There are lots of places with apartments on the 2nd floor and businesses on the 1st floor?
I think OP is talking about a single building with single-family occupancy and commercial storefront. At least in the US, a lot of single-family residential zones exclude commercial use.
in firefighting, there's also the Taxpayer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_(building)
Zoning sounds terrible until your next door neighbor starts running an auto repair shop out of his garage.
"Mixed use" is also a thing. I know of plenty of examples here in the US, I have lived in one of them. New construction consisting of living space above retail is actually kinda trendy right now.
Also if you live above a greasy diner expect cockroaches
On the flip side, you're stuck in a peaceful quiet suburb that's a mile or more from any business.
Yes. Exactly.
sincerely,
the car manufacturers of America
Zoning is a good tool used poorly. Restaurants and grocery stores being subject to zoning creates issues. My personal belief is neither should be subject to zoning (but still have the parking lots be.) Auto shops, manufacturing, and mining operation type things are examples of where zoning is good.
Zoning sounds great until you want to start a small business on your property, and you have to spend years convincing several councils and review boards that a photography business is not going to destroy the neighborhood character... and then you need to pay for a traffic study to prove it won't negatively impact parking or meaningfully increase car travel on the street. And if it manages to get approved, then some retired busybody with no life will complain at every town council meeting that it's attracting a bad crowd, and there's too many people around now.
There is definitely a place for reasonable limits, but almost nowhere in the United States has that. People need to accept that neighborhoods change, and expecting them to be frozen in time is literally insane and fiscally irresponsible.
Why is a next-door auto repair neighbour bad? Do you not have laws on noise?
If you live above a proper restaurant expect no roaches ever, because they can't afford for literally a single roach to be seen in their restaurant by their customers.
FWIW, I used to take my car to an auto shop located in the middle of a residential neighborhood, next door to an ice cream and bait shop. It did not affect the neighbors in any way that I could see, and didn't affect the property values.
I haven't read it yet, but arbitrary lines is a very cool book about the subject, and the exact opposite of what you are saying. The author defends that zoning is the wrong way of going about things and proposes other ways of controlling this issue.
Bar I frequented in my 20s had apartments above it. Thought it would be so cool to live there
I helped move some coworkers into an apartment directly over a bar in a decent sized bar district.
It was a cool pad, ancient, crazy 1800's storage warehouse vibe, a dozen great food options and breakfast places.
WOMP WOMP WOMP WOMP till 2am most nights. A vagrant that liked to crash on their doorstep and peed on the door most days. If they want out between X and Y hour, they'd have to shoo him off the little porch to get in.
Yup. You can do any store that closes at a reasonable hour, not a bar or club.
My last place was directly over a karaoke bar. It was weird how the sound of drunk off key singing became a comforting sleep sound. I missed it when they shut down.
I want every big box store and strip mall in America to be obligated to build enough housing on top and above as it would take to staff the store and their families at a minimum.
Im not living on site and working at the company store...
The number of managers that would come upstairs to knock on your door to get you to cover a shift; it angers me just imagining it.
Oh no doubt. The actual staff wouldn't have to live there. They'd just have to have that much housing built up over the stores.
But also thinking strip malls that are often filled with small stores already owned and operated by a family. They'd only need one or two units overhead, thus being close to as described in the original post.
Also gives a solid advantage to the small mom and pop over the soulless profit machine, I like this idea :)
One of the things I absolutely loved in China was the almost systematic X over 1 buildings everywhere. It created so much life in the residential areas! A lot of residential areas would have some sort of pedestrian central hub, and then on the outer layer, business at ground level with convenience shops, fruit shop, noddle shop, etc. Coming back to France and its stupid zoning system is just so painful. Seeing all those lifeless suburbs, those lifeless housing estates, and everything concentrated in some shitty commercial areas separate from it all. Ugh.
