Medium-Density Low-Rise Housing

An Urban Design Study on

MEDIUMDENSITY LOWRISE HOUSING in Atlanta’s In-town Neighborhoods

An Urban Design Study on

MEDIUMDENSITY LOWRISE HOUSING in Atlanta’s In-town Neighborhoods

Contents

6

Introduction How to Read this Catalogue

Multi-Dwelling Unit House

Plex

Slab Apartments

Courtyard Perimeter Block Apartments

Row House

Further Variation Conclusion References

7

Introduction The subject of this study is an investigation of medium-density low-rise housing in Atlanta’s in-town neighborhoods. <<The imperative is residential intensification. As growth occurs in suburbs and exurbs, there is a need for residential intensification>> The relevance of this subject matter is significant forseveral key reasons. First, the urban form of every city and neighborhood 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. Meanendnote

8

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 medium-density low-rise development. It would seem much of the housing development being constructed over the past few years - post-recession - seems to have taken on the form of high-rise towering apartendnote

Pendleton Apartments, Euclid Avenue, Inman Park

ment complexes.

This study helps to point out how medium-density low-rise development helps with the transition of suburban neighborhoods into more urban neighborhoods. Secondly, there is a need for medium-density 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 defined as buildings 1-3 stories in height with dwelling units of less than 20 dwelling units. This definition requires the building to situate within a single parcel. I often found that buildings over the 20-unit threshold required the aggregation of multiple parcels or required additional height to accomodate the additional units. Those buildings with higher unit counts lost the ability to fit within the surrounding neighborhood context and served better as perimeter 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 endnote

neighborhoods. <<This is mostly due in part to perceptions of public housing projects built mid-century that are associated with urban decline. cite this?

Frequent concerns of MDLR is that they lower property values, detract from the quality of the neighborhood, create traffic congestion, and overload local services>> However, this demonstrates that good quality design offers 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 attests to the fact that medium-density low-rise buidings have existed for over a century in Atlanta’s intown neighborhoods, but that they contribute to the overall diversity, affordability, and community of a neighborhood. <<Paragraph on urban economics.>> The benefits of MDLR housing helps the cost effectiveness of an area’s roads, sewers, public programs. Additionally, parks, commericial services, and transit all benefit from increased density. <<Affordability>> Smaller housing units are more affordable and appeal to changing demographics. The increase in millenials, young couples, sinendnote

9

gle-parents, immigrant families, and aging boomers - 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 variation in age and income is a contributing factor to the diversity of a great neigherhood. <<Atlanta’s investments in the Streetcar and the Beltline 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 offered a sense of permanence and durability. And finally, 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 themselves 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 endnote

10

promote medium-density low-rise development as great may benefit from this catalogue. <<how might each group benefit from the catalogue?>> Municipalities may find 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 Developers may find that HDLRs serve as important pieces within the urban framework. They may aid in transitioning from mid-rise and high-rise building forms to single-family building forms. Additionally, larger types may be used to strengthen urban nodes and edges. Neighborhood Organizations may may find that smaller HDLR types may fit more appropriately as infill among single-family housing.

These types add diversity and character among the homogeneity of single-family housing stock. Daniel Parolek classifies this type as “missing middle.”

According to Parolek, missing middle types are classified as “missing” because very few of these housing types have been built since the early 1940’s.

The term “missing middle” is defined 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 midrise flats 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 find that they are able to transition to increased density demands over time while still maintaining neighborhood character.

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

Medium-Density Low-Rise Development in Metro Atlanta

North Peachtree Ansley Morningside/ Druid Hills Midtown Boulevard Virginia/Highland Home Park/Atlantic Station Washington Park West End

Inman Park Grant Park Adair/Pittsburgh

Legend Expressways Beltline Major Roads Atlanta Metro City Limits Open Space

2 Miles

ÂŻ 11

A Methodology for selecting MDLR housing

Neighborhood Blocks, Parcels, and Building Footprints

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

12

=

Single-Family Buildings

Medium-Density, Low-Rise Buildings

- Remove single-family dwellings

-

- 2 - 20 Living Units - 1 - 4 Stories 5-10% of Housing stock

=

13

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

1889 Joel Hurt establishes Inman Park as Â?Â&#x2022;Â&#x160;Â&#x2014;Â?Â&#x160;Č&#x201A;Â&#x153;ČąÄ&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Â&#x153;Â?ČąÂ&#x2122;Â&#x2022;Â&#x160;Â&#x2014;Â&#x2014;Â&#x17D;Â? suburb

