study not only att ests to the fact that medium-den-sity low-rise buidings have existed for over a centu-ry in Atlanta’s intown neighborhoods, but that they contribute to the overall diversity, aff ordability, and community of a neighborhood.

<<Paragraph on urban economics.>> The benefi ts of MDLR housing helps the cost eff ectiveness of an ar-ea’s roads, sewers, public programs. Additionally, parks, commericial services, and transit all benefi t from increased density.

<<Aff ordability>> Smaller housing units are more aff ordable and appeal to changing demograph-ics. The increase in millenials, young couples, sin-

Pendleton Apartments, Euclid Avenue, Inman Park

endnote endnote

10

gle-parents, immigrant families, and aging boom-ers - all are demanding these types of units. The demand for small, walkable, urban living in urban areas is increasing. <<annotate: ULI’s What’s Next: Real Estate in the New Economy, reveals the rising trend for these types of environments.>> This varia-tion in age and income is a contributing factor to the diversity of a great neigherhood.

<<Atlanta’s investments in the Streetcar and the Belt-line are increasing development pressure and the need for more density to boost ridership..>>

A Catalogue

The catalogue as a document helps us to learn from existing buildings types allows us to look <<there lessons to be learned from the past that may inform urban design and development of today’s housing needs. >>

This study began out of circumstance when, after the engine blew in my car, I was forced to run all of my errands on foot and by bicycle. It was then that I took notice of a 1915-vintage apartment complex in Midtown. I felt a general sense of human scale in the three-story building and I was pleased with the proportion of the unit of the building and how it met the street. The architectural materials that made up the building envelope and roof off ered a sense of permanence and durability. And fi -nally, a sense of community was inherent in the common areas (the parking areas, the mailboxes, and common foyer and hallways all became social spaces), These nuanced characteristics set it apart from the single-family houses next door. When added together, these characteristics lend them-selves toward a positive contribution of urban space within what is predominantely considered as a single-family neighborhood. I became intrigued with these typologies and felt that these types of development inherently had something of value that could inform urban design and the design and development community at large. I felt a catalogue would be a great way to document case studies and see how they contribute to the site and urban form.

<<Daniel Parolek here>>

This study pulls from Atlanta but hopes to serve a greater purpose. Urban designers, neighborhood and community organizations, lenders, investors, small developers, and anyone else who desires to

promote medium-density low-rise development as great may benefi t from this catalogue.

<<how might each group benefi t from the cata-logue?>> Municipalities may fi nd HDLRs useful to support the increasing demand for alternatives to the single-family house in urban neighborhoods. They may also aid in generating increased dwelling units per acre to support transit and retail services. Meanwhile, Urban Designers, Planners, and Devel-opers may fi nd that HDLRs serve as important piec-es within the urban framework. They may aid in transitioning from mid-rise and high-rise building forms to single-family building forms. Addition-ally, larger types may be used to strengthen urban nodes and edges. Neighborhood Organizations may may fi nd that smaller HDLR types may fi t more ap-propriately as infi ll among single-family housing. These types add diversity and character among the homogeneity of single-family housing stock. Dan-iel Parolek classifi es this type as “missing middle.” According to Parolek, missing middle types are classifi ed as “missing” because very few of these housing types have been built since the early 1940’s. The term “missing middle” is defi ned by Parolek as “small footprint types that achieve medium-density yields and provide high-quality, marketable options between the scales of single-family homes and mid-rise fl ats for walkable urban living.” The perception of small footprints and proportionality of frontage conditions allow buildings to be perceived similarly to a single-family house from the street. Therefore, residential neighborhoods may fi nd that they are able to transition to increased density demands over time while still maintaining neighborhood charac-ter.

Approach and Methodology

<<How did you select the sites?>> Not all the sites contribute well to their site and urban form. Good examples and bad examples.

<<How did you calculate density?>> To calculate density, dwelling units per acre (#/acre) is used for each individual lots. This allows a comparison among various lots.

