twincitizen wrote:Upzone to R4/R5, but institute a maximum lot width (of perhaps 80-100') to prevent block-long or half-block-long buildings in the interior of neighborhoods. Larger (bulk) buildings could be limited to certain corridors or more intense zoning districts (C3A, the OR districts, R6, etc.)
I'd be fine with that, with one caveat. Put a provision that once a neighborhood or contiguous set of blocks reaches 70% coverage (or some sufficiently high number) of these 2-4 story, 40-80' wide lot buildings, you remove that requirement. This sets the pace for redevelopment in neighborhood cores in the short-mid term while keeping an eye to a time where the only type of redevelopment may require larger lots. While 6+ story developments obviously can and have been done on small lots, the built environment wouldn't be nearly as impacted by half block structures near a series of 3 story buildings.
I'd also like to see neighborhood cores that are densifying be a little more lenient to commercial. Germany has the "daily use" test in allowing ground floor retail in residential areas. CARAG has Louie's (discussed in the 36th/Bryant thread) in what is clearly the middle of the neighborhood, and it works perfectly. As places gain more people, it would be weird to not allow some of that to creep inward.
Also, I'm confused on the polemics statement, David. From me? Comment section? I live in a single family home, I just don't happen to think they're the be-all, but I also didn't think I disparaged them as a way of life in the post.