1910

1922

Â&#x160;Â&#x2014;Â?ČąÂ&#x152;Â&#x2DC;Â&#x;Â&#x17D;Â&#x2014;Â&#x160;Â&#x2014;Â?Â&#x153; Â&#x2022;Â&#x160;Â&#x2122;Â&#x153;Â&#x17D;

Â&#x2DC;Â&#x2014;Â&#x2019;Â&#x2014;Â?ČąÄ&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Â&#x153;Â? Â&#x160;Â?Â&#x2DC;Â&#x2122;Â?Â&#x17D;Â?ČąÂ&#x2019;Â&#x2014;Čą

Â&#x2019;Â?¢ Â&#x203A;Â?Â&#x2019;Â&#x2014;Â&#x160; Â?Â&#x2DC;Čą

Â&#x2039;

1908

Transit

Firstt automobile Â&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Â&#x2DC;Â?Â&#x17E;Â&#x152;Â&#x17D;Â?

Multi-Unit Homes

1910

Development 14

Townhomes

Â&#x160;Â&#x153;Â?Čą

Â&#x2DC;Â&#x2013;Â&#x17D;Â&#x153;ČąÄ&#x2122;Â&#x203A;Â&#x153;Â?ČąÂ&#x152;Â&#x2DC;Â&#x2014;Â&#x153;Â?Â&#x203A;Â&#x17E;Â&#x152;Â?Â&#x17D;Â? Â?

Plex Apartments

1

Â?Â&#x2022;Â&#x160;Â&#x2014;Â?Â&#x160;Čą Â?Â&#x203A;Â&#x17D;Â&#x17D;Â?Â&#x152;Â&#x160;Â&#x203A;

Ĺ&#x2014;Ĺ&#x;Ĺ&#x2DC;Ĺ&#x2013;ȹȏȹĹ&#x161;Ĺ&#x2013;

Ĺ&#x2014;Ĺ&#x;Ĺ&#x2014;Ĺ&#x203A;ȹȏȹĹ&#x2122;Ĺ&#x2013;

nta’s In-Town Neighborhoods 1954

1969

1982

ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ estates into ȱ

Urban Pioneers ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ǯ Ȭ£ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢

ȱ ȱ ȱ £ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ SF, MF, COM, ȱ£ ȱ ȱ ȱ£

1990

1999

Quality of Lfe ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ǰ ǰȱ ǯ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱŚśȱ Atlanta’s intown

2003

1965

1949

ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱȦȱ ȱ

ŗşśŖȱȬȱŗşŜś

ŗşşśȱȬȱ Ȭ ȱ

ŗşŞŖȱȬȱŘŖŖŖȱ

15

over time. Both neighborhoods were initially subdivided in the late 1800’s to accomodate single-family residents and have since remained very desirable places to live. However, the map to the right shows that high-density low-rise development exists 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 intown neighborhoods, as shown on the right. These clustered areas include: North Peachtree area, Ansley, Morningside, Druid Hills, Midtown, Boulevard, Virginia-Highland, Inman Park, Grant Park, Adair-Pittsburg, West End, Washington Park, and Home Park-Atlantic Station. <<How much MDLR housing stock exists in each neighborhood?>> Medium-Density Low-Rise development 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 figure grounds illustrate how to identify high-density low-rise building stock within a given neighborhood. 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 significant 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 classified as high density, low-rise buildings. Today, it is estimated 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 cycles>> 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 significant changes within the regulatory environment, the shift toward auto-dependent patterns of development, and the tightening up of the lending environment with respect to the developer’s return on investment. Changes in these conditions have either enabled or restrictendnote

16

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 protected the land. After those covenants lapsed, smaller speculative housing and apartments followed to accomodate middle class workers. <<cite this>> The early courtyard apartments were built in Midtown 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 courtyards or garden courts that offered ample light, ventilation, landscaping, and views. They were affordable 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 first instance of buildings occupying accumulated parcels in an otherwise single family neighborhoods. In Atlanta, the number of rental units and apartments also decreased. The construction of new garden apartments steadily declined 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 builders 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, apartments were perceived as a necessary building form to accommodate persons on reduced incomes or those temporarily unable to afford 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 different 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

17

How to Read this Catalogue Part A identifies 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 Atlantaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intown neighborhoods.

