The great recession left plenty of scars in St. Paul. In some neighborhoods it also left vacant lots. Yes the lots are small and they had small houses on them that were razed at some point after the owners stopped paying the mortgage or the taxes. Often these lots end up being annexed by neighboring properties because in my neighborhood those 40 by 120 lots are considered too small to build on, at least according to some people who work for the city.
I just found a new 3000+ home built in the Mac Groveland neighborhood on a 40 X 128 foot lot. The lot previously had a very small home on it. In my neighborhood and in others that same lot would be considered too small to build on. The house looks out of place next to the smaller houses on the block but no more out of place than the vacant lots in my neighborhood
It doesn’t appear that building smaller homes on any lot is sustainable for the builders and of course our building codes won’t allow for any kind of temporary structures or tiny houses. What ever happened to the little ramblers they used to build in the 50’s and 60’s? They were small, efficient and affordable.
We need more affordable houses. I keep thinking that smaller homes might be more affordable and in the long run more sustainable yet houses keep getting bigger and bigger even as the number of people living in each separate household has been getting smaller.
In the city I think vacant lots are ugly. It always looks like something is missing. Just my 2 cents worth. . . and yes I know I wrote about vacant lots last week too.