I left too much unsaid in my last blog about 1,000 square foot houses. Unmentioned were old and strong memories from a childhood in Great Britain. These memories form the basis for my great displeasure with a building code that treats small homes as some sort of inferior entity, unworthy of Knox. 
As a young girl, I spent a summer with my Aunt Ferine in a lovely little village in a region of England called the Cotswold. If you’ve been to Disneyland you have seen the idealized version of the thatched roofed stone houses common to this area. Ferine lived in a small cottage very much like the one pictured here. The walls were at least 2 feet thick so that the windowsills were cozy seats. A very small front garden and a small-stonewalled flower and veggie garden completed the property. Her home was delightful, offering a quality of life hard for Knox dwellers to imagine. Let me assure you that this home did not have a 1,000 square foot ground floor. I would say it was 500 or 600 sq ft ground floor with 2 small attic bedrooms.
I think that the whole point of zoning ordinances is to facilitate quality of life. If that is true, then the possibility to build a home designed to facilitate a certain high quality of life is closed because of zoning. In the Cotswold region are villages that architectural experts and experts on city planning say are the most livable in the world. The center of these villages is most often attached row houses that in America we might call town houses. This form of housing has been successfully replicated in some cities in America. There are city blocks just south of the Chicago Loop that have been built recently that attempt to capture the qualities of these row houses and actually come close. Whereas it is very difficult to do in Chicago due to security issues, it would be easy to do in Knox. Sadly, our zoning ordinance closes this and most other possibilities for attached housing.
R-3 Residential (Multi-Family) would be the needed zoning designation for building a row house or townhouse. It is almost beyond belief but there is NO AVAILABLE land in this plan to build any R-3 Residential (Multi-Family). The only parcels of land so designated are already developed apartment complexes. Why in the world would a city plan simply exclude the development of any townhouses, condominiums or apartment buildings? Is it hatred of people that might want to live in any manner in which the Shillings don’t approve? Is the only “proper” way to live in a house more than 1,000 square feet on lot more than 80 feet wide and 150 feet deep with a correct side yard and front yard? Emphatically, no! This is not the only proper way to live, nor is it even the best. The Shillings and our City Council only let us have a narrow, perhaps bigoted, range of possibilities.
Below is a lovely photo of row houses in Bibury, England, often thought of as the most beautiful village in the world. Note: big houses and little houses all in a row.
As a young girl, I spent a summer with my Aunt Ferine in a lovely little village in a region of England called the Cotswold. If you’ve been to Disneyland you have seen the idealized version of the thatched roofed stone houses common to this area. Ferine lived in a small cottage very much like the one pictured here. The walls were at least 2 feet thick so that the windowsills were cozy seats. A very small front garden and a small-stonewalled flower and veggie garden completed the property. Her home was delightful, offering a quality of life hard for Knox dwellers to imagine. Let me assure you that this home did not have a 1,000 square foot ground floor. I would say it was 500 or 600 sq ft ground floor with 2 small attic bedrooms.
I think that the whole point of zoning ordinances is to facilitate quality of life. If that is true, then the possibility to build a home designed to facilitate a certain high quality of life is closed because of zoning. In the Cotswold region are villages that architectural experts and experts on city planning say are the most livable in the world. The center of these villages is most often attached row houses that in America we might call town houses. This form of housing has been successfully replicated in some cities in America. There are city blocks just south of the Chicago Loop that have been built recently that attempt to capture the qualities of these row houses and actually come close. Whereas it is very difficult to do in Chicago due to security issues, it would be easy to do in Knox. Sadly, our zoning ordinance closes this and most other possibilities for attached housing.
R-3 Residential (Multi-Family) would be the needed zoning designation for building a row house or townhouse. It is almost beyond belief but there is NO AVAILABLE land in this plan to build any R-3 Residential (Multi-Family). The only parcels of land so designated are already developed apartment complexes. Why in the world would a city plan simply exclude the development of any townhouses, condominiums or apartment buildings? Is it hatred of people that might want to live in any manner in which the Shillings don’t approve? Is the only “proper” way to live in a house more than 1,000 square feet on lot more than 80 feet wide and 150 feet deep with a correct side yard and front yard? Emphatically, no! This is not the only proper way to live, nor is it even the best. The Shillings and our City Council only let us have a narrow, perhaps bigoted, range of possibilities.
Below is a lovely photo of row houses in Bibury, England, often thought of as the most beautiful village in the world. Note: big houses and little houses all in a row.
3 comments:
A reader writes suggesting that a developer could probably get approval of a neighborhood based on the English village model if the developer made the application as part of a Planned Unit Development.
I think this is a great subject and something does need to be changed. How are we supposed to grow when the city is not even expanding? Our city says we have to be 15' from one side yard and 10' from the other and have a back yard or front yard big enough that it could have been used for another lot. It is much worse in the county. You have to have two acres. That is nuts, all it is doing is limiting future development close to town (except for the Schillings). Tell me how places like Valpo have 100+ lot subdivisions NOT in the city limits and they are only 60X120? Are we better than them? We could not build a house like that here because we say that you have 1000 sq ft on ground floor. I just think they need to re-think a lot of development issues and not give so much power to oficials. If a soil scientist tells me a septic will be fine on my land how can our Halth Inspector (who is not a scientist) tell me it is too small and not issue a permit? Houses in Porter County that are 5' from each side yard and 20' from the back, that have 960 sq ft on the first level (including garage) with a small basement and 800 sq ft upstairs sell for $250,000+ and they develope 150 lots at a time. People can argue all they want but wouldn't it be better than having big rundown yards like we do here? Or trailers all over the county next to nice residential housing. I am not saying to do away with single wides, but there should be a place for everything. If there were 3 or 4 entrances and exits to the same subdivision that had 10' between houses it would be much safer. A crimnal wouldn't want to come into an area like that. They will come to somebody's house on 2 secluded acres and steal 4-wheelers every week. Also, why allow splitting of property once per year for deveopment? If the same person owned all the property on 35 from 200 S to Toto Rd. they could split their property every 12 months. So in a matter of 10 years there could be a total of 12 houses right along 35 from 200 S to Toto Rd. which are probably the two worst intersections in Knox. Wouldn't it be so much safer letting them subdivide all at once and have one entrance into the subdivision instead of 12 more driveways in a one mile stretch. A lot of our officials have no idea what they are doing, just look at some of the members on the county zoning board, that is a joke! As to answer the post about the planned unit development. It would only get approved for a few chosen people. Anyone else who went in there ad tried would be told it is not a good idea and we dont's need it. I think it would be worth looking into if I were on the board but I wouldn't accociate with those who only are looking for their own personal gain. Look at everyone on the county board. They all would gain in their own business if certain decisions are made in their favor. There is no way the hog farm would get approved if anyone else tried. He is a board member himself. Another member wants lot sizes (which is a good idea for growth) to change in the county and he sells new manufatured homes. It goes on and on...
I find your comments regarding the rules in Valparaiso/ Porter as compared to Knox/ Starke to be quite informative as to the defects in our local situation. I also agree with you the rules change depending on who you are. A also agree that most change, for better or worse happens because of the self-interest of the officials in charge. This is a puzzle to me. I do think that most these men and women are honorable. It just seems that they have a terrible ethical blind spot for self-dealing and nepotism. Perhaps it is because things have forever been done this corrupt way around here. Just like Chicago where nobody seems to blink when an Alderman sets it up so that his child can replace him. It is simply the way it is done.
Post a Comment