18

Frontage | frontage

Part A

Part E

Parcel Size

Building Type

Part B

Parking | parking Urban Function | function

Street Address - Neighborhood - Year Built

Topography | topography Unit | unit Sustainability | sustainability Open Space | open space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | open space Part C

Street Address - Neighborhood - Year Built

Zoning

Part D

Street Address - Neighborhood - Year Built

19

Multi-Dwelling Unit House Multi-Dwelling Unit Houses are traditional neighborhood houses that have added dwelling units onto the property. The majority of these types were acheived either by apartmentalization or by constructing additional units via garretts (attic conversions) , basement units, or above-garage units.

(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.”

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)

20

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

21 21

Apartment Units

Frontage | traditional Parking | on-street, private drive Urban Function | DU/Acre = 10, infill renovations

Topography | may transition to 3 stories in back Unit | typical configuration = 2 units wide Sustainability | each unit receives light, air, views Open Space | FAR = .6, 50-60% open space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | multiple units accomodate a single parcel, rented units help cost of home ownership

150

60

22

7,000 SF Multiple units w/ work studio - 926 Myrtle Street - Midtown

Zone: R1

Multi-Unit Apartment - 847 Myrtle Street - Midtown

23

Unit Additions

Frontage | traditional Parking | private drive Urban Function | DU/Acre = 10, infill renovations

Topography | may transition to 3 stories in back Unit | typical unit = 2 rooms deep Sustainability | each unit receives ample light, air, views Open Space | FAR= .5, 50% open space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | multiple units accomodate a single parcel

190

50

24

7,000 SF Myrtle Street and 5th Street - Midtown

8th Street and Penn Street - Midtown

Zone: R1

7th Street and Myrtle Street - Midtown

25

Plex Plex 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.

26

2 699 Durant Place - Midtown

27 27

Duplex

Frontage

| traditional

Parking

| private drive

Urban Function | urban infill Topography

| may transition to 3 stories at the rear

Unit

| each unit is 1.5 rooms wide

Sustainability

| each unit receives ample light, air, views

Open Space

| FAR= .6, 40% open space

AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability

| multiple units accomodate a single parcel

along its length

28

7,000 SF 825-27 Argonne Street - Midtown

782 Charles Allen Drive - Midtown

Zone: R1

883 Charles Allen Drive - Midtown

29

Triplex / Quadplex

Frontage | traditional Parking | rear, alley Urban Function | urban infill Topography | may transition to 3 stories in rear Unit | units are arranged around common foyer Sustainability | each unit receives ample light, air, views Open Space | FAR= .8, 20% open space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | multiple units accomodate a single parcel

30

7,000 SF 915 Argonne Avenue - Midtown

Zone: R1

314-320 Fifth Street - Midtown

31

Slab Apartment There are two distinct types of medium-density apartments found in Midtown and Inman Park.

Courtyard Perimeter Block apartments typically inhabit 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 circulation.

32

3 345 7th Street - Midtown

3333

Slab / Single-Loaded

Frontage | non-traditional (side of bldg. faces street) Parking | private lot at side or rear of building Urban Function | DU/Acre=30 infill (accomodates a single parcel)

Topography | lots are typically flat Unit | 2 units wide (30-36ft) Sustainability | each unit receives ample light, air, views Open Space | FAR .6-.9, 10-15% open space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | multiple units accomodate a single parcel, cheap and efficient unit construction

34

7,000 SF 812 Piedmont Avenue - Midtown - 1940

Zone: R1

780 Dixie Ave - Inman Park - 1960

35

Slab / Double-Loaded

Frontage | traditional Parking | on-street, private drive, rear alley Urban Function | urban infill Topography | may transition to 3 stories in rear Unit | units are arranged off corridor Sustainability | each unit receives light, air, views from one side of unit, corridor restricts the other side

Open Space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability

36

| FAR= 1.3, 20% Open space | multiple units accomodate a single parcel

7,000 SF 873 Charles Allen Drive - Midtown

933 Euclid Avenue - Inman Park

Zone: R1

690 Durant Place - Midtown

37

Courtyard Perimeter Block There are two distinct types of medium-density apartments found in Midtown and Inman Park.

