The Enterprise Foundation along with the Mayor's Office and City Planning just sponsored a competition in order to generate ideas for development using the small lot subdivision ordinance. Results were announced on Monday, but are not yet posted on the competition website

Rumor has it that there will be an exhibit of all competition entries this fall.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that competition, and have been waiting to see some of the results. I was just curious if there had been any real projects that had been realized yet.

Port Coquitlam, British Columbia has the first fee simple townhouse project completed British Columbia.

The City of Portland has been producing these for the past few years and has a catalog (living smart project) of 50 or so homes (from a design competition) that will fit on a 25 x 100 lot.
for info- http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/?c=cifde
http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/?c=eabgf

I don't know if there is an online link to the catalog, but you can probably have the CoP mail you a copy? High caliber projects all around.

These might help also
http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=34024
http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=34259
http://www.bds.ci.portland.or.us/pubs/planexaminer_pdf/PEJul04.pdf
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=75030

Living Smart website
http://www.livingsmartpdx.com/home/

Interesting Reading (78 Page PDF)

LIVING SMART : Big Ideas for Small Lots
Code Amendments (adopted April 22, 2006)
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=113416

very interesting. specially in los angeles. i wonder if it could be applicable to hillsides which is a big part of los angeles.
the whole thing about sprawl is so true. there are very few empty lots in la. wuth this new ordinance i predict a lot of people will want to demo and build 2-3 house buildings. very interesting indeed because the huge scale los angeles holds.

it could have a giant impact in los angeles in terms of density, traffic and public transportation, zoning changes (more people with more traffic will create a demand for walking distance comercial zones), etc..,
very exciting ordinance. imagine doubling the density in the city without the sprawl.

Here's one:

http://www.inteltect.com/AIAawards/gallery/projDisplay.php?RECORD_KEY%28ProjectInfo%29=id&id(ProjectInfo)=41

bakema

Thanks for all the info everyone..
I lived in PDX for a number of years and am quite familiar with the progressive zoning they have, and am glad that Los Angeles has finally adopted similar ordinances.

Mainly, I was curious if there were any REAL projects that were currently under construction, or recently completed in Los Angeles, that I would be able to see. Although, it might be possible that none exist yet due to the length of time required for processing the permit. I've heard that it takes up to a year to for the zoning change to occur. Anyone know if that's a fact?

The subdivision process takes 7 months. Then the project itself has to be run through DOT and Fire Dept., before hitting building dept.

Because there is subdivision, there has to be a public hearing as well, meaning that if there are neighborhood groups that don't like development they will oppose it, which sends you to a court of appeals.

Since the SF usage has to be maximized you always push the project to a 45' - so the likelyhood of appeal is big. You can shorten the public hearing process to 4 months if you get the immediate neighbors to sign off.

You get the picture... 1 year for the subdivision, 8 weeks in plan check, a few weeks to bid... and the lot is always up for sale just in case. The odds of implementing this one in L.A. are slim.

Not to mention that there are a lot of challenges to parking with a typical 50' wide lot.

b.

rothko67 -

The Small Lot Ordinance was adopted in Dec '04, so its been in effect for less than 18 months. That's why you are not likely to see anything built under it yet - its just too new. I know of two Small Lot projects that are presently entitled, and know that they entered the zoning entitlement process within the past year. They still have to go through Plan Check, however... Lots of people are working with the ordinance, though - one office I know is currently doing about 10 different Small Lot projects.

Thanks Alan and Bakema. That's kinda what I thought.

"This ordinace makes it possible to build "fee simple" townhouse type developments without the associated liability risks that condo projects carry with them."

Liability for failures and problems of construction detailing where separately owned (fee simple) properties abut, seems a separate question to me from lot size and zero setbacks. Does the new ordinance address this?

Citizen - as I understand it, no. Construction failures, etc are still subject to usual liability rules/procedures. But since each townhouse is owned individually (instead of in common via condo association), it reduces the risk of class action lawsuits over defects. This risk has produced an onerous burden on developers, contractors, architects, other consultants in terms of their insurance costs. Most of the small (20-30 person) architecture firms I know are limited to one condo project per year by their liability insurance (only so much percent of their annual revenue can be earned by condo projects, and it usually amounts to one project). The high cost of insurance is one of the limiting factors in housing production in California, and the Small Lot Ordinance bypasses that dilemma to encourage housing production (it also makes the units more affordable, since they don't also carry annual condo fees). Contrary to perception, the Small Lot Ordinance does not result in increased density, as the underlying zoning/density is still in effect.

Thanks, Alan. That clarifies a lot.

