16
votes
Not your grandma’s granny flat: How San Diego hacked state housing law to build ADU ‘apartment buildings’
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Ben ChristopherHousing Reporter
- Published
- Nov 28 2023
- Word count
- 3414 words
It’s pretty interesting seeing this policy take shape in San Diego. San Diego’s old neighborhoods do have very large lots with alley access in the back, so they are ideal for this kind of development. I live in one of the 3 single story ADUs built in the backyard of a SFH and I love it. I get to have access to coffee shops and restaurants within walking distance and enjoy a neighborhood that still has a community feeling without needing to afford a full SFH.
Street parking is probably about at capacity as everyone on my street is able to park their cars within a block, but extra development would probably push me a block or two out to park.
I hope that transit infrastructure is built up to complement this policy. The main east/west street is undergoing a road diet soon to go from 4 lanes to 2 car and 2 bus/bike lanes which should greatly improve things.
These buildings have unusual configurations because nobody would build them that way if it weren't for how the regulations work. It reminds me of the architectural influence of window taxes.
Not sure what to think about it, but it does add some architectural variety.
A very interesting article and take on YIMBYism but I think this solution goes a little too far. The growth is completely inorganig and I can very easily relate to residents being put out by faceless developers erecting multistory units peering down into your backyard windows. I would have thought that a more sensible aproach would be to approve bonus ADUs but cap the height limit, it's way less obtrusive while still supplying more needed housing. In the end, the only really sustainable solution is to grow multi-unit multiuse properties near mass transit and then let develpment organically extend out from there but that is a very difficult challenge that I think no city in California is ready to tackle.
I think this is actually more organic than other developments. This development is more market driven than typical zoning. If people didn’t want to live in these areas in these ADU apartments, they wouldn’t get built. These units are really only getting built in areas with many amenities within walking distance and areas close to job hubs. These areas may have been alright for SFHs decades ago, but they are long overdue for density.
This method of building apartments only came up because so many people have blocked the normal way of getting apartments approved.
Want and doesn't-have-any-other-choice-to-live-in-the-area are two different things. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say nearly no one living in these "granny towers" actively wanted to live in them, they've just been priced out of the other options. The addition of these granny towers has only exacerbated the problem as now new development is including them in order to create a revenue stream for the buyers and older homes have the potential for their addition included in the price of the home.
I think there are a lot of benefits to the ADU apartments compared to traditional apartments buildings. They are much quieter than traditional large apartment complexes and they do preserve the character of neighborhoods. Living in an ADU in an area with many ADUs and a few ADU apartments, you still get the benefits of being able to connect with your neighbors more than you can in an area with huge complexes.
Especially in San Diego where a SFH can go for >$1,000,000 in a traditionally middle class neighborhood, ADU development allows more people to afford housing. If you can spend a few hundred thousand more to add extra units in your backyard, you can make owning a SFH an attainable dream for people who would otherwise be priced out of the city. The article mentioned that ADU construction hasn’t exploded in lower cost metro areas in California, so at a certain point this development would slow down once the housing market reaches an equilibrium.
In San Diego, this development is technically available everywhere, but you are seeing it in areas that are closer to downtown and more central to the city. This area in red is where most the ADUs are being built in San Diego. This is a desirable area with better walkability and bike infrastructure than other neighborhoods here. These outer suburbs aren’t seeing much ADU development. These areas are less walkable and further from public transit.
ADU development actually helps save the suburbs. By converting central areas to higher density, living in a SFH in a suburb becomes a choice for those who want that and not the only way to find housing.
I'm not disagreeing that ADUs have benefits vs traditional block apartments, I'm disagreeing with the statement: "If people didn't want to live in these areas in these ADU apartments, they wouldn't get built."
The people living in the granny towers don't have much of a choice in this area because they've been priced out of SFH and it's only exacerbated by the addition of granny towers. A mortgage lender provides a loan based on your ability to pay the mortgage at present, not based on a future guess of increased income. If you don't meet the income/debt requirements to afford a $1M house you aren't going to meet the income/debt requirements of a $1.3M house with an ADU and the rules allowing these granny towers to be built is included in the price of the houses as it's seen as a revenue stream. Two houses where all things are the same except one allows an ADU to be built and one does not is going to see the former priced higher than the latter.
Sure, but total price isn't the biggest problem right now. If a property becomes 30% more expensive but allows 50% more people to live there, that's a win overall.
"Granny towers" is a good way to brand these ADUs in a way that will make people think these are huge developments "towering" over small SFHs, but the height limit is 25 feet. That's the average height of a two story house. These may resemble apartment dwelling, but they are not tall apartment buildings.
Sure it is.
Price is the reason no one can afford to live anywhere.
If a property becomes 1% more expensive but houses 200% more people, it's still a loss when no one can afford to live in it, which is the case now. The people living in the ADUs can't afford a house. The people in the house can't afford it without the ADUs.
Granny towers is how the article refers to them, 25 feet is still quite tall when surrounded by almost exclusively single story homes, as seems to be the case here and one of the primary issues raised. Why they don't have a rule that disallows an ADU being taller than the primary structure, as is the case everywhere else I've seen/lived, is the major concern. Allowing an accessory to the property to be twice as tall as the primary building is effectively "towering" over them.