Banning Front-Facing Garages in Urban Areas
Drive around suburbia and the garage seems more important than the front door.
But in more urban areas, such as the City of St. Louis, we have alleys. While we park on the street the typical garage is off the alley at the rear of the parcel of land. This lets the front of the house look like a house rather than a garage.
Often a good urban house is narrower than your typical suburban garage. Each has their place. Just keep the front garages out in suburbia. I’m horrified every time I see a typical suburban house built in the city:
When no alley exists, as is the case in various parts of the city, you have no choice. But the house above does have an alley:
It is among a group of homes just North of Cass & West of 14th Street. It is bad enough that suburbia continues to spread out into farm fields but I must draw the line at having suburbia spreading back into the core. I propose that in the city/region that on parcels where an alley is available that any garages/off-street parking must use the alley. No curb cuts allowed.
If I wanted to live among garage doors I’d live out in sprawlville. If that is what folks what then I suggest they shop out in that ugly ring of suburbia that surrounds the City of St. Louis.
– Steve
I don’t understand this at all. I remember the first time I drove down Delmar west of Vandeventer and was appalled by this kind of development, this is EAST of Euclid East of Kings Highway (by quite a few blocks: http://bit.ly/WN6LF). Not only are these suburban style homes ugly with their street facing garages, they look totally out of place for the area (ridiculously so). Who the hell approved THAT? Apparently the homes are occupied but how long could a home owner who is attracted to that house design be happy living in that area? Another urban/suburban atrocity: http://bit.ly/414OOZ That’s Arsenal near Hampton. Why? Why? Why?
We call ’em “Snout Houses.”
Somebody can do whatever they want to their property as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights, IMHO.
To me, the garage is the most important “room” in the house next to the kitchen. The garage is where my car resides, where I work on my car, where I drink beer with my friends, where I store my tools, and where I spend the majority of my time at home among other things. Do I disagree with this post? Not necessarily. Do I think that this is a rather trivial issue in the scope of things? Absolutely! With all of the excessive gov’t spending and Obama promoting healthcare that is clearly not for the majority, you’re worried about where the garage door is?
Let’s regulate everything! Obama says it’s OK. Let’s eliminate cars all together!
That first photo is hilarious. Looks like somebody has a Deathrace 2000 fantasy.
When I first moved into my house with garage off the ally I would have totally disagreed with this post. I thought it was something irregular and barely tolerable. However, after 4 years I love the whole thing. I think it puts the houses as the focus rather than the garage (which is too often the centerpiece when it is out front). I think it suits the urban setting better than a garage and driveway.
I don’t think that I would go as far as a ban (black and white rules are too often the wrong choice) but perhaps there is another way. Planning commission recommendations, etc.
Front garages are awful for urban kids. Mind does not expect curb cuts and treacherous driveways on every block. He judiciously stops and waits a every single alley and street, but the random placement of the odd driveway make them very dangerous. I love that I can safely allow my 3yo to walk up and down our block without fear of someone backing over him. Its one of the best things about raising kids in urban places.
We are up in North city a lot, and there are some terrible blocks of suburban style developments. So, so uglyl!
Form based zoning would eliminate the need to ban them.
@Prudentdriver,
Clearly you belong in the suburbs, as those content with suburban garbage like seen not only in the photos but unfortunately anywhere one cares to see it will vote for GOP candidates and perpetuate the carelessness that destroys our environment and ensures dependence on less-than-friendly nations for sources of energy. The diseased Republican party, as usual, is preventing the MAJORITY of Americans from having what they deserve and need. Keep on watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but stay out in the fringes, where what you do with your own property likely doesn’t matter anyway, as the placeless suburbs are already as low as low can be.
Prudentdriver is merely expressing the individualistic view espoused by Repubs (“diseased” or not) throughout our land, however misguided it may be in my opinion. The Rupublican party’s historic dedication to individualism has degenerated into what is more commonly known as “selfishness”.
When these “snouthouses” were approved in areas of North St. Louis City, it was not without contention from architecture/design officials at city agencies, which coordinated the subsidies to make them possible. If there is no alley, a legit case can be made that front entry garages are unavoidable, if not desirable. However, in the cases where a perfectly serviceable alley exists, the snouthouses were often rammed through because “it’s what people want”, i.e., the developers, their prospective buyers, who actually hunger for an exurban architectural Kleenex in the City, and perhaps most significantly, the alderperson for the area in question.
The same peevish turn of phrase is employed by outstate Repubs who practically crap their pants in rage anytime some liberal, tree hugging fan of big government elitist fat cat from Sodom or Gomorrah (aka KC & St. Louis) suggests that urban sprawl may not serve the practical, long term needs of this region. Some pants-crapping may occur at the mere mention of the term “urban sprawl”, which these Repubs see as “growth”. It is growth. So is a brain tumor.
“The Rupublican party’s historic dedication to individualism has degenerated into what is more commonly known as ‘selfishness’.”
yes.
“Some pants-crapping may occur at the mere mention of the term ‘urban sprawl’, which these Repubs see as ‘growth’. It is growth. So is a brain tumor.”
and yes.
well said!
There is an infill going up in Soulard a block or so west of the 1860 Hard Shell Cafe. The building has 2 new carriage style garage doors facing the street/sidewalk and no apparent front door.
Is this an addition to an existing house? Is it because alley access doesn’t exist? It is surprising to see this design for a new building in a local historic district.