<<Why did you select these neighborhoods >> The majority of the contents within this paper showcase examples of existing building stock found within Inman Park and Midtown - two prominent intown neighborhoods which have maintained stable value

endnote endnote

11

¯2 Miles

LegendExpressways

Beltline

Major Roads

Atlanta Metro City Limits

Open Space

North Peachtree

Ansley

Morningside/Druid Hills

Midtown

Boulevard

Virginia/Highland

Inman Park

Grant Park

Adair/Pittsburgh

Home Park/Atlantic Station

Washington Park

West End

Medium-Density Low-Rise Development in Metro Atlanta

12

-

-

Mid-Rise & High-Rise Buildings

- Remove building footprints and parking lots that take up more than 25% of the block (the avg. Midtown block is 400ft x 400ft)- Commercial buildings

Neighborhood Blocks, Parcels, and Building Footprints

A Methodology for selecting MDLR housing

13

-

-

=

=

Single-Family Buildings

- Remove single-family dwell-ings

Medium-Density, Low-Rise Build-ings

- 2 - 20 Living Units- 1 - 4 Stories5-10% of Housing stock

14

Zoni

ngTr

ansi

tD

evel

opm

ent

1889

1908

Joel Hurt establishesInman Park as

suburb

1910 1922

1First automobile

Multi-Unit Homes

Apartments

Townhomes

Plex

t1910

The Emergence of Medium-Density Low-Rise Buildings in Atlan

15

1954

estates into

1969Urban Pioneers

1982

SF, MF, COM,

1990 1999Quality of Lfe

Atlanta’s intown

20031949 1965

nta’s In-Town Neighborhoods

16

over time. Both neighborhoods were initially sub-divided in the late 1800’s to accomodate single-fam-ily residents and have since remained very desir-able places to live. However, the map to the right shows that high-density low-rise development ex-ists extensively throughout Atlanta’s major intown neighborhoods. Using GIS and Fulton and Dekalb County’s tax digest, I was able to locate parcels that consist of more than one living unit per parcel. The result map revealed clusters of parcels within the in-town neighborhoods, as shown on the right. These clustered areas include: North Peachtree area, An-sley, Morningside, Druid Hills, Midtown, Boule-vard, Virginia-Highland, Inman Park, Grant Park, Adair-Pitt sburg, West End, Washington Park, and Home Park-Atlantic Station.

<<How much MDLR housing stock exists in each neighborhood?>> Medium-Density Low-Rise de-velopment exists extensively throughout Atlanta’s prominent intown neighborhoods. The following pages zoom in further to the neighborhood scale of Midtown and Inman Park. The series of fi gure grounds illustrate how to identify high-density low-rise building stock within a given neighbor-hood. First, I subtracted all high-rise and mid-rise buildings. These typically have building footprints that take up more than 25% of the block and have large parking decks or lots that take up signifi cant portions of the block. Buildings over 5 stories tall are also eliminated. Next, remove all single-family building types. This leaves buildings of 1-3 stories in height that accomodate a range of 2-20 dwelling units. This remaining urban grain is classifi ed as high density, low-rise buildings. Today, it is estimat-ed that 5-10% of Midtown’s building stock is MDLR housing.

A Brief History of MDLR

<<The emergence of MLDR housing occurs over time, is generational, and occurs with real estate cy-cles>> Throughout the last century, Atlanta’s early suburbs have experienced a slow transition from being predominantly single-family dwelling units to having a greater incorporation of multi-family dwelling units. This is due in part to several key conditions, including signifi cant changes within the regulatory environment, the shift toward auto-de-pendent patt erns of development, and the tight-ening up of the lending environment with respect to the developer’s return on investment. Changes in these conditions have either enabled or restrict-

ed medium-density low-rise development over the years.

The historical chronology illustrates a few points. First, that MDLRs have existed since the early 1900s. In Inman Park, homes initially were built as single family estate homes under strict covenants that pro-tected the land. After those covenants lapsed, small-er speculative housing and apartments followed to accomodate middle class workers. <<cite this>>

The early courtyard apartments were built in Mid-town and Inman Park nieghborhoods from 1915 - 40 era. The traditional forms were constructed as a response to the demand for higher-density living in the early 1900s at a time when city living was percieved to be in poor conditions and unsanitary. Consequently, the courtyard apartments were larger perimeter block buildings with open spsace court-yards or garden courts that off ered ample light, ven-tilation, landscaping, and views. They were aff ord-able as well and were primarily conceived as fringe development along early trolley routes where land was relatively inexpensive. Prior to World War I, labor and building materials were also inexpensive and therefore the apartments came into general use within cities. They are the fi rst instance of buildings occupying accumulated parcels in an otherwise sin-gle family neighborhoods. In Atlanta, the number of rental units and apartments also decreased. The construction of new garden apartments steadily de-clined from a peak of ten in 1925 to four in 1930 and none between 1932 and 1934. <<cite this>>

