Yeah I don’t know what this post is really talking about. Unless it’s not in the US or something? I used to live above a restaurant in my early 20s. There were like 4 or 5 apartments above it
Obviously different cities and states have different laws and such, but generally speaking, it’s pretty common for people to live above businesses/in commercially zoned buildings. In fact in my experience commercially owned buildings have the most flexible usage whereas residential zoning has a lot more restrictions/auditing traps If you try to operate a business out of them
I had a friend who rented a storefront. For 5 years, the “store” had a ladder, a bucket of paint, and a picture of the Pope. He lived in the back in a gigantic barely-converted “studio” space.
Even outside of the US, it’s been pretty common in my experience. Especially in cities that are a lot older where there isn’t a lot of space for new builds and they generally went up instead of out.
In america it entirely depends on local laws and how recently the law way changed to disallow it. My town does not allow mixed zoning in new buildings but all the older buildings can still keep their status.
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.
This kinda shit is why I fear for my sister-in-law more when she’s a volunteer fireman than when she’s a mountie. You can reason with an armed resistor, but wood is fire’s favourite food and it will hurt you if you’re in its way.
Nearly every old town square I’ve seen in the Midwest and the south has businesses on the first floor and apartments upstairs. And there are plenty of new urban apartment complexes being built with like 4 floors of apartments over restaurants and various shops. What idiot told this guy that this wasn’t a thing?
My guess is that this experience is very true in suburban North America where you need to drive everywhere and commerical real estate is usually a strip mall. In cities it is very common for lower level of condo towers to have shops and things.
In cities it is very common for lower level of condo towers to have shops and things.
In cities, it is very common for everywhere except for the actual downtown core to not be condo towers at all in the first place, and instead be mostly single-family homes.
Yes, in cities-proper. Not just whole metro areas including suburbs and exurbs; even the core cities themselves are mostly single-family.
For example, here’s the City of Atlanta (not Metro Atlanta; just the core city in the middle of the metro area):
The entire light-yellow area is only single-family houses. (Note: using light yellow for single-family zoning is a common convention among city planners, so all the maps below are going to use that color scheme too.)
Here’s Los Angeles:
Here’s Austin, TX:
I could go on all day. There are only a tiny handful of cities in the United States that aren’t like this.
Not even that. I have lived in various small town and suburbs around Indiana and Tennessee. They’re really common here. Almost every small town’s main square is surrounded by mixed use buildings and mixed use condos are not uncommon either, especially the closer you get to urban areas.
Almost every small town’s main square is surrounded by mixed use buildings
Pick any of those towns and actually look at it from an aerial view. You’ll see that that development pattern extends for a few blocks, at most, and is surrounded by a desert of single-family houses.
Yes, a little bit of mixed use exists in each town. But to say that it’s “really common” in the US overall is absolutely false.
Yeah very common in small towns around the square.
Yeah, “around the square.” As in, only in the oldest part of town that existed before zoning.
If that’s “common” relative to the total housing stock of the town, it means the town has stagnated for the past half-century or more. If it hasn’t stagnated, then that building type is relatively incredibly rare compared to the single-family sprawl that would make up the entire rest of the town outside the square.
There are lots of places with apartments on the 2nd floor and businesses on the 1st floor?
Yes. You may not believe it from the incredulous-sounding question as you’ve written it, but ‘mixed-use’ is the standard for new buildings here, for instance.
pedestrian-targeted commercial on main/ground
professional services - lawyers, accountants, physios, clinics, tech - on levels 2-5
potentially hotel or low-income housing on 5-10, depending on need
residential above that,
rooftop patio/common space
Newer buildings here are getting loading bays in the garage: so 5-ton trucks just go into the parkade for a loading dock and a freight elevator. Buildings targeted to ‘market rental’ will often have a loading bay JUST for moving trucks.
The brand new 35fl building in this region may be targeted at new doctors interning at the local teaching hospital: they’re just across the street. Rumours abound about posh SROs with in-suite W/D (perfect for new docs) and a skybridge connecting the pro-serv level to the hospital.
There are lots of places with apartments on the 2nd floor and businesses on the 1st floor?
Yes. You may not believe it from the incredulous-sounding question as you’ve written it, but ‘mixed-use’ is the standard for new buildings here, for instance.
There’s a vast difference between mixed-use being “standard for new buildings” and having “lots of places” (measured relative to the decades upon decades worth of existing housing stock, which is almost entirely Euclidean-zoned and single-family only) be mixed-use.
This is a real thing, though. Most mixed use in the US falls into one of two categories: either it was built before zoning codes (like most of the small apartments over businesses) or it’s large apartment/condo buildings. Mixed use has become a more popular concept in the past decade or so, but most residential zoning prevents the building of commercial buildings within the area and largely limits the size of dwellings to single family homes.
It’s also why 2 and 3 unit housing is a rarity as well. You mostly see either single family housing or large apartment buildings/condo complexes because it’s hard to get approved to build anything else - either through zoning laws themselves or NIMBYs killing any project.
There are lots of places with apartments on the 2nd floor and businesses on the 1st floor?