I wonder what the explanation is.
The part of the equation that’s difficult to solve, with or without alleys, is the desire by many buyers for an ATTACHED garage. If there’s an alley, to do an attached garage on the back of the house, you either end up with much of your back yard being driveway or you get a loooong house, usually with one nearly-blank wall facing one of your neighbors. Since most people are more willing to “sacrifice” their front yards to a driveway than their back yard, then, guess what, you get garage doors on the front! The only real “solution” is to require both alleys and detached garages, but that gets to be deal breaker for a lot of potential buyers. To really make it happen just takes strong leadership and creating a culture that a detached garage can actually “work”: http://live.stapletondenver.com/live/overview and, yes, New Town St. Charles . . .
Agreed. The front-facing, facade-swallowing garage is a clear indication that King Car is still alive, well, and not looking out for our best interests. However, I feel sorry for developers who are trying to feed their families and fear losing paying clients if they push for what they know is right. Let us not assume that a front-facing garage developer is a bad developer – maybe just uninformed. Quick, get them copies of Death and Life of Great American Cities!
(Wha-huh? How did prudentdriver get from street-facing garages to Obama and healthcare? Guess he/she doesn’t understand what this blog is about or is just a joker giving the other commenters some cannon fodder.)
Everyone doesnt’ like driving down alley ways or parking on the street. I wish more houses in the City had garages – built properly and attached to the house. Some people want their backyards for backyard use, not for storing the automobile.
@ Garage Lover: A garage is going to take up yard space one way or another wether it’s attached or detached so what’s the difference? At least if it was detached at the back you now have a buffer between your yard and the utilitarian alley with its ugly utility poles and dumpsters.
Maybe if these houses weren’t built with the ridiculously huge setbacks in the FRONT, you’d have even more back yard space, even with a detached agarage. An alley-facing detached garage would also allow you to have MORE garage than a front-facing attached design, so you’d hzave even less need for on-street parking (which is also reduced by the front driveways, BTW).
In general I agree with you on this Steve, but I do think there is an alternative front facing garage design that is acceptable. Many older homes in San Francisco have garages on what looks like a ground floor, with the main living floor and front door elevated: (image)
I think this works because the design of the facade does not allow the garage door to dominate and the garage door itself is simple yet attractive. I think this would be a good approach for lots lacking an alley, that are short on space, or to satisfy those that demand attached garages.
@ Stl Stadtroller I like an attached garage for the convience of bringing things into my home without noisey neighbors seeing my purchases, guests, etc. I don’t like my backyard space broken up by a garage in the back after driving down the alley. Ususally only one car at a time can get down the alley. Ever tried leaving home or getting home around the same time as everyone else. No thanks.
More garage space isn’t an issue. I like the convience and privacy. The lack of attached garages is a major set-back of city houses for me.
As Kara pointed out, there are other designs for attached garages.
Kara, your link isn’t working.
The particular development cited by Steve is in area “B” of the McKee redevelopment project. Work is slated to start in 2010, if the proposal passes. While you may find the houses non-urban in style, the people in them are good neighbors and we will be very sad to see them go.
solution = front-entered basement garages?
There are actually a few examples on Hempstead Street in New Town that provide another viable alternative, assuming lot width is forgiving.
@ Adam – I REALLY love basement garages. That would look nice in the city and give garage people an alternative for living in the city.
G-Man, for some reason the whole link didn’t get included in the hyperlink. Just copy and paste the whole thing, including the .JPG. Maybe Steve can fix it?
I think it’s an example of what others are calling a “basement garage” – a very beautiful one.
There is a good example of a newer city housing development featuring front basement entry garages on the Hill, in the NW quadrant of the intersection of Southwest and Kinshighway, near the Amoco/BP and closed car dealership.
The houses are on Bischoff Avenue, south side of the street, facing north. You can enter Bischoff off of southbound Kingshighway just before you get to the Vandeventer/Southwest intersection.
The reason’s why a detached garage on the alley is superior to other configurations is thus:
It eliminates all the curb cuts that front facing basement garages or typical suburban garages require, which leaves room for on street parking and makes the street safer and traffic flow better because there are fewer places to turn.
If streets all have curb cuts for front garages, you end up with a parking problem because the drastically reduced street parking.
It lets the front of the house serve as an entrance, and allows more space for porches, trees, etc. It also makes it easier to have a reduced set back to the street.
Attached alley garages require a driveway from the alley to the garage, which wastes the whole backyard. Its a bunch of unnecessary pavement where the backyard or patio or garden or a tree could be. There are numerous examples of attached rear garages built in STL in the last 5 years in the city and they really confound me.
You can fit more houses on a block when the garages are in the back, rather than the front.
Alleys are also a great place for trash collection, way better than the street.
I don’t have a garage and my life is pretty good.
I also think the San Francisco model can work well and be very attractive. It is also a good alternative to the rear entry basement garage, which turns the back yard into a landing strip. However, there need to be very specific limitations, such as maximum width of the garage door (8′ for one car), maximum setback, and the color of the door.
The setback for most homes in SF are around 10-15 max., so the driveway is not really a big feature, and as with Kara’s example, the garage door is painted a tasteful color that matches the color scheme of the house and blends in well with the overall elevation.
