Being a remaining single family on a now denser street doesn’t necessarily lower its value. Not if someone feels they could build a bigger multi family on that lot.
@Nrdsb4 As BunsenBurner can attest, that’s the present state of affairs in Seattle, where the real estate market has gone berserk. Investors are buying properties in single-family neighborhoods and squeezing in condo buildings, all with the blessings of the city leaders. I suspect that the frenzy over the “new money” and hopes of a personal windfall have dampened some neighbors’ objections. Seattle is hell-bent on becoming a mirror image of Vancouver, or God forbid, San Francisco.
There are teally two different things being discussed here: single homes replaced with high density housing (debatably for the common good) and giant boxy mansions plopped on lots where a perfectly functional house used to be that are not solving any issues such as housing shortages.
Well, the issue of getting sunlight into one’s yard, losing privacy, and looking at a monstrosity are the same with an apartment/condo block and a home that is too large for the lot.
@LakeWashington - to make matters worse, the City Clowncil just agreed to allow construction of multi unit housing with ZERO parking spots. And we are building bike lanes on one existing street to the tune of $12M per mile (the estimate given was $850k). The newly elected mayor is just beginning to realize what kind of major PITAs she has inherited. $200M for a few miles of streetcar?! There is your money for the homeless services.
The same thing is happening in LA. Apartments are being planned with no parking assuming that people will ride the light rail. Not happening since employers are not concentrated in any one location. The train lines are frequented by the homeless who mess the seats and accost commuters. It’s as though the city planners don’t know how real people live.
“Well, the issue of getting sunlight into one’s yard, losing privacy, and looking at a monstrosity are the same with an apartment/condo block and a home that is too large for the lot.”
Yes, but at least with the multi-family housing, one can find a (debatable) consolation in the fact that the new monstrosity is helping to solve the housing shortage, and maybe hope that their piece of RE can be snatched by a developer for a pretty penny should they decide to leave. 
I’m probably the neighbor people hate. We have a big house on the water, we’re the owner after the previous owner did a big remodel. We don’t obstruct anyone’s view though. Why did we buy so big since the kids were older? We wanted particular water - deep on the pier, beachfront on a protected stretch of the water and we wanted to be high enough up to not worry about flooding. That’s pretty specific, particularly in my area. If you want to live on the water here, you pretty much have to deal with whatever the house is like. The owner across the street is in a nursing home, if her sons decide to sell we’re considering buying their place just to keep open space and access to both sides of the water.
Why should young people who don’t own cars be forced to pay for a parking spot? Let the people who have cars pay to park them.
First, Atherton doesn’t allow that type of zoning (condos/townhomes). One lot = one house.
Second, I was (and I think the OP too) talking about “mansions,” maximizing the size of one house on one lot, like the OP is dealing with now. More dense zoning, 2 or more homes on one lot is almost always typically built close to the commercial areas of the various cities and I don’t feel is relevant to the thread.
“Why should young people who don’t own cars be forced to pay for a parking spot? Let the people who have cars pay to park them.”
Seattle is a huge city. Public transportation sucks. Sure, the very downtown core is occupied by young folks with no cars, and that is all good. But the same rules apply to all areas in the city, and developers are happy to maximize their profits. There is no paid parking either (parking lots are being turned into condo projects), so folks park on the street. Some streets are so crowded with cars, they make SF or Boston look good. People are not giving up their cars, biking is not going to happen when it is 40 degrees sheets of rain and you need to take the kid somewhere.
Zoning requirements typically, not always of course, require parking for automobiles.
D1 is moving to Seattle for a year for her post dissertation internship. We went to Seattle to research neighborhoods, and there were some residential streets so crowded with cars that there were times we weren’t sure we would be able to squeeze through.
That’s because the city council began this war on cars. And they are not winning it.
Atherton is interesting, with a requirement for front and back yard size. It would, I think, prevent rampant building that fills a lot.
(I’m sitting here waiting and have little better to do than look up a code, lol.
We live in an economically distressed suburb, in a neighborhood with houses that are 80-100+ years old, and we face a different problem than the OP.
When the house behind us went up for sale, we were very concerned it would be scooped up by an investor and turned into a rental with a high number of occupants. We lucked out, and it is owner-occupied and well cared for.
Then, the couple next door to us had to sell via short sale. Again, we were very concerned about who would buy the distressed property at a low price & what would happen to it. We sort of lucked out. A retired man bought it with the idea of fixing it up. The fixing it up part is not happening and quite a few of the windows are rotting in the frame.
It’s nearly impossible to control or influence what your neighbors do!
Atherton has mostly 1 acre lots, with some slightly smaller and some even bigger. For a typical 1 acre lot in Atherton, you’re allowed a certain amount of “coverage” of the lot for a house, say about 35% coverage for the main house and then you’re allowed to build a “pool house” of roughly 1,500-2,000 SF as well. But you’re also allowed to build basements to the main house, which can add another 1,500-2,000 SF in most instances.
Most cities that I’m aware of have front, side and backyard minimums, unless they’re “zero lot line” (built on the lot line) PUD’s.
The average lot size in Atherton [ Calif] is 1 acres.
that gives you plenty of room for mega mansions and privacy.
course it will cost you 10 million per acre to buy a lot or tear down there these days.
So Denver’s housing market – while white-hot – isn’t on the level of Sillicon Valley or Manhattan. (Though it’s working on it!) And I see a lot of the issues in SV, Seattle, Manhattan play out on a smaller level here. I’ve also seen a huge increase of high-density, multi-use (businesses/offices downstairs, condos/apartments upstairs) buildings without sufficient parking. The theory is that if you want to live in the city, you either need to do so without a car – or pay through the nose for the use of one. It’s a fine theory – but it can’t work without really good public transportation. Which Denver doesn’t have. This is one of those disconnects between urban planners - developers - city politics - public money that continues to make urban centers difficult to navigate in the US. This is where having a strong central government that can dictate terms of development and growth could be really beneficial. The government could say – you want to build? Fine: help subsidize public transportation and X percent of units have to affordable housing. Alas, it’s not the American way…Which is why European cities are so much more livable than most American cities…
High density developments in areas without adequate street parking should require at least one spot per housing unit. If the person doesn’t own a car, they would easily be able to rent out that spot instead.