California’s first ADU condo sale offers another path to homeownership
Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to ADU Development
And for a time did alley tours in Greater Capitol Hill.
Article from the Orange County Register. From the article:
San Jose is home to the first accessory dwelling unit sold as a separately owned condo in California, city officials said, setting a potential template for a more affordable path to homeownership. But a lengthy rollout raises questions about whether the model can become a scalable solution to the state’s housing crisis — the sale comes more than two years after the state made such transactions possible.
The 749-square-foot, two-bedroom ADU on Josefina Street near downtown closed last month for $530,000. That’s about a quarter of Santa Clara County’s eye-popping $2.1 million median single-family home price in May, according to the California Association of Realtors. Real estate brokerage Redfin last month listed San Jose among the 10 most expensive U.S. housing markets, based on the share of median income needed to afford to buy a home.
ADUs, also known as in-law units or granny flats, typically have up to 1,200 square feet of living space and must include a kitchen sink, cooking appliance and separate bathroom.
The sale was made possible by a state law passed in 2023, Assembly Bill 1033, which allows homeowners to convert ADUs into condos and sell them separately from the main property, rather than just renting them out. Under the law, ADU condos come with their own property tax bills, but require an HOA agreement with the primary homeowner for common elements, such as roofs or driveways.
Historicity. I have been intrigued by alleys, historic carriage houses, and ADUs for a long time. First in terms of historicity.
- DC Historic Alleys Building Survey, DC Historic Preservation Office
- "The American Alley, Part 1: A Hidden Resource," "The American Alley, Part 2: Origins of the American Alley," "The American Alley, Part 3: The End of the American Alley," "The American Alley, Part 4: Rediscovering the Forgotten Human Scale," Strong Towns/Resilience
- "History: Capitol Hill Alley Dwellings," Hill Rag
- and how on some properties there are historic carriage buildings that have been converted from horse stables to houses. These are on regular house lots.
- There are also some carriage houses on their own lots separate from a street facing lot, developed when the interior of large blocks were "programmed" with buildings separate from the street--often for "industrial uses" like stables, machining, storage, drayage, etc.,
- I learned from a guy I talked to once on a rear alley off of H Street NE who said that at the time (before DC liberalized ADU laws) it was legal for these buildings to have a "caretaker" apartment
- Interior blocks often were developed with housing to use up the space, make it profitable, and sometimes as a way to provide mixed income housing--for servants, lower income people, etc.
- (Later, instead of dealing with interior blocks, developers created intervening streets, such as Acker Place, Lexington Place, Morris Place, Morton Place, and Orleans Place between 6th and 7th Streets NE, Parker Street NE by Union Station, or blocks of rowhouses west of 5th Street NW in Manor Park like Quackenbos Street NW and Quintana Place NW)
- President's wife Ellen Wilson's claim to DC fame was her work to rid blocks of this interior housing, probably because often the people settled there were African-Americans.
- Although some sections remained, like Millers Court NE and Brown's Court SE or on Capitol Hill and became models for building similar housing later
- And because in upper NW, such as the lots east of 4th Street in Manor Park, the deep lots often have free standing garages or nothing, and could accommodate an ADU. Our lot could, which I'd like to take advantage of some time.
- Transit access is key. But I think it's best to focus ADU development within walking distance to a Metrorail station, to reduce the demand for driving. Our house in Manor Park is about three quarters of a mile from Takoma Metrorail Station.
He found that “ADU prevalence correlates with lower-income, renter-occupied, and younger households, denser populations, and areas with higher concentrations of non-white residents and registered Democrats.”
- everyone says "oh, they're cheaper because you don't have to buy the land."
- That's a little true, but the cost of permitting and new construction and financing is still high, over $250/s.f.
- Plus the cost of installing electricity and water/sewage (and maybe gas).
- They are hard to finance, although you can do it through a home equity loan I suppose. And then the rents can't be super cheap because you have to pay off the cost of construction plus the various annual costs.
The amounts of money cities offer to encourage ADU construction aren't very much and usually require renting out at less than market rates.
But why do people disagree on laneway housing? And what issues are at the forefront of the discussions? “An honest conversation,” i.s what I called this in today’s blog title, and that’s what I’m aiming for because I feel like the discussion about laneway housing in Toronto is merely getting started.A client of mine remarked last weekend, “I have no problem if somebody else wants to build a laneway home on our street. But I don’t think I’d take one if it were free. I don’t want somebody living in my backyard with a window that looks out to where my kids play, and I don’t want to park my car under their living room.”
Labels: accessory dwelling units (ADUs), alleys, green-environment-urban, housing market, housing policy and planning, missing middle housing, real estate financing









.webp)





0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home