After the Great Depression, the FHA was created in 1934. It basically gave a large incentive for build-ers and developers to invest in real estate. It insured loans from lenders to modernize old homes and to build new apartments. Generally less expensive to construct per-square-foot than private homes, apart-ments were perceived as a necessary building form to accommodate persons on reduced incomes or those temporarily unable to aff ord a house, and to meet short-term local housing goals during periods of explosive population growth.

Post World War II saw many changes in the building industry. A massive increase in the birthrate saw newly formed families looking for a diff erent model of living - owning a suburban house.

Meanwhile, the large estates which once housed Atlanta’s elite class of citizens were broken up into

endnote endnote

18

How to Read this CataloguePart A identifi es the building type and form.

Part B analyzes the characteristics of each building type and form.

Part C illustrates the unit arrangement either in plan, section, or axon.

Part D documents the spatial and dimensional relationship between the building, parcel, lot, and block.

Part E shows examples of existing building types in Atlanta’s intown neighborhoods.

20

Multi-Dwelling Unit HouseMulti-Dwelling Unit Houses are traditional neigh-borhood houses that have added dwelling units onto the property. The majority of these types were acheived either by apartmentalization or by con-structing additional units via garretts (attic conver-sions) , basement units, or above-garage units.

These types of houses were often converted over to multi-dwelling units in the 1990’s reflecting a trend in rising housing costs and demand for housing in the area. (1)

(1) Gamble, Michael. “Current Midtown Resident.” E-mail interview. 18 July 2014. The

house initially was constructed as single family residence in 1910 and was converted to a

boarding house in the 1930’s. In the 1990’s the house was converted to multiple dwelling

units. “Many of the houses around us still have rentals in them, which is a very good

thing for owners and renters, as the cost of houses in the area has become astronomical. In

the early 90s, houses in the area were selling for around $25/SF, by compassion now, they

for around $225/ft upwards to $300 depending on the street.”

21222221111122211111122212111111121111111121112121112212111111111Multiple units w/ work studio - 935 Myrtle Street - Midtown

1

22

150

60

Apartment Units

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| traditional

| on-street, private drive

| DU/Acre = 10, infill renovations | may transition to 3 stories in back | typical configuration = 2 units wide

| each unit receives light, air, views

| FAR = .6, 50-60% open space

| multiple units accomodate a single parcel, rented units help cost of home ownership

23

Multi-Unit Apartment - 847 Myrtle Street - Midtown

Multiple units w/ work studio - 926 Myrtle Street - Midtown

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

25

Myrtle Street and 5th Street - Midtown

7th Street and Myrtle Street - Midtown

8th Street and Penn Street - Midtown

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

26

PlexPlex may refer to a single building constructed for multiple dwelling units. Specific variations include the duplex, triplex, or quadplex. These types often sit side-by-side with detached houses and are able to fit on smaller lot sizes.

272272722727699 Durant Place - Midtown

2

29782 Charles Allen Drive - Midtown


825-27 Argonne Street - Midtown

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

31915 Argonne Avenue - Midtown

314-320 Fifth Street - Midtown

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

32

Slab ApartmentThere are two distinct types of medium-density apartments found in Midtown and Inman Park. Courtyard Perimeter Block apartments typically in-habit more than one parcel and accomodate higher numbers of units, wheras the Linear Slab apartments fit efficiently within a single parcel and accomodate smaller number of units. Within these two major types, there are many variations of form depending on the unit arrangment around the vertical circula-tion.