Here in STL, where the typical setback is 25 feet, the driveway for a two-car garage becomes over dominant. Add to this the builder default of red brick with everything else white, the garage becomes becomes overpowering, and you have the appearance of “welcome to my garage with some living space plopped on top”.
The challenge with tandem parking is the shell game associated with it. We essentially have that now, with a one-car garage, a long driveway and enough room on the street to park one vehicle. Given our varying work schedules, I usually park on the street, leaving the driveway for my wife. And that’s why most buyers, who can, do buy two- and three-car garages, and why alleys are the real aesthetic answer in urban areas. Plus, if getting wet is real issue, a breezeway is a great solution for connecting a detached garage to the main structure.
The not-so-fully detached garage outbuilding connected to the main house via arcade or breezeway is the best form. You can hang wind chimes in all of the bays and annoy all of the neighbors terribly.
I have a detached garage without an alley – there’s a narrow driveway between my house and my neighbors. Yes, it takes more pavement this way, but that’s the way the house came. I live in Webster – a lot of the older houses have these types of garages. It’s a lot better than a snout house (good one Dustin!). My neighborhood is like the “missing link” between city houses with alleys and suburbia garage architecture.
Don’t suburbanize the City!
I like how you all like to assume one’s political interests. You assumed WRONG. I am a libertarian. I don’t watch “fox news.” In fact, I don’t watch any national news channel.
I am so sorry that I believe that a person can do what they want WITH THEIR OWN HOME, as long as it does not interfere with another’s rights.
What is wrong with you people? When somebody makes a statement against your ideals [which happens to be a minority], I find it hilarious how you just assume to justify your stance.
Now to get specific:
john w.,
I liked your dribble. Although, as I stated above, you are wrong. If I had my choices, I’d live in the country, as far as possible from people like YOU.
studs lonigan,
More dribble that doesn’t apply to me.
Bredon J,
I tied in healthcare with excessive gov’t spending as a thread of this nature is moot when compared to what’s going on nationally. It is also interesting how much of a rise I witnessed. Clearly, I stepped on some toes and it’s funny.
Ultimately, it is my belief that you all need to get off your high horses. Again, why do you care where a garage door is? So you can let your 3 year old roam without parental supervision? So somebody doesn’t pull out of a driveway in front of you? So you can have more on-street parking? Because it “looks better?” What kind of reasoning is that? What about all of the business driveways that you use? Somebody can run over your kid or pull out in front of you just as easily as a residential driveway.
Our national debt is almost $12 Trillion. Let’s ban street-facing garages, that’s priority number one! Let’s eliminate all suburbs! Without the residents travelling in from the suburbs every morning, the City will fall flat on its face from the loss of revenue from the City Earnings Tax. But that’s OK, people who live in the suburbs with their street-facing garages have no place here in the City!
@Prudentdriver
Your dribble is certainly the most entertaining of all. In case you hadn’t noticed (though I’m sure you have, as you’re nothing more than a shitstarter with apparently nothing better to do), this blog is dedicated to URBANISM, and not the celebration of the destructiveness of sprawl form land ‘development’. If, as you have just stated, it is your desire to live out in the country as far away from people like me, then I wasn’t wrong at all. You’ll recall that I suggested you stay out in the placeless, meaningless, valueless fringe, which seemed an appropriate match to your attitude toward progressive urbanism.
Clearly, you’d be in more comfortable surrounds at Americans for Tax Reform, the United Teabaggers of America, or Ron Paul’s website, but don’t leave comments on an urbanism blog such as your original, and then respond with, “what is wrong with you people…” and attempt to insult in the pathetic way in which you have. If you’d like to go multiple rounds with me, I’ll happily oblige, but don’t pretend to surprised by the rejection of attitudes that clearly embrace the patterns of sprawl like your own.
Honestly, I don’t believe my ideals to be among a minority at all.
…but, back to the street-facing garage doors- this example is another possibility that, at the least, de-emphasizes the garage because of both the step down scale of the garage, and the relegation of this component to a subordinate attachment at the side. The New Town example is similar, however the garages are farther back from the building line at New Town. See this:
http://www.buffalorising.com/2009/04/urban-farm-vs-housing.html#SlideFrame_0
Well, seeing as how we’re focusing on being urban, our mass transit system should make owning cars unnecessary, so let’s just outlaw garages entirely, and cars with them. In fact, I don’t think everyone needs their own house. I mean, really, how much of it do you use on a daily basis? We should all live in cohabitation, several familes to each garageless house. We can remove all the traffic signs and signals and such too; they really clutter up the landscape. They are totally elements of an outdated suburban, car infested lifestyle. Mailboxes sort of piss me off, too. Hanging all over the sides of houses, circulars sticking out of them…they’re a real eyesore. Let’s get rid of ’em. Hell, everyone oughta be on eMail anyway. I do like yard gnomes, though, and everyone should be forced to have a couple in their front lawn. I mean, it looks silly if only one person does it, so it should be a law so that everyone has to do it. I’m glad that we’re making strides in forcing all the individuals living in the urban landscape to stop being so damned different all the time. It will be nice once everyone lives in the same type of dwelling with the same yard with nice street trees on every single block. Sort of reminds me of…suburbia…
…which just demonstrates that you, and people like ‘prudentdriver’, don’t get it. Urbanists aren’t interested in suppressing your means of expression through architectural design or culture, nor your ability to reap financial award from real estate holdings, but instead simply expecting those who choose to live in obvious urban areas to be respectful urban neighbors. There is an undeniable and inescapable connectedness to adjacent entities in the urban fabric that barely exists in non-urban areas. It is this connectedness that made our great cities of not-so-long ago as great as they were, can be again, and necessary to the sort of real sustainability that is more vital than mere technology ever could be. The synergies of the city make the city form a much more environmentally sustainable pattern of land development, and these synergies barely or simply don’t exist at all in non-urban areas.