Courtyard Perimeter Block apartments typically inhabit 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 circulation.

38

4 425 10th Street - Midtown

39 39

Courtyard / Double-Loaded / “T-Shape”

Frontage | tradtional, block defining Parking | rear parking Urban Function | DU/Acre=60 (may support transit)

Topography | may transition to 3 stories in rear Unit | units are arranged along a common corridor

Sustainability

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

Affordability

40

| FAR= 1.4, 40% open space

7,000 SF 1384 West Peachtreet - Midtown

1178 Piedmont Avenue - Midtown

Zone: R1

242 Twelth Street - Mitown

41

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / Rectangular Link

Frontage | traditional, block defining Parking | rear parking Urban Function | 85 DU/Acre (transit or commercial adjacent)

Topography | typically flat sites Unit | 2 units deep, (dwellings are arranged Sustainability |

around vertical circulation) each unit has ample light, air, views

Open Space | avg. FAR=1.4, 50% open space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | parcels are assembled to create more units

42

7,000 SF 461 North Highland Avenue - Inman Park

679 Durant Place - Midtown

Zone: R1

90 Elizabeth Street - Inman Park

43

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / “H-Shape”

Frontage | traditional, block defining Parking | private drive, rear parking Urban Function | DU/Acre=60 (may support transit)

Topography | may transition to 3 stories in rear Unit | units are arranged around vertical stair Sustainability |

and arranged along a common corridor each unit has ample light, air, views

Open Space | FAR= 1.2, 40% open space Affordability | parcels are assembled to create more units

44

7,000 SF 121 Eighth Street - Midtown

Zone: R1

484 North Highland Avenue - Inman Park

45

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / “L-Shape”

Frontage | traditional, block defining Parking | on-street, rear parking Urban Function | DU/Acre =45-50 (may support transit/commercial)

Topography | may transition to 3 stories in rear Unit | units are arranged around veritcal stair Sustainability | each unit receives ample light, air views Open Space | FAR= 2.0, 10% Open space Affordability | parcels are assembled to create more units

46

7,000 SF 691 Juniper Street - Midtown

820 Piedmont Avenue- Midtown (1917)

Zone: R1

356 Ponce de Leon Avenue - Midtown

47

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / “C-Shape”

Frontage | tradition, block defining Parking | on-street parking, rear alley parking Urban Function | DU/Acre =45-50 (may support transit/commercial)

Topography | may transition to 3 stories in rear Unit | units are arranged around vertical stair Sustainability | each unit receives ample light, air, views Open Space | FAR=2.0, 50% open space Affordability | parcels are assembled to create more units

48

7,000 SF 425 North Highland Avenue - Inman Park

Zone: R1

443 North Highland Avenue - Inman Park

49

Courtyard / Perimeter Block / “U-Shape”

Frontage | traditional + common court, block defining Parking | rear parking Urban Function | DU/Acre = 47 (supports transit)

Topography | parcels are flat Unit | 2 room deep units arranged around Sustainability |

vertical circulation each unit has ample light, air, views

Open Space | FAR= 1-1.5, 50-60% open space Affordability | parcels are assembled to create more units

50

7,000 SF 433 North Highland Avenue - Inman Park

198 Ponce de Leon Avenue - Midtown

Zone: R1

425 Tenth Street - Midtown

51

Row House The Row House (or Townhome) varies in definitiondepending on ownership of the land: either a lot is sub-divided into individual lots, or multiple owners 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). Additionally, the urban form varies by parking access into the building. Parking may be detached from the building or integrated into the building, and access may

52

either be from the front or from the rear.