3333333333333333333333333333333345 7th Street - Midtown

3

34

Slab / Single-Loaded

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| non-traditional (side of bldg. faces street)

| private lot at side or rear of building

| DU/Acre=30 infill (accomodates a single parcel)| lots are typically flat | 2 units wide (30-36ft)


| FAR .6-.9, 10-15% open space

| multiple units accomodate a single parcel, cheap and efficient unit construction

35812 Piedmont Avenue - Midtown - 1940

780 Dixie Ave - Inman Park - 1960

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

36

Slab / Double-Loaded

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| traditional

| on-street, private drive, rear alley

| urban infill | may transition to 3 stories in rear | units are arranged off corridor

| each unit receives light, air, views from one side of unit, corridor restricts the other side

| FAR= 1.3, 20% Open space


37933 Euclid Avenue - Inman Park



7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

38

Courtyard Perimeter Block There are two distinct types of medium-density apartments found in Midtown and Inman Park. Courtyard Perimeter Block apartments typically in-habit more than one parcel and accomodate higher numbers of units, wheras the Linear Slab apartments fit efficiently within a single parcel and accomodate smaller number of units. Within these two major types, there are many variations of form depending on the unit arrangment around the vertical circula-tion.

3939333339393939399393939339393993999425 10th Street - Midtown

4

40

Courtyard / Double-Loaded /“T-Shape”

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| tradtional, block defining

| rear parking

| DU/Acre=60 (may support transit) | may transition to 3 stories in rear | units are arranged along a common cor-ridor

| each unit has ample light, air, and views from one side of the unit. Corridor restricts.

| FAR= 1.4, 40% open space

411178 Piedmont Avenue - Midtown

242 Twelth Street - Mitown

1384 West Peachtreet - Midtown

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

42

Courtyard / Perimeter Block /Rectangular Link

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| traditional, block defining

| rear parking

| 85 DU/Acre (transit or commercial adjacent) | typically flat sites | 2 units deep, (dwellings are arranged around vertical circulation)| each unit has ample light, air, views

| avg. FAR=1.4, 50% open space

| parcels are assembled to create more units


90 Elizabeth Street - Inman Park

461 North Highland Avenue - Inman Park

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

44

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / “H-Shape”

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability


| private drive, rear parking

| DU/Acre=60 (may support transit) | may transition to 3 stories in rear | units are arranged around vertical stair and arranged along a common corridor| each unit has ample light, air, views

| FAR= 1.2, 40% open space


45121 Eighth Street - Midtown


7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

46

Courtyard / Perimeter Block /“L-Shape”

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability


| on-street, rear parking

| DU/Acre =45-50 (may support transit/commercial) | may transition to 3 stories in rear | units are arranged around veritcal stair

| each unit receives ample light, air views

| FAR= 2.0, 10% Open space


47820 Piedmont Avenue- Midtown (1917)

356 Ponce de Leon Avenue - Midtown

691 Juniper Street - Midtown

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

48

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / “C-Shape”

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| tradition, block defining

| on-street parking, rear alley parking

| DU/Acre =45-50 (may support transit/commercial) | may transition to 3 stories in rear | units are arranged around vertical stair


| FAR=2.0, 50% open space




7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

50

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / “U-Shape”

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| traditional + common court, block defining

| rear parking

| DU/Acre = 47 (supports transit) | parcels are flat | 2 room deep units arranged around vertical circulation| each unit has ample light, air, views

| FAR= 1-1.5, 50-60% open space


51198 Ponce de Leon Avenue - Midtown

425 Tenth Street - Midtown


7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

52

Row House The Row House (or Townhome) varies in definition-depending on ownership of the land: either a lot is sub-divided into individual lots, or multiple own-ers occupy a single lot. Regardless, the urban form is defined as a dwelling unit that shares a common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit.

Urbanistically, Row Housing may be catagorized as as either perimeter block housing (where access to the front of the house is from the street) or as infill housing (where access to the front of the house is from a private driveway off the street). Additional-ly, the urban form varies by parking access into the building. Parking may be detached from the build-ing or integrated into the building, and access may

either be from the front or from the rear.

53555353535535353353960 Charles Allen Drive - Midtown (1940)

5

54

Townhome / Perimeter Block

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| Traditional (zero lot line, 5-10ft setback)| tuck-under or detached rear parking

| 26 DU/Acre (urban transition, fits well with SFH) | may step down with topography | 20-35 ft wide units, 45-60ft deep

| light and air along either side of its length

| 1.5 FAR, 0-5% open space

| division of parcel into multi-units

55162 Fifth Street - Midtown (1982)

825 Inman Park Parkway - Inman Park (2005)

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

56

Townhome / Infi ll

Frontage

Parking

Urban Function

Topography

Unit

Sustainability

Open Space

Aff ordability

| non-traditional (side of building faces street)| tuck-under, shared private drive