Also, regarding density, since these are only multi-family-zoned lots that are affected, might density actually go down on average? E.g., a 6000 sf lot would hold three or four new fee-simple row houses instead of two or three times that number of apartments or condo units in a multi-story structure? I guess that's the trade-off: less density, better housing?

Yes, it's possible if not likely that density decreases under the Small Lot Ordinance. One example I know of is for 6 units total (3 units with a rental granny flat, actually); the land was purchased with entitlements for an 8 unit apartment.

hm. interesting. what would be a deciding factor than, for a developer who can build 8 unit condo instead of 3 homes?
dev can sell 8 x 450000=3.6 mil
or 3 x 800000= 2.4 mil

also,
8 units = 8 families with a roof over their head
3= 3

just throwing in some numbers to understand this.

Well, in the particular case I cited, the 8 unit project was apartments, not condos, so the developer would have long-term operating costs over the life of the project loan, whereas revenues will be based upon rents (which in LA with rent-controls means the progressive increase in revenue over time is relatively fixed).

On the other hand, the 3 unit Townhouses (each with a rental unit) are for sale (at around 5-600,000 I think), in which case the developer does the project and exits after the units sell.

Either project could be a condo, but as I mentioned above, the liablility costs for condos are crippling for small developers/builders. The Townhouse project avoids this, and opens the market to smaller developers.

It also introduces a new housing type on the market - something between the condo and the single-family home, for buyers who can't afford the house, but don't want to deal with condo fees and other associations with condo-living.

thank you alan.
i am more leaned towards the premise of your last paragraph, "a new housing type" and if that takes a hold successfully, can we expect its infiltration to more protected R-1 zones? because, i think, thats where the real change would take a place with people fighting to death against or for it.
if i am not mistaken, city of santa monica has already adopted state's granma unit law (?), which makes secondary units in city's R-1 areas a lot easier to be permitted.

Just to note this is not applicable only to MF zones, it can be done in a lot of zoning types (including C) which creates a lot of opportunity. CityWorks:LosAngeles hosted an event back in November with reps from City Planning and Building and Safety and it was very informative. I have my notes in pdf format along with the handout from that day with a lot of good information. Shoot me an email if you'd like me to send them to you.

Just off the USC newswire:

USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS AND ALUMNI
AWARDED PRIZES IN SMALL LOTS, SMART DESIGNS:
LOS ANGELES SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION DESIGN
COMPETITION

City Hopes New Ordinance Will Fuel the Redevelopment of
Thousands of Vacant Lots into Affordable, Green Homes

May 2, 2006, Los Angeles Four University of Southern California
(USC) architecture students, Jesse Ottinger, Dinh Huynh, Shinju Shimizu
and Jun Tanaka were awarded prizes in the student division of the Small
Lots, Smart Designs: Los Angeles Small Lot Subdivision Design
Competition on April 24 at a City Hall awards ceremony. Alumnus
David Balian (2004) received an Honorable Mention as First Runner Up
in the professional division. All 54 contest submissions will be displayed
at the 2006 Enterprise Network Conference, October 25-27 at the
Renaissance Hotel, Hollywood. Design renderings also will appear in a
forthcoming brochure from non-profit sponsor Enterprise Community
Partners.

The competition, developed by a committee comprised of members from
the Mayor's Office, The Enterprise Foundation, the Departments of
Planning, Housing, and Building and Safety and the Community
Redevelopment Agency, was prompted by a new ordinance adopted by
the City of Los Angeles. The Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance provides
a new housing option which will allow individuals or developers to
purchase a lot zoned for commercial or multi-family residential use and
subdivide into much smaller lots than previously required. The City
hopes the ordinance will fuel the re- development of thousands of vacant
and underutilized lots into affordable, green homes in Los Angeles. The
Grand Prize winner's design will be built on a lot owned by the
Enterprise Home Ownership Partners. Select designs may be planchecked
and developed into a set of "off the shelf" standard plans that
could be used on typical small lot subdivisions throughout the City and
made available, for a fee, to builders and developers seeking welldesigned
and expedited designs.

"Even though we entered as students, the ideas are real, and we believe
that we can have a positive impact on how these projects are thought of
in the future." says graduating Master of Architecture student Jesse
Ottinger. With partner Dinh Huynh, Ottinger submitted a project
entitled A Reinvention of Urban Living. The jury commented that these
students, "[have] a complete understanding of the small lot subdivision
ordinance and city codes." Planners on the jury called the design, "an
effective prototype for higher density home ownership opportunities.
Replicable and buildable, but more on point, livable."

