this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
825 points (98.0% liked)

People Twitter

6872 readers
726 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Bar I frequented in my 20s had apartments above it. Thought it would be so cool to live there

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

ITT: people who think mixed-use housing is way more common than it actually is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ngl I live in Chicago so to me it seems like the norm rather than the outliar

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It's not, even in Chicago.

41.1% of land area is single-family only. Mixed-use, non-single-family + planned development is 33.8% of land area. The majority of residential land area in Chicago is zoned single-family only.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

41.1% of land. Not the places where people actually live. Take Marina City (AKA the corncobs); there's a restaurant on the ground floor of one, and I think House of Blues Chicago in the other, and then, I dunno, a few hundred condos above them? Go into Wicker Park, Logan Square, Rogers Park, Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Ukrainian Village, Little Village, and on, and on, and almsot every single retail establishment has at least 2-3 stories of apartments and condos above it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If you map it by population, I would expect there to be a difference.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's a little town near me where they allow that zoning. My favorite restaurant has an apartment above it and it is my goal in life to live there and eat there every day, maybe every meal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The old downtown area of the small town I had lived in most of my life had those kinds of buildings where there was retailers/restaurants/a bank below apartments. Shit, even the city hall building had apartments above it. One of my friends in high school lived in one of those above city hall.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

Zoning sounds terrible until your next door neighbor starts running an auto repair shop out of his garage.

"Mixed use" is also a thing. I know of plenty of examples here in the US, I have lived in one of them. New construction consisting of living space above retail is actually kinda trendy right now.

Also if you live above a greasy diner expect cockroaches

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

I haven't read it yet, but arbitrary lines is a very cool book about the subject, and the exact opposite of what you are saying. The author defends that zoning is the wrong way of going about things and proposes other ways of controlling this issue.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago

Zoning is a good tool used poorly. Restaurants and grocery stores being subject to zoning creates issues. My personal belief is neither should be subject to zoning (but still have the parking lots be.) Auto shops, manufacturing, and mining operation type things are examples of where zoning is good.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

On the flip side, you're stuck in a peaceful quiet suburb that's a mile or more from any business.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes. Exactly.

sincerely,

the car manufacturers of America

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Ok, now it's driving me nuts figuring this out. I live in Oklahoma and yeah, minus some small exceptions, our commercial and res are strictly zoned, and maybe this applies to other places where the strip mall and Plaza are king, and there's more room in general? Our 'town squares' are nothing but beauracratic stuff, bars, and historical buildings.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Is this actually illegal in the US? If so, where is it legal? There's British comedy series called Black Books where the protagonist ran a bookstore on the first floor and lived on the second floor. My wife and I have always thought about opening a coffeeshop/bookstore hybrid and live right above it, partially inspired by this.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Is this actually illegal in the US? If so, where is it legal?

It varies by city, but typically the vast majority of land used for housing (upwards of 90% in some of the worst cases) is zoned for single-family detached houses only.

Small live-work places like this, with a single business on the ground floor and a single dwelling unit above, are likely typically in the single-digit percentages, in terms of land area zoned for that use.

(Even the vast majority of non-single-family detached housing wouldn't usually allow stuff like this, but would be medium to high-density apartment/condo buildings instead. The phenomenon of having a gap in housing density is so prevalent it even has a name: "missing middle".)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's totally a thing in the downtown of some older cities, and occasionally in some apartment complexes that have popped up recently, but I'd say that throughout the majority of the country, residential and commercial zones get drawn without overlap.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I live in a town in the west that is a population of about 13,000 but is well within the Seattle metropolitan area.

All of the new build in the city is apartment buildings with commerce on the street level. Sure there are miles and miles of suburbs around the city but downtown is all mixed use for new builds.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure there are miles and miles of suburbs around the city

Which means it's going to be decades before enough redevelopment happens before mixed-use can be considered "common" compared to that sprawl.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's not "common" per se, but if you wanted to live above the store you owned, as the poster was talking about, it would be easy to do so in the United States today.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›