| 26DU/Acre (urban infill, urban transition) | may step down with topo | 18-30ft wide x 40-60ft deep

| limited light, air, and views

| 1.5 FAR, private common alley

| division of parcel into multiple units


307 Cherokee Avenue - Grant Park (2002)

383 Sixth Street - Midtown (1979)

7,00

0 SF

Zo

ne: R

1

58

Further Variations<<text here>>

59Inman Motor Works // 834 Dekalb Avenue // Inman Park

StudioPlex // 659 Auburn Avenue // Sweet Auburn

Live/Work Units // 199-201 Peters Street // Castleberry Hill

Live/Work Units // 318 Cherokee Avenue SE // Edgewood

Small Mixed-Use // 1136 Crescent Avenue // Midtown (1963)

Inman Place // 972 Dekalb Avenue NE // Inman Park

60

Spatial Relationship - Frontage

1

Neighborhoods were initially subdivided for single family estates with traditional frontage conditions. From the street, one could walk from the sidewalk, into ones private yard onto a porch and finally into a doorway before one reached the privacy of his or her home. MDLR types have either maintained a traditional street frontage condition or modified it. The linear slab apartment and townhome types both turn inwards into the parcel and expose their side to the street.

61

780 Dixie Avenue, Inman Park

794 Inman Mews, Inman Park

62

On-Street Parking

Private Driveway

Private Shared Driveway

Shared Alley Detached Parking

Shared Alley Tuck-Under Parking

Private Alley Tuck-Under Parking

Public Street Tuck-Under Parking

Common Parking Lot

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

7

88

Spatial Relationship - Parking

2

The study of MDLR types revealed nine types of spatial configurations of parking. Some of the dis-advantages of tuck-under parking can be seen in the image on the bottom right. Two-car garages can take up too much frontage, especially when paired with another townhome.

63

189 Fifth Street, Midtown

537 Seal Place, Midtown

64

Transition of from high density to low density

HDLR

Urban Function

3


65

Urban transition from Beltline, mid-rise flats, townhomes, to single-family homes

Urban Transition from Beltline, mid-rise flats, townhomes, to single-family homes

66

Additional UnitTuck Under ParkingStorage

Site & Topography

4

Atlanta’s neighborhoods tend to be quite hilly, es-pecially in Midtown. Site orientation can benefit the building layout as see above. Apartments that have their lengths perpendicular to contours may add a basement level which may double as storage, tuck-under parking, or an additional dwelling unit. Buildings such as townhomes are able to step down with the topography.

67

Apartments at 220 12th Street, Midtown

stepped townhomes, 206 6th Street, Midtown

68

Primary LinksPrimary Units

Linear Slab

“T” , “Square”, & “H” -Types

“L”-Types

Court-Types

5

Unit Confi gurationSource: Mishael, A. (1986)

MDLR units are based on units of 2 rooms deep. This allows for optimal cross ventilation, light pen-tration and views to the outside. The T-shaped and H-shaped apartments are the most efficient use of unit arrangment because of the use of the corridor.

69

T-Shaped Double CorridorApartments at 1178 Piedmont Avenue, Midtown

484 North Highland Avenue, Inman Park

70

Primary LinksPrimary Units

Linear Slab

“T” , “Square”, & “H” -Types

“L”-Types

Court-Types

6

Ventilation, Light, and ViewsSource: Mishael, A. (1986)

Garden apartments constructed from the 1915-1940s responded to the perception of the city as a place in bad condition and disease. The early garden apart-ments optimized their arrangement of units for high quality of life including maximizing cross air venti-lation, light penetration, and views to the outside. The mid-century linear slabs optimized efficiency with a 2-unit deep arrangment that still allowed cross ventilation, light penetration, and views to the outside.

71

Garden Apartments at 820 Piedmont Avenue, Midtown

Linear Slab Apartments, Midtown

72

30-50% Open Space

5-20% Open Space

50-60% Open Space

Open Space

7

The courtyard apartments maximized outdoor space surrounding the buildings as well. Large courtyards are common. In contrast, rowhousing lacks the out-door space and fill up the entire lot with 2.0 floor to area ratio. The example on the right shows outdoor space introduced on the rooftop.