5 960 Charles Allen Drive - Midtown (1940)

53 53

Townhome / Perimeter Block

Frontage | Traditional (zero lot line, 5-10ft setback)

Parking | tuck-under or detached rear parking Urban Function | 26 DU/Acre (urban transition, fits well with SFH)

Topography | may step down with topography Unit | 20-35 ft wide units, 45-60ft deep Sustainability | light and air along either side of its length Open Space | 1.5 FAR, 0-5% open space AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | division of parcel into multi-units

54

7,000 SF 162 Fifth Street - Midtown (1982)

Zone: R1

825 Inman Park Parkway - Inman Park (2005)

55

Townhome / Infill

Frontage | non-traditional (side of building faces street)

Parking | tuck-under, shared private drive Urban Function | 26DU/Acre (urban infill, urban transition)

Topography | may step down with topo Unit | 18-30ft wide x 40-60ft deep Sustainability | limited light, air, and views Open Space | 1.5 FAR, private common alley AďŹ&#x20AC;ordability | division of parcel into multiple units

56

7,000 SF 383 Sixth Street - Midtown (1979)

960 Charles Allen Drive - Midtown

Zone: R1

307 Cherokee Avenue - Grant Park (2002)

57

Further Variations <<text here>>

58

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

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

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

StudioPlex // 659 Auburn Avenue // Sweet Auburn

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

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

59

1

Spatial Relationship - Frontage 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.

60

780 Dixie Avenue, Inman Park

794 Inman Mews, Inman Park

61

2

1

4 3

6

On-Street Parking

2

Private Driveway

3

Private Shared Driveway

4

Shared Alley Detached Parking

5

Shared Alley Tuck-Under Parking

6

Private Alley Tuck-Under Parking

7

Public Street Tuck-Under Parking

8

Common Parking Lot

2

7

5

7

8

Spatial Relationship - Parking The study of MDLR types revealed nine types of spatial configurations of parking. Some of the disadvantages 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.

62

1

189 Fifth Street, Midtown

537 Seal Place, Midtown

63

3 Transition of from high density to low density

HDLR

Urban Function The study of MDLR types revealed nine types of spatial configurations of parking. Some of the disadvantages 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.

64

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

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

65

4

Additional Unit Tuck Under Parking Storage

Site & Topography Atlantaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s neighborhoods tend to be quite hilly, especially 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.

66

Apartments at 220 12th Street, Midtown

stepped townhomes, 206 6th Street, Midtown

67

5 Primary Units

Primary Links

Linear Slab

“T” , “Square”, & “H” -Types

“L”-Types

Court-Types

Unit Configuration MDLR units are based on units of 2 rooms deep.

This allows for optimal cross ventilation, light pentration 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.

68

Source:

Mishael, A. (1986)

T-Shaped Double CorridorApartments at 1178 Piedmont Avenue, Midtown

484 North Highland Avenue, Inman Park

69

6

Primary Units

Primary Links

Linear Slab

“T” , “Square”, & “H” -Types

“L”-Types

Court-Types

Ventilation, Light, and Views 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 apartments optimized their arrangement of units for high quality of life including maximizing cross air ventilation, 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.

70

Source: Mishael, A.

(1986)

Garden Apartments at 820 Piedmont Avenue, Midtown

Linear Slab Apartments, Midtown

71

7 50-60% Open Space

5-20% Open Space

30-50% Open Space

Open Space The courtyard apartments maximized outdoor space surrounding the buildings as well. Large courtyards are common. In contrast, rowhousing lacks the outdoor 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.

72

Garden Apartments at 10th Street overlooking Piedmont Park, Midtown

Townhomes at Cherokee Avenue, Grant Park

73

8

Single Units

Multiple Units

Homeowners

Increasing Demand

Landowners

Land Development The study of MDLR types revealed nine types of spatial configurations of parking. Some of the disadvantages 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.

74

Double Corridor Apartment, Midtown

Duplexes in Cabbagetown

75

Conclusions

76

Summary The research presented in this study focuses on the most prevalent types of multi-family housing existing in two of Atlantaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most diverse and mature intown 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 continued economic development generated by the Beltline, the question lingers as to whether or not the historic building types of our past remain relevant.

The following conclusions help to identify important contributing factors offered by MDLR development. <<Are there holes in the data?>>

land use and building types with higher densities.

Prior to 1910, Atlantaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 receiving adequate air, light, and open space. With the advent 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 marketplace 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.

1. MDLR types have a specific function within the greater urban framework. Medium density buildings 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 development with higher densities may help in supporting 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 perception 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 endnote

endnote

77

Bibliography

78

References Burleson, 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 Congress 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., überarb. und erw. Aufl.). Basel ; Boston: Birkhäuser 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.

79