In another winning entry, The Cube, 5th Year Design Studio students
Shinju Shimizu and Jun Tanaka set out to capture elements common to
the urban landscape in their native Japan. "We wanted to improve urban
quality of life standards and create exciting outdoor spaces by removing
the traditional courtyard and replacing it with private outdoor spaces on
the homes' second level," noted Tanaka. The jury praised the simplicity
of their design and the modernist approach.

2004 School of Architecture alumnus David Balian received an
Honorable Mention for his project, Densification Prototype. Balian has
10 residential remodels to his credit plus high-rise builds in Los Angeles
and San Diego. "My objective was to create space where you are able to
differentiate your house from another and maintain a good indooroutdoor
feel for the homeowner," says Balian.

Judging criteria in both the student and professional categories included
innovative physical design, potential for replicability, responsiveness to
neighborhood context and environmental sensitivity. Entrants were given
an actual lot in South L.A., on which they designed single-family
workforce housing. Enterprise will break ground on the 1st place
professional design later this year.

The Final judging panel consisted of City Council members Eric Garcetti
(District 13) and Ed Reyes (District 1); Deborah Weintraub, Assistant
City Engineer and City Architect, City of Los Angeles; Richard
Bruckner, Director of Planning and Development, City of Pasadena;
Keith Coleman, Member, Community Redevelopment Agency CD 9
Project Community Advisory Committee; Wade Killefer, Principal,
Killefer, Flamming Architects; Sandra Kulli, Urban Land Institute;
Allyne Winderman, Director of Housing and Redevelopment
Department, City of West Hollywood; and Steven Ehrlich, Principal,
Steven Ehrlich Architects.

Does anyone know of any small lot porjects that were done in L.A. within last few years?

In reference to Alan's post above, yet another USC alum (Mott Smith, principal of Civic Enterprise Development and graduate in real estate development) redeveloped this site.

That's an interesting one. I was thinking more of new construction but still interesting.

I havent looked through it carefully but looks like they sold them at the perfect time.

Not sure if that jan 06 2006 is the date they picked up the property, but of that's the case, they mustve made a killing.

Mar 12, 2008 Sold $529,000 -38.6%/yr Public Records
Feb 20, 2008 Sold $544,000 -31.0%/yr Public Records
Feb 11, 2008 Sold $549,000 79.8%/yr Public Records
Jan 07, 2008 Sold $519,000 -70.1%/yr Public Records
Dec 21, 2007 Sold $549,000 -100.0%/yr Public Records
Dec 12, 2007 Sold $1,200,000 >1,000%/yr Public Records
Nov 29, 2007 Sold $559,000 >1,000%/yr Public Records
Nov 27, 2007 Sold $539,000 -59.3%/yr Public Records
Jan 06, 2006 Sold $2,950,000 -- Public Records

No doubt about it, Greenlander. Their timing was exquisite. I toured a the project, and the developer did a really beautiful job with these little jewels.

But, oy, over half a mil for a one-bedroom cottage? Yikes!

No kidding! I mean mustve been quite expensive to do the remodels. I wonder how much they spent per sf. Did they redo the roofs also?

8.5M sales @ 500k/ pop - 3M - cost of labor and construction = seemingly pretty large margin

The thing I wonder is how much of premium was for the location. But at $700/ sf, its super expensive.

The neighborhood is run-of-the-mill Silver Lake hillside territory, which lately, of course, and illustrated here, is now pricey.

I saw this written by alan loomis a couple yrs ago.


"Contrary to perception, the Small Lot Ordinance does not result in increased density, as the underlying zoning/density is still in effect."


Anyone else have opinions here? This doesnt make sense or Im missing something. Im looking at some of the projects by WorkPlays and those projects do look like they have increased the density over what was previously allowed. One project called 'Huts' has 3 units + 1 duplex on what was a single family lot in Los Feliz and another project (forgot what it was called) had 6 units on the previous parcel.

Anyone working on any small lot projects at the moment? Or are things still slow?

Greenlander... to address this question :

"Contrary to perception, the Small Lot Ordinance does not result in increased density, as the underlying zoning/density is still in effect."


Anyone else have opinions here? This doesnt make sense or Im missing something. Im looking at some of the projects by WorkPlays and those projects do look like they have increased the density over what was previously allowed. One project called 'Huts' has 3 units + 1 duplex on what was a single family lot in Los Feliz and another project (forgot what it was called) had 6 units on the previous parcel.

From what I understand is while Small Lot Ordinances do increase residential density, they do not increase overall density.