Huh, what city in France are you talking about? Every city I've ever visited had mixed zoning with shops and restaurants in the ground floor and flats above. Of cause there are also blocks of houses without shops, but that's mainly because you need more space to house a certain amount of people than for them to shop.
I there are also suburbs where every house has like a 1000m² of garden around it, and of course these houses don't have a shop in their basement. But that's because people choose to live like that and not because it's the only option.
There's a little town near me where they allow that zoning. My favorite restaurant has an apartment above it and it is my goal in life to live there and eat there every day, maybe every meal.
ITT: people who think mixed-use housing is way more common than it actually is.
Ngl I live in Chicago so to me it seems like the norm rather than the outliar
It's not, even in Chicago.
41.1% of land area is single-family only. Mixed-use, non-single-family + planned development is 33.8% of land area. The majority of residential land area in Chicago is zoned single-family only.
41.1% of land. Not the places where people actually live. Take Marina City (AKA the corncobs); there's a restaurant on the ground floor of one, and I think House of Blues Chicago in the other, and then, I dunno, a few hundred condos above them? Go into Wicker Park, Logan Square, Rogers Park, Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Ukrainian Village, Little Village, and on, and on, and almsot every single retail establishment has at least 2-3 stories of apartments and condos above it.
If you map it by population, I would expect there to be a difference.
Zoning is one of the biggest issues facing major urban areas. Cutting down on it will be integral to facing the cost of living crisis.
A lot of the new buildings in my city have stores and restaurants on the griund floor with apartments above. Also there are older places with apartments above a business in my city. It seems like its just post WW2 construction wanted to get away from it. We seem to be moving back towards that.
Is this actually illegal in the US? If so, where is it legal? There's British comedy series called Black Books where the protagonist ran a bookstore on the first floor and lived on the second floor. My wife and I have always thought about opening a coffeeshop/bookstore hybrid and live right above it, partially inspired by this.
It's totally a thing in the downtown of some older cities, and occasionally in some apartment complexes that have popped up recently, but I'd say that throughout the majority of the country, residential and commercial zones get drawn without overlap.
I live in a town in the west that is a population of about 13,000 but is well within the Seattle metropolitan area.
All of the new build in the city is apartment buildings with commerce on the street level. Sure there are miles and miles of suburbs around the city but downtown is all mixed use for new builds.
Is this actually illegal in the US? If so, where is it legal?
It varies by city, but typically the vast majority of land used for housing (upwards of 90% in some of the worst cases) is zoned for single-family detached houses only.
Small live-work places like this, with a single business on the ground floor and a single dwelling unit above, are likely typically in the single-digit percentages, in terms of land area zoned for that use.
(Even the vast majority of non-single-family detached housing wouldn't usually allow stuff like this, but would be medium to high-density apartment/condo buildings instead. The phenomenon of having a gap in housing density is so prevalent it even has a name: "missing middle".)
Just move to europe you can. Where i live theres a pizza place under and the guy running it is literally one of my neighbours(apartments) and literally the next house on the street is on top of a bakery/cafe, all owned by a family.
In my last year at uni some of my mates lived over a curry house. It was brilliant as when I went round we’d inevitably put some videos on and order food from downstairs.
I mean that person was wrong, there are absolutely places where mixed use setups like that are a thing. It's rarer but it exists. Zoning laws suck and aren't a good reason, but it's also not a good reason because there are places that don't have this issue. Also if it was like that when it was built and has been used like that since forever they allow it by grandfathering it in, not a forever solution but it does happen.
The old downtown area of the small town I had lived in most of my life had those kinds of buildings where there was retailers/restaurants/a bank below apartments. Shit, even the city hall building had apartments above it. One of my friends in high school lived in one of those above city hall.
Ok, now it's driving me nuts figuring this out. I live in Oklahoma and yeah, minus some small exceptions, our commercial and res are strictly zoned, and maybe this applies to other places where the strip mall and Plaza are king, and there's more room in general? Our 'town squares' are nothing but beauracratic stuff, bars, and historical buildings.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