If you understood anything at all about form-based land development that can be codified into zoning ordinance, you’d know that diversity of occupancy types, architectural styles and forms is the desired result instead of homogeny. It seems, as evidenced by your sarcasm, that you miss that completely.
I have no garage at all. It gives me a bigger back yard and I just park on the street. I am perfectly happy and don’t have the need for a garage, especially since we have always been a single-car family. To each his own………
john w., (notice how I address you properly)
“…you’re nothing more than a shitstarter…â€
No, not really. I am concerned that the government is already too much a part of our lives and advocating more government control on where one builds a private garage is something that I’m against. Notice how I refrain from calling names.
“…with apparently nothing better to do…â€
See above. I’m not in favor of any more gov’t control.
“…not the celebration of the destructiveness of sprawl form land ‘development’.â€
Have I promoted the above?
“If, as you have just stated, it is your desire to live out in the country as far away from people like me, then I wasn’t wrong at all.â€
Actually, you stated, “Clearly you belong in the suburbs…†Living on 100+ acres miles and miles from civilization is far from living in a cookie-cutter neighborhood with all of the modern conveniences no more than three miles away. I would prefer to live in the country to perform tasks such as hunting, fishing, shooting, camping, etc. on a regular basis.
““what is wrong with you people…†and attempt to insult in the pathetic way in which you have.â€
No insult was intended. It was just a simple question asking why do you want to regulate someone’s life? That’s all.
“If you’d like to go multiple rounds with me, I’ll happily oblige, but don’t pretend to surprised by the rejection of attitudes that clearly embrace the patterns of sprawl like your own.â€
Are you going to result to more name-calling and assumptions? :yawn:
“Honestly, I don’t believe my ideals to be among a minority at all.â€
Of everyone living in the City? What percentage of the populous, do you think, even cares about these trivial issues? Additionally, what percentage of the populous actively participates here?
Steve,
“If prudentdriver wants to live a life of isolation like the unibomber he/she can do whatever in their remote cabin.â€
That’s a surprising remark from the webmaster of this very site; one would suspect the most mature remarks from you, Steve. I enjoy my time here in the City. I go out frequently with my family, friends, and co-workers; I would just prefer to live where I can enjoy my spare times in the wilderness. I just don’t understand why you find it necessary to try and regulate seemingly all aspects of people’s lives. Do your visions really affect the majority or do you just like to think that they do?
“But once you become part of society they need to understand that for the common good we must compromise to get along. One problem, the community owns the public right of way. We get to set the rules for how private property connects to the community propertyâ€
I’m surprised that you failed to realize that the property owner owns the land adjacent to the public right of way. I’m a part of the community and I say let him have his curb cut. If a man and his wheelchair can get curb cuts at corners, than a man and his car can get a curb cut adjacent to his own property. In my mind, it’s the least that the gov’t can do considering all of the regulations and taxes imposed on them already.
“Want a garage in front of your house?â€
“Do I disagree with this post? Not necessarily.â€
john w.,
“…which just demonstrates that you, and people like ‘prudentdriver’, don’t get it.â€
My username is suggestible now? I’d classify that as name-calling. I don’t understand that you are attempting to infringe on people’s rights? This is supposed to be a free country.
“…simply expecting those who choose to live in obvious urban areas to be respectful urban neighbors.â€
Wouldn’t it be disrespectful and not neighborly to inform someone that they can’t have a street facing garage because it’s not part of the “urban culture?†We don’t like your garage for [insert reason]. Doesn’t matter… it’s their property.
“There is an undeniable and inescapable connectedness to adjacent entities in the urban fabric that barely exists in non-urban areas.â€
Such as…? Church doesn’t count.
“It is this connectedness that made our great cities of not-so-long ago as great as they were, can be again, and necessary to the sort of real sustainability that is more vital than mere technology ever could be. The synergies of the city make the city form a much more environmentally sustainable pattern of land development and these synergies barely or simply don’t exist at all in non-urban areas.â€
You’re going to be disappointed when my generation takes over.
“If you understood anything at all about form-based land development that can be codified into zoning ordinance, you’d know that diversity of occupancy types, architectural styles and forms is the desired result instead of homogeny.â€
Stop with the government intervention already. This is exactly why I’m here. Let the property owners decide as long as their decisions don’t hinder your rights–I’m sorry, but “excessive†curbs cuts, appearances of garage doors and driveways, and allowing a young child to wonder without supervision are not acceptable answers.
The property owners, along with their uncontrollable consumption and selfishness, have been deciding for the last half-century, and that’s precisely why our environment is in such a tail spin. I called you no name, although I’m perfectly willing to, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to there… (i.e., had I called you a moron [direct insult], rather than a troublemaker [descriptor], I believe you would easily discern the difference).