There are two 'reasonings' for this-- the supportive infrastructure that effects the types of property under Small Lot Ordinances cannot be scaled down and without sufficient infrastructure and the division of property makes future development unfavorable.

The first reasoning is this-- given we use the approximate standard New York City Block (330' by 990' [326,700 sq ft or 7.5 acres]), at typical single-family development densities [unit per 1/3rd acre] that would equate to 22 units over the 7.5 acres.

Now, let's say these are upper-middle class houses-- 3.5 people with 2.5 cars [2.93 units an acre, 10.25 people, 7.3 cars]. If we look at parking requirements themselves [10'x15'], we're roughly at ~1100 sq ft for parking.

Double this density-- 44 units over 7.5 acres (~6 units per acre, 20.5 people, 14.6 cars, 2200 sq ft parking). What this basically means with a small lot ordinance is while densities and properties can be easily scaled up, the method of scaling infrastructure becomes muddy.

If we throw a Starbucks or a hair salon on this block (businesses with a relatively high parking demand to sq ft of business), people would start throwing fists over parking.

So, in this density battle of 6,560 (~3936 realistically) vs. 13,120 ( ~7872 realistically) per square mile is a tough call because neither solution really approaches the densities and configurations necessary to properly scale up infrastructure. Remember, as we increase small lot density, the people per square mile figure changes the ratio of developed land to infrastructure to necessary to development. I used a 60 (real property) / 40 (infrastructure [roads, parking, right-of-way, schools]). In the 13,120 (double density) model, the split would probably be closer to 50/50.

In order to get the bonuses that come with higher densities-- such as parking garages, functional public transportation, walkable communities, non-bus-dependent schools-- we would have to aim for a maximum density of 18,000 to 24,000 people per square mile.

And onto part two.

(I didn't cite any of that because I felt it was pretty standard planning knowledge although the Cato Institute would certainly disagree.)

I will cite this part.

Small lot ordinances are good for communities to rapidly build up densities that look more favorable for diverse business and industrial practices. But the often do not go far enough in creating what a planner would deem a "real" density.

Land use and personal behaviors certainly are an important factor but the potential for redevelopment (even in less than mature developments) is a bigger factor.

And this is what brings me to the cited portion of this reply:

Donald Shoup (of free parking fame) has expressed an idea for a trend away from small-lot development in favor of what is called "graduated density zoning." It is essentially a mix of the ideology of small lot ordinances with a bit of pro-development concern. (Donald Shoup, Graduated Density Zoning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, 161-179).

The basic idea is "site assembly." But site assembly is a difficult and expensive task and this would only be further hampered by having far more property owners in a small area that would be typical to small lot ordinance developed property.

Rather than use eminent domain, there are attempts to keep land in larger parcels to allow for easier and technically more profitable land sales and redevelopment practices.

In a sense, small lot ordinances destroy the growth curve as it inhibits site assembly. So the contradiction is that small lot ordinances give the density boosts necessary for land to become viable for other ventures but the smaller individual ownership hampers the ability to reach "real" densities.

Yeh you cant go over the existing density allowed. The big advantage is that once were say townhome type projects now perform (for the most part) like single family houses from a liability standpoint. Which is great

So advantages for homeonwer is no HOA, at least limited shared maintenance costs.

but big advantage on developer side is lack of condo insurance.

Bad part is the city still hasnt ironed out the small lot process. Often when a project goes to other departments they give you problems like the project has violations but its just bc they arent properly equipped or informed bout the small lot issues which normally would create problems in a regular project

"The Mews" in Atwater Village is a Small Lot project. It's just finishing up, so you can go to openhouses, download floor plans, and look at lots of pictures from the website/blog > http://www.thegreenmews.com and http://themews.squarespace.com/ (design by Corsini + Stark)

What do you think of it? Not bad but kinda pricey either. Wondering whether Atwater Village has that kind of draw...I like the Rock Row stuff better for the price

I also prefer Rock Row. I think it has a better site plan and a better layout in the individual houses. But I do like the courtyard configuration of units at The Mews - how the window walls open the living and kitchens to the patio. But I don't like how the courtyards are mirrored such that you (as a resident) don't really get any privacy in the court. I'm also not sure about the prices - you can buy a small cottage in Atwater for the same price, and in a better part of the village.

Yeh the biggest thing other than the price is the shared courts.
Kinda defeats the purpose

Courtyards are not shared, but divided by an 8 ft. wall which probably wasn't built yet. Pricing is around $100 sq. ft. less than the avg, normal Atwater sale, and built around 90 years later. Throw in solar panels (not standard on Rock Row) and these are priced right for the area.