I believe that with the right mix of research and action, accessory dwellings can start to realize their true potential. Why have ADUs remained more of an idea than a reality? My recent work on appraisal methods for properties featuring ADUs 2, supported by The Appraisers Research Foundation, suggests several possible reasons that I believe merit followup. In Portland, Oregon, widely considered a leader in the ADU movement, only 0.3% of properties where ADUs are allowed by zoning actually have them. While planners and social advocates have long promoted these small independent living units on the grounds of otherwise standard single family homes, very few permitted ADUs have been developed, even in municipalities that encourage them.
Should ADUs be just one of a number of strategies for providing those millions of units, or are they so superior that they should be pushed as the most important strategy? If you have thoughts about the following agenda, or anything to add to it, I’d like to hear it.Īccessory dwellings, also known as backyard cottages, granny flats, and ADUs, have been stuck in “good idea” limbo for 30 years. So as great as my personal experience with ADUs has been, I still think it is worth looking into the verity of claims about ADUs, and finding ways to estimate their environmental impact.
In one way or another, millions of housing units for 1 or 2 persons are going to be created. On the other hand, the big demographic changes coming in the next few decades mean policies and trends starting now are a really big deal for the environment. If one accepts all the potential benefits of ADUs as real, then the most productive thing for an advocate of space-efficient housing to do is be an activist - for example, to lobby the big GSEs for policy changes related to appraisals and loans, or to work for the creation of ADU-specific financing programs.
0 kommentar(er)