Please inform yourself as to the intent of form-based land development and the desire to preserve the urban form prior to the takeover by autocentrism. Perhaps we’d be able to maintain a more intelligent discussion rather than carrying on the sort of low-grade pissing matches seen on STLtoday.com, or, we could simply move this exchange to that very blog. This blog IS ABOUT urbanism and the preservation of urban form, and about the promotion of progressive new development that follows form precedents that were prevalent before autocentrism. This blog IS NOT ABOUT suburban or non-urban forms of land development, and therefore you must not be confused as to why your position is hugely in the minority at UrbanReviewSTL.com.
Urbanists are dedicated to the cessation of sprawl pattern land development practices that are the result of selfishness and reckless consumption. You clearly are not an urbanist. You may wish to do a quick Google search to find sites more appropriate to your world view (see my suggestions above) so that you won’t be so hugely in the minority when offering views so clearly in opposition to those AT AN URBANISM BLOG.
Trends appear to be moving in the direction of densifying existing developed areas, and even show significant interest from those younger than 100 years of age in moving back into cities. I’m not quite sure what you think you are referring to when you talk about your generation, because I may very well be a part of that same generation, and I can assure you that my views are probably diametrically opposite to yours… but that shouldn’t matter, as you’ll be miles and miles away from people like me, sitting in a duck blind with a 12 gauge, snugly zipped up in a Carhart coverall, Glenn Beck streaming into your headphones, awaiting the rapture.
john w.,
Does being an Urbanist come with a wallet card identifying you as a self-righteous prick, or do you have to apply for that separately? Just wondering…
Does the description of an urbanist equate with self-righteous prick, or are you just voicing your perceived dislike for me personally? I might be a prick, you never know without actually meeting me, but if you read what I wrote, and then come to the conclusion that I’m self-righteous, then you must not believe in much in this world.
What I find amusing about this discussion is that as PrudentDriver rightly points out, the suburbs, in their constant quest to promote blandness in the name of property values, are more threatening to individual property rights than most urban areas would ever be. My parents used to live in a “town” where all new construction was REQUIRED to have a 12/12 roof and a three-car attached garage. Unfortunately, with the required setbacks applied the fronts of most of the houses became a wall of doors–three garage doors, and a “front” door far to one side! My sister’s first home–in a high-end LA suburb–was the same: in fact, the first floor was ENTIRELY garage and the front door opened to stairs to the main level. Ugly … but mainly because of a complete lack of imagination.
Lower level/basement garages are a great idea where there’s a slope (even though the rated ceiling/first floor adds cost), but just turning the darn thing to side and sharing the driveway with the neighbor (like our friend in Webster Groves) cuts the visual blight by half.
In this country, most of us choose where we want to live. Most of the readers of this blog live in urban places and willingly take the knocks society places on us for it. We pay for private schools or deal with the bureaucracy of charter schools and magnets. We sweep up the glass left on the street when our cars get clouted once every 5 years. We live where we do to escape that ugliness. We have the right to protect our property values and ambiance by code just as surely as those living in the exurbs do. The big problem: convincing our elected leaders of the same thing.
“I place the interests of the community above individual rights – the sum is greater than its parts.” That sounds EXACTLY like suburbia everywhere, with covenants and HOA design police! And it sounds like the perfect rationale to prohibit ANY private use of the public right-of-way!
The real problem, on both sides of this discussion, are the extremes. Part of the attraction of urban living is its messiness, the ability of individuals to express themselves somewhat outside the norms, to live and let live. Does the government have a duty to regulate and control? Absolutely, especially when it comes to protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare. But the real gray area is when the government starts to make aesthetic decisions. Tastes change. For example, for many years, government sign codes have prohibited signs that project from the face of buildings, or “are animated, blink or flash”. The results are boring, and you’ve previously advocated for more variety on this issue. The same goes for sidewalk dining – a little is fine, but when non-diners have difficulty or feel intimidated walking through, there’s obviously a problem, but defining that line is difficult since it’s based on individual perceptions. And while a “libertarian would advocate the right to construct a 12ft high concrete wall topped with barbed wire around their property because it is theirs and they don’t want government regulation telling them they can’t do it”, there’s absolutely no reason why a person shouldn’t be allowed to build a 4′ or 6′ fence around their property.
The same applies to driveways and garage doors. In the vast majority of St. Louis neighborhoods, this really is a non-issue. Either they’re built out and stable and nothing much is changing or new homes are being built on existing blocks with few other structures. The buyers of these new homes are voting with their checkbooks (they like what they see) and the city is attracting some new residents (also a good thing). And like you, “I want my government to protect the qualities that made the community walkable and friendly. It is about the right kind of regulation, not just drawing a line in the sand and saying ‘no more’.” But your version of “no more” and mine obviously differs – I don’t want to see 80% of the front of a house being a garage door or 60% of the street frontage being a curb cut, but I could easily support allowing 25-30% of the front facade being a garage door, along with a maximum of 20% of the curb line. I’d also support incentives for garages using either existing or new alleys, things like allowing accessory apartments in/above detached garages. But I have a real problem with “just saying no” to curb cuts when alleys are present. Design decisions are complex and interrelated. There can be, and are, valid reasons for doing garage doors on the front, even when they may overwhelm the facade visually. Doing so allows the residents to have unfettered access to their backyards. It’s all about choices. But if you really want to have the best of both worlds, check out the second story here: http://www.bifold.com/photo-of-the-day.php
Jim, I’d just direct you to the linked picture I provided above for a good example of the type of compromise that could really work. If there was a rear service alley to be accessed, then a single bay garage could then be loaded tandem with no logistical problems and 1/2 the width of paved driveway.