73

Garden Apartments at 10th Street overlooking Piedmont Park, Midtown

Townhomes at Cherokee Avenue, Grant Park

74

Homeowners

Single Units

Increasing Demand

Multiple Units

Landowners

Land Development

8


75

Double Corridor Apartment, Midtown

Duplexes in Cabbagetown

76

Conclusions

77

SummaryThe research presented in this study focuses on the most prevalent types of multi-family housing exist-ing in two of Atlanta’s most diverse and mature in-town neighborhoods. My hope is for this research to open up doors of opportunity and creativity. There are many lessons to be learned by studying the successes and failures of the past. The long time periods that occur between real estate cycles often means that nuanced changes occur gradually every twenty years or so. As Atlanta and other cities pull out from the Great Recession and with the contin-ued economic development generated by the Belt-line, the question lingers as to whether or not the historic building types of our past remain relevant. The following conclusions help to identify import-ant contributing factors offered by MDLR develop-ment.

<<Are there holes in the data?>>

1. MDLR types have a specific function within the greater urban framework. Medium density build-ings with high quality deisgn and small footprints may fit well among single-family houses and offer increased diversity and character. MDLR types with higher densities and larger building footprints may serve as transitions from high-rise and mid-rise perimeter block developments into single-family residential neighborhoods. Thirdly, MDLR devel-opment with higher densities may help in support-ing urban edges, commercial nodes, and be used to generate density for transit-adjacent areas.

2. Single-family neighborhoods do not have to lose their character nor identity. MDLR types may be strategically used to add diversity and sense of community among single family homes. The per-ception of proportion, scale, design quality, use of topography, and appropriate street frontage become signifcant factors when developing infill parcels in predominately single family neighborhoods.

3. Medium Density Low Rise housing may increase the overall affordabilty of a neighborhood. Million dollar homes can exist adjacent to apartments while maintaining their value over time. Both Inman Park and Midtown are great examples of homes that have either maintained value or increased in value over time.

4. It is clear that zoning can either enable or restrict

land use and building types with higher densities. Prior to 1910, Atlanta’s initial suburbs were strictly estate homes. Since then, those first suburbs have increasingly become more urban with the addition of high density low rise structures. Prior to 1940, buildings were high performing in terms of receiv-ing adequate air, light, and open space. With the ad-vent of parking requirements, the site plan became auto-centric as parking lots began to dominate the site plan.

5. Access to financing in a constantly changing mar-ketplace is a fundamental keystone in developing MDLR types.

Speculations<<Street Car & Beltline>> Give some concluding thoughts here on how investment of MDLR can be used in new areas with increased demand.

endnote endnote

78

Bibliography

79

ReferencesBurleson, C., Jr. (1986). Multi-family infill housing as part of the revitalization of an in-town neighborhood: A design for Inman Park.

Congress for the New Urbanism. Center for Disease Control., & CNU (Conference) (18th : 2010 : Atlanta, G. (2010). Building metropolitan Atlanta: Past, present & future. Atlanta: Atlanta Chapter of the Congress for the New Urbanism.

Racicot, C. (2010). In Lerner, J. Urban Zoning: Atlanta’s Quality of Life Codes. Paper presented at the 18th Con-gress of New Urbanism (Atlanta), (pp. 44-45). Atlanta Chapter of the Congress for the New Urbanism.

Habeeb, D. M. (2009). Coding the Urban Form. Atlanta, GA.: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Heckmann, O., & Schneider, F. (2011). Floor Plan Manual Housing. 4th, rev. and expanded ed: Birkhauser.

Mishael, A. (1986). The evolution and design of the garden apartment as a housing type [electronic resource] / by Abraham Mishael. 1986

Parolek, D. (2014). The Missing Middle. Best in American Living. National Association of Home Builders.

Schneider, F., Gieselmann, R., & Sting, H. (1997). Grundrissatlas, Wohnungsbau: Floor Plan Atlas, Housing (2., ü berarb. und erw. Aufl.). Basel ; Boston: Birkhä user Verlag.

Sherwood, R. (1978). Modern Housing Prototypes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Urban Land Institute. What’s Next? Real Estate in the New Economy. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2011

Wu, K. K. (2011). Designing Diverse Neighborhoods. Atlanta, GA.: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Medium-Density Low-Rise Housing

Documents

Transcript of Medium-Density Low-Rise Housing