Yeah I don’t know what this post is really talking about. Unless it’s not in the US or something? I used to live above a restaurant in my early 20s. There were like 4 or 5 apartments above it
Obviously different cities and states have different laws and such, but generally speaking, it’s pretty common for people to live above businesses/in commercially zoned buildings. In fact in my experience commercially owned buildings have the most flexible usage whereas residential zoning has a lot more restrictions/auditing traps If you try to operate a business out of them
I had a friend who rented a storefront. For 5 years, the “store” had a ladder, a bucket of paint, and a picture of the Pope. He lived in the back in a gigantic barely-converted “studio” space.
Interesting guy. I think he’s clean now.
Even outside of the US, it’s been pretty common in my experience. Especially in cities that are a lot older where there isn’t a lot of space for new builds and they generally went up instead of out.
I would say the US is the one with the most restrictive residential zoning.
In america it entirely depends on local laws and how recently the law way changed to disallow it. My town does not allow mixed zoning in new buildings but all the older buildings can still keep their status.
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.
It’s such a common building type that it has its own name
in firefighting, there’s also the Taxpayer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_(building)
This kinda shit is why I fear for my sister-in-law more when she’s a volunteer fireman than when she’s a mountie. You can reason with an armed resistor, but wood is fire’s favourite food and it will hurt you if you’re in its way.
Is it ‘Firetrap’? Because when Mike in 302 leaves his stove on again, y’all get 3 minutes to get out before it burns up.
\clothes-on-my-back house fire survivor. No wood houses; never again.
Nearly every old town square I’ve seen in the Midwest and the south has businesses on the first floor and apartments upstairs. And there are plenty of new urban apartment complexes being built with like 4 floors of apartments over restaurants and various shops. What idiot told this guy that this wasn’t a thing?
My guess is that this experience is very true in suburban North America where you need to drive everywhere and commerical real estate is usually a strip mall. In cities it is very common for lower level of condo towers to have shops and things.
In cities, it is very common for everywhere except for the actual downtown core to not be condo towers at all in the first place, and instead be mostly single-family homes.
Yes, in cities-proper. Not just whole metro areas including suburbs and exurbs; even the core cities themselves are mostly single-family.
For example, here’s the City of Atlanta (not Metro Atlanta; just the core city in the middle of the metro area):
The entire light-yellow area is only single-family houses. (Note: using light yellow for single-family zoning is a common convention among city planners, so all the maps below are going to use that color scheme too.)
Here’s Los Angeles:
Here’s Austin, TX:
I could go on all day. There are only a tiny handful of cities in the United States that aren’t like this.
Not even that. I have lived in various small town and suburbs around Indiana and Tennessee. They’re really common here. Almost every small town’s main square is surrounded by mixed use buildings and mixed use condos are not uncommon either, especially the closer you get to urban areas.
Pick any of those towns and actually look at it from an aerial view. You’ll see that that development pattern extends for a few blocks, at most, and is surrounded by a desert of single-family houses.
Yes, a little bit of mixed use exists in each town. But to say that it’s “really common” in the US overall is absolutely false.
Towns that have them ARE really common, which was my point.
Glad we agree on the only thing I actually claimed.
So your point was vacuous, got it.
Interestingly, those main squares were all built before zoning. If they were destroyed in a disaster, they could not be rebuilt.
Yeah very common in small towns around the square. Many of them are offices upstairs now too.
It’s where the small town lawyer always lives in a John Grisham book.
Yeah, “around the square.” As in, only in the oldest part of town that existed before zoning.
If that’s “common” relative to the total housing stock of the town, it means the town has stagnated for the past half-century or more. If it hasn’t stagnated, then that building type is relatively incredibly rare compared to the single-family sprawl that would make up the entire rest of the town outside the square.
Yes. You may not believe it from the incredulous-sounding question as you’ve written it, but ‘mixed-use’ is the standard for new buildings here, for instance.
Newer buildings here are getting loading bays in the garage: so 5-ton trucks just go into the parkade for a loading dock and a freight elevator. Buildings targeted to ‘market rental’ will often have a loading bay JUST for moving trucks.
The brand new 35fl building in this region may be targeted at new doctors interning at the local teaching hospital: they’re just across the street. Rumours abound about posh SROs with in-suite W/D (perfect for new docs) and a skybridge connecting the pro-serv level to the hospital.
There’s a vast difference between mixed-use being “standard for new buildings” and having “lots of places” (measured relative to the decades upon decades worth of existing housing stock, which is almost entirely Euclidean-zoned and single-family only) be mixed-use.
Pff, much nicer to invent a situation and use that to justify destroying your country.
This is a real thing, though. Most mixed use in the US falls into one of two categories: either it was built before zoning codes (like most of the small apartments over businesses) or it’s large apartment/condo buildings. Mixed use has become a more popular concept in the past decade or so, but most residential zoning prevents the building of commercial buildings within the area and largely limits the size of dwellings to single family homes.
It’s also why 2 and 3 unit housing is a rarity as well. You mostly see either single family housing or large apartment buildings/condo complexes because it’s hard to get approved to build anything else - either through zoning laws themselves or NIMBYs killing any project.
You can thank Euclidian Zoning for that.
No, there really aren’t. Not compared to the vast swathes of suburban sprawl where they aren’t allowed.