When the garage becomes the dominant feature of the facade, it should then become a designed component that gives something back to the street other than an oversized mass with broad, opaque doors and a wide, 50′ long strip of concrete.
I also aesthetically don’t like the dominating garage doors on the fronts of houses as you’re describing, Steve. Some of the “new town” stuff that seems to address this bothers me in its sanitized approach to “times gone by.” There has to be a balance that works for all this.
I grew up on Plateau, two houses west of McCausland (behind what is now Olympia Kebab House, which was “Bantam Tom-Boy Market” when I was growing up in the 50s & 60s.) We actually didn’t have alleys behind our houses. Our house backup up to houses facing south on Mitchell, and there were no alleys between our backyard–just dry-stack stone fences, for the most part. The houses across Plateau from us did not have an alley behind them either, although there was what might be called a “paper alley” on the books. It served as a wide, wooded buffer between the backyards of the houses on that side of Plateau and those facing north on Horner. We had the distinctive delight of spending many ours in “the woods” at play. Our street had driveways between most houses (some of the oldest homes did not, and I suppose the idea was that in that neighborhood at that time, people did not own cars?) Some of the driveways lead to detached garages towards the rear of the house or even several feet behind the back of the house, depending. The houses in our n’hood were built over a period of may 60-70 years, and while everything hung together pretty well (because of the unifying elements of sidewalks and consistent setback of houses from them), every one was a little different from the others.
I live in St. Ann today, and while I realize it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, the housing is mostly quaint and charming in the Cape Cod style, built after WWII by Vatterott. They still design and build quality homes throughout the area and are still headquartered in St. Ann. If you want to see authentic “not so big houses” check out St. Ann. Our small city is very walkable, with sidewalks nearly everywhere (certainly on every through-street), and I would say it’s easy to get around, based on the number of silver-haired citizens I see on St. Charles Rock Road (near Ashby) in wheel chairs, with canes and with walkers, heading from the two senior living developments over to the drug store. We have good bus service to the MetroLink, so I can get to work easily without driving. St. Ann was the first planned community in the county and was intended to be “user friendly,” and St. Ann has a permanent display at the Missouri History Museum (2nd fl.) Our driveways lead to detached garages, about 25 feet behind the back of our houses. I love it here and am working hard for the kind of redevelopment opportunities that Washington Ave., Maplewood, Ferguson, Soulard, and other down-at-the-heels, older communities have seen; in fact, I’ve worked with many of “you” on opportunities for those areas, as well.
Just my two cents. Thanks for the thoughtful posts.
PS I just hate it when I re-read my post and see typos and other errors!!!!!
PPS I’ve lived in St. Ann for 14 years.
It sounds like we all have different versions of what’s “urban” is and what it’s not. Is the urban threshold crossed when population density or the number of dwelling units passes an arbitrary number per acre? When buildings exceed a certain number of stories or when the front and/or back yards shrink or disappear completely? When sidewalks and alleys appear and residential curb cuts disappear? When true mixed use and viable public transit really function? When parking goes from convenient to a real pain in the a**?
New Town St. Charles and Seaside, Florida, both look a lot like parts of Soulard and San Francisco, but I doubt any of us would describe either of them as being “urban”. Parts of our north side have fewer dwelling units or residents per acre than parts of Chesterfield, and even though Paul McKee is promising significant increases in density over existing conditions, he’s being vilified for not being urban enough. East St. Louis is closer to our downtown than many city neighborhoods are, yet the only thing urban about the place is the wasteland part.
Every urban area has shades of grey, places/neighborhoods with very high densities and ones with lower, some even approaching suburban, densities. To focus on one issue like this one is to miss the bigger picture. Urban equals dense and diverse, in people, architecture, jobs, incomes, and, yes, where the friggin’ garage door ends up. St. Louis’ fundamental challenge is that we were once 800,000, we’re now 350,000, and if we want to get back to 500,000 or 600,000, we’re going to have to be open to more than any one-size-fits-all solution . . .
Who is proposing a one-size-fits-all solution?
Steve,
“I find the whole Libertarian perspective on property tiring and selfish. I place the interests of the community above individual rights – the sum is greater than its parts.”
Wouldn’t trying to control where a garage door resides selfish in its own right? Once again, are these really the interests of the majority of the community or do you like to think that they are?
“A libertarian would advocate the right to construct a 12ft high concrete wall topped with barbed wire around their property because it is theirs and they don’t want government regulation telling them they can’t do it.”
A little extreme, don’t you think? Similiarily, what’s the difference between a 12 foot tall wall and a 30 foot tall building that both fall immediate to a sidewalk? The City has lots of buildings adjacent to sidewalks.
“I want my government to protect the qualities that made the community walkable and friendly.”
The sidewalks would still be there. You’d just have to travel past a 12 foot tall wall or a 30 foot tall building…
“It is about the right kind of regulation, not just drawing a line in the sand and saying “no more”.”
I’ll cast a line in concrete. Government has no place in telling someone what they can/cannot do with their own property as long as nobody’s rights are infringed upon.
john w.,
“The property owners, along with their uncontrollable consumption and selfishness, have been deciding for the last half-century, and that’s precisely why our environment is in such a tail spin. I called you no name, although I’m perfectly willing to, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to there… (i.e., had I called you a moron [direct insult], rather than a troublemaker [descriptor], I believe you would easily discern the difference).”
Selfishness? Telling someone what they can/cannot do with their own property is not selfish? Referring to me as a “shitstarter” and inferring that my user name is suggestible are most certainly direct insults.
“Please inform yourself as to the intent of form-based land development and the desire to preserve the urban form prior to the takeover by autocentrism. Perhaps we’d be able to maintain a more intelligent discussion rather than carrying on the sort of low-grade pissing matches seen on STLtoday.com, or, we could simply move this exchange to that very blog.”
As Jimmy Z. pointed out, the issue of garages, driveways, and subsequent curb cuts will be seldom seen in the City as is and a significant part of the City is its diversity. Previously you stated, “If you’d like to go multiple rounds with me, I’ll happily oblige…” Seems to me as if someone is asking for a “low-grade pissing match,” if that’s what you want to call it.
“This blog IS ABOUT urbanism and the preservation of urban form, and about the promotion of progressive new development that follows form precedents that were prevalent before autocentrism. This blog IS NOT ABOUT suburban or non-urban forms of land development, and therefore you must not be confused as to why your position is hugely in the minority at UrbanReviewSTL.com.”
Thanks for repeating yourself and stating the obvious, again. I’m here because I’ve had enough of special interest groups attempting to control more aspects of individuals’ lives than are needed. My opinions are in the minority here considering that the majority of the population simply doesn’t care about what somebody does with their own property as long as their rights are not infringed upon. What percentage of the City’s population actively participates on this site anyway?
“Urbanists are dedicated to the cessation of sprawl pattern land development practices that are the result of selfishness and reckless consumption. You clearly are not an urbanist. You may wish to do a quick Google search to find sites more appropriate to your world view (see my suggestions above) so that you won’t be so hugely in the minority when offering views so clearly in opposition to those AT AN URBANISM BLOG.”
If someone like me doesn’t speak out, not many people will. If you would wish to extinguish me from this site, then make it a “member’s only” site and ban me. I’m for freedom as this is supposed to be a free country; regardless of where you live.
“Trends appear to be moving in the direction of densifying existing developed areas, and even show significant interest from those younger than 100 years of age in moving back into cities.”
Those younger than 100 years of age? With the exception of the very, very few people who make it to a century, that’s everyone. That’s fantastic that they moving into cities. Although I fear the trend of people moving back into cities is to be close to modern conviniences and work than anything else. I’m here for work as I’m not driving two hours plus everyday and I’m sure that’s the mentality of a lot of newcomers to the City.
“I’m not quite sure what you think you are referring to when you talk about your generation, because I may very well be a part of that same generation, and I can assure you that my views are probably diametrically opposite to yours… but that shouldn’t matter, as you’ll be miles and miles away from people like me, sitting in a duck blind with a 12 gauge, snugly zipped up in a Carhart coverall, Glenn Beck streaming into your headphones, awaiting the rapture.”
My generation will take 30 years to be a reputable force in office. And from everyone of similar age that I’ve spoken to, they simply don’t care about the trivial issues promoted on this site. So what do you do for fun? Walk on sidewalks? Ride your bike? I’m so sorry that my choice of performing my duty to control the population of wild animals offends you. Once again, I do not watch any news channel nor do I particiapte in listening to the talking heads of news politics. The mature thing to do would be to stop assuming.
“I might be a prick, you never know without actually meeting me, but if you read what I wrote, and then come to the conclusion that I’m self-righteous, then you must not believe in much in this world.”
I have my thoughts and I would venture to guess that they would remain even if I met you.
“Who is proposing a one-size-fits-all solution?”
The title of this very blog is, “Banning Front-Facing Garages in Urban Areas” Seems like a one-size-fits-all solution to me.
John W – to quote Steve: “I propose that in the city/region that on parcels where an alley is available that any garages/off-street parking must use the alley. No curb cuts allowed.”
I’ll offer a partial touche’ to you, Jim, but I suppose I should have been more specific regarding the intent of form-based zoning ordinance, which, as you well know, is not even close to a one-size-fits-all solution. I’d add that the ordinance would then allow, similar to height and area increases per building code, for substitutions when either hardship or technical infeasibility occurs, or when and as long as certain conditions were met. The first order is to disallow some initial violation, with the structural flexibility to then allow for case-by-case consideration pending the satisfaction of extenuating conditions.
I would hope that Steve’s prohibition is not absolute, but I cannot speak for him.
…and, honestly, I couldn’t imagine even a draft proposal of any section of an ordinance as complex as form-based zoning to be absolutely prohibitive, or exclude allowances and modifications. The word ‘ban’ can be startling and therefore discomfiting, and I’d avoid its use except under the most grave circumstances.
Smoking bans are equally tough to impose, and though the vastest possible majority of people would be overjoyed if they could be free of the externalities of smoking, similarly ordained flexibility should be written into laws that, on the first order, disallow smoking absent of reasonable considerations. I’m not for sweeping bans, but could envision smoking ordinance that identifies areas of public access and gathering adjacent to non-fully private entities, and disallows smoking in these areas on the first order. That seems to me the most manageable way to discourage smoking in public places through the power of law. Readers should review the original post of yours that inspired well over 100 comments regarding smoking bans, but form-based zoning, as most know, is structured to promote the sort of urban form that includes programmatic overlap and vital synergies, and is in no way a roadmap to suburban sprawl pattern development.
And don’t get me wrong, I support the concept of form-based zoning. But I come at in St. Louis from the perspective of fighting the battles for 15 years in Denver to get their zoning code updated, something that’s imminent now, 20 years later. Here, I don’t see either the groundswell of neighborhood interest / activism, nor any interest at the higher levels of government, to change what we have now. Given the very-likely-correct assumption, that the zoning we have today is the same zoning we’ll have in St. Louis 25 years from now, I have to focus on whether or not the “simple” fixes that would ban all curb cuts and/or front-facing garages in all St. Louis neighborhoods (on size fits all) actually make the most sense.
Thare are many neighborhoods in St. Louis where front-facing garages and/or curb cuts are inappropriate, but these are also the same neighborhoods where you don’t see very many new ones happening, either. Where you do see them happening, in larger numbers, is in neighborhoods like the one illustrated at the start of this post, neighborhoods that are being redeveloped, big time, neighborhoods that had, in many cases, become urban wastelands. The challenge / major difference in opinion is whether these old neighborhoods “should” be rebuilt using the original, century-plus-old model of narrow lots (30′-35′) that predated the automobile OR whether the developers should be “allowed” to use a more contemporary, suburban model, with wider (40′-50′) lots and those front-facing garages. It mostly boils down to a battle between building what St. Louis buyers (think they) want (and are willing to buy) versus what we (who know better?) want to require in the name of good/better urban design (and may or may not sell, especially for the same prices)?
Finally, as you noted, any zoning ordinance is only as good as its details and in its consistent enforcement. While I support the concept of form-based zoning, knowing full-well the many pitfalls and inadequecies of traditional use-by-right zoning, until I see something in writing, I’m going to withhold any support for something new here. Given past experiences with bureaucrats making interpretations and judgement calls on design issues, I’m always leery of giving them too much discretion. And much like the current national discussion on health insurance, until we have something concrete to discuss, we’re just getting worked up over a bunch of assumptions that may or may not have some basis in some future reality . . .
…yet, without the advocacy and work toward the sort of progressive city leadership that can willingly promote form-based zoning, we will surely only see the same zoning and patterns of development in 25 years and beyond. I don’t want to be that pessimistic, because without the advocacy and work, frankly, there is little reason to believe in the things that I do. St. Louis is not Denver, and that can be taken any way you wish. If you choose to simply sigh and lament bad extancy, and dismiss any possibility of progressive change, then you and I are certainly riding in different boats.
I don’t believe progressive urbanists are suggesting a slavish devotion to lot platting standards, materials, architectural styles or one-size-fits-all curb cut standards, and I don’t believe that you do either. I would argue that the balance of progressivism and preservation is what constitutes urbanism, and therefore needless pastiche is roundly criticized and new infill languages are yearned for. The immediately recognizable suburban sprawl pattern land development practice should have NO place in urban areas, and no, there is no slippery slope or fuzzy definition as what is urban and what is not. If, as I stated above, a front-facing garage is dominant then it should be designed in a manner that gives back to the street, i.e., no broad, opaque doors but instead transparency and people-scaled features. This really shouldn’t be so hard to conceive.
John, I’m willing to work “toward the sort of progressive city leadership that can willingly promote form-based zoning,” I’m just not seeing it happening! Yes, there are advocates on blogs, here and elsewhere, but I’m not seeing the “boots on the ground”. Where are the politicians advocating for better planning? Where are the committees hashing out changes to the zoning code? When was the last time the head of the planning department was in the news? Can you even name who that might be? I know, I know, “St. Louis is not Denver”. I try to avoid making that comparson. But the reality is that change in government, everywhere, happens at a glacial pace, and as many others have pointed out, folks in St. Louis seem to be even more resistant to change than residents in many other cities. I want to see change, but after five years here, I’ve yet to figure out how to start to make it happen . . .
The head of the planning department? Ha ha ha ha!!! Are you serious, Jim? That’s not where progressive change will begin, and you know that. I’d submit that Antonio French, newly elected 21st ward alderman is just such an elected leader, and if you’re not seeing the boots on the ground it’s perhaps because your boots aren’t on the ground. The reality is that change is what you work for it to be, but every time I read your comments and guest posts, there is this nagging undercurrent of pessimism that seeks to neutralize any efforts to facilitate positive change (see your post on hybrid parking above, for instance).
What Jim might say: “Here’s a plan to make our [environment, lives, etc.] better, but in the end it’ll only cancelled out by [apathy, misuse, etc.] because of slippery slopes and the law of unintended consequences”.
It probably depends on where we live – in my part of the city, the status quo rules and it seems to be stubbornly in place. I worked for the batter candidate in the last election, and she lost, big time. Whether its pessimism, optimism or reality all depands on one’s perspective and, likely, age. And, am I serious about the planning department? Hell, yes! That’s their role, or at least it should be. If not, let’s forego the charade and eliminate ’em.
We’ll eliminate them from the bottom up. My laughing wasn’t at you personally, but rather the notion that top-down change will occur without felt pressure from below. It seems the BoA is the better route for bottom-up change, and then the Mayor’s apparatus is already at the top.
More on the hangar house: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xr8WOEwSp0
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy Polos,
ed hardy board shorts ， ed hardy men T-shirt,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing
through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value
and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed
hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction.
If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here
is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t
let you down.