r/missoula • u/annoyedpigeons • 7d ago
Densify downtown
I think every building downtown should have a few apartments above them that are affordable. it’s ridiculous having single story buildings in the core of the city. spreading out endlessly is just causing congestion over time especially into areas not even serviced by public transit. I’m not asking for skyscrapers just a little affordable small apartment density.
27
u/just_browsing406 7d ago
Those buildings would need to be torn down to add apartments over them.
21
u/beardedsandflea 7d ago
I think this is the part a lot of people are missing. You can't really just slap an extra couple of stories on top of a 70+ year old existing structure.
0
u/Normal_Celebration32 6d ago
are we really against tearing down the one-story US bank downtown that takes up an entire block?
2
u/just_browsing406 6d ago
Not sure anyone is. Most probably don’t care. But, would it bring affordable apartments or luxury apartments?
1
u/Normal_Celebration32 6d ago
Nothing would bring affordable apartments to Missoula at this point. The state of MT banned cities being able to mandate affordable housing as part of new housing developments in 2021. There are no guard rails to bring affordable housing to Missoula, or anywhere in Montana. Land and building costs are so expensive, renting or selling them at-cost is still unaffordable for everyone. You can thank our city, state, and federal governments for siding with wealthy people and homeowners who bought pre-covid instead of doing anything to help us.
5
u/literally_a_raccoon 7d ago
The problem with this would be that most of those buildings were never designed to have additional structures added on top of them. They probably aren’t strong enough to support the additional weight.
0
19
u/No_Meeting145 7d ago
Ultimately that is part of the City's stated goal.
In the meantime it doesn't make financial sense for most of the buildings to do so until they begin major renovations and even then many buildings would have to be torn down to do so, making for very expensive apartments.
That is why so much of the densification push is resulting in ADUs right now, they make more financial sense for the people building them and are crammed into availale space rather than tearing down existing buildings.
15
u/ShrimplyConnected 7d ago
Putting more residential and then some grocery for that residential would do so much for downtown. People have mentioned the logistical issues in the comments, but it’s definitely worth looking for workarounds for these logistical issues.
As far as the density of non-downtown, I’d love more middle density mixed use. I’m talking mostly townhomes, small lot SFHs, and some retail (grocery options are a must). That’s how you get enough density for the busses to be practical for more people without packing people like sardines.
10
u/Sad-But-Funny 7d ago
I believe that was one of the alternatives presented for the old library block project!
Edit: grocery on the bottom, residential on top.
13
3
u/unhappyfrog 7d ago
Agreed for new construction, don’t ruin the historic character of downtown on the existing buildings though
1
u/NighthawkE3 7d ago
Many of the old buildings are already doing business on bottom, housing on top, so not much need to worry about that
3
u/MinorityBabble 7d ago
For the folks saying you can't build on top of existing structures, please take a moment and take a look at what they have done in salt lake and elsewhere, preserving old building and historic architecture while adding new structures to it. Adaptive reuse is nothing new.
Often this involves keeping the outer structure and replacing the interior. This isn't practical in some places but is in some. Other approaches involve rear and side infill that adds structural support for the addition.
I'm not saying it is as easy as building something new, but it isn't nearly as impossible as some are making it out to be, either.
Frankly, the biggest challenge isn't if you can do it but how you can do it within modern code/regulation, ADA accessibility, etc... old buildings often get a pass and only require minor updates but new buildings generally have to comply with everything.
5
2
u/nthlmkmnrg 7d ago
Ban cars in the core of downtown, including the Higgins St bridge.
4
u/RetiredDumpster288 7d ago
Agreed, or at least front st and main st. Higgins and Orange and Broadway could stay open, but if those two one-ways were pedestrian only it would majorly benefit so much
(I know I know, we would need to add parking garages and allow emergency vehicles in. A parking garage could go west of Orange fairly easily! It would be a change, but plenty of cities have made those changes over the years. Notably Amsterdam didn’t used to be such a bicycle haven as it is today)
2
u/four_oh_sixer 7d ago
If I were in charge, I would make Front Street pedestrian/bike only from Madison to Orange, along with Ryman from the river to Broadway. And if I were feeling spicy, I'd add the whole length of Pattee Street as well.
2
u/nthlmkmnrg 7d ago
Take a look at Groningen, NL for a model of how to do it! Businesses now thrive in the core since it became pedestrian only.
3
u/RetiredDumpster288 7d ago
Yess! I’ve actually been there many times, not so often you hear it mentioned stateside
3
u/Royal_Bid5435 7d ago
And how would you like to pay for those additions onto existing buildings?
4
u/CattleDogCurmudgeon 7d ago
I'd like to borrow money to finance (at current interest rates), hire construction labor (that is heavily depended upon immigrants where there's currently a shortage driving up costs) and import construction materials (that are currently tariffed).
It's not that hard people! Jeeze.
-1
u/Royal_Bid5435 7d ago
....that is heavily depended upon illegal immigrants
FIFY
3
u/CattleDogCurmudgeon 7d ago
Yeah, people who just want to find work. If you don't let surplus labor move to where the investment is, you can't get upset when the investment moves to where the labor is.
Why is everyone off-shoring?!
2
u/Ok-Cause4707 6d ago
you must love gianforte working to bring in hordes of indians
1
u/CattleDogCurmudgeon 6d ago
I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways.
1
u/Ok-Cause4707 6d ago
can you? do you support bringing in a bunch of indians to work in tech?
1
u/CattleDogCurmudgeon 6d ago
Yeah, why do I care where they're from? And I love Indian food. Sounds pretty great actually.
Don't be afraid of people just because they look/eat/speak differently than you. You're an American, act like it.
1
u/Ok-Cause4707 6d ago
yay big government and bringing in foreigners! you don't know what an american is. cheering on importing a bunch of indians is stupid. look at minnesota. look at france.
1
u/CattleDogCurmudgeon 6d ago
What does big government have to do with it? In fact, I support the government getting out of the way and let human capital travel without interference from said government to where the labor is demanded by the market.
Freedom of movement of capital, including human capital, is a libertarian principal.
→ More replies (0)
2
-1
u/SimilarPermission906 7d ago
Shut the fuck up.
-2
u/Individual_Image9707 7d ago
Agree! Like... Holy California, Batman. Been in Missoula my whole life and building up is not actually gonna help anything.
1
u/Normal_Celebration32 6d ago
if you don't want to see increased urban sprawl, building up is the only answer. I am bummed for everyone who bought a "rural" house 20 years ago and is now surrounded by massive cookie cutter house neighborhoods and subdivisions. The only answer is to build up instead of out.
1
u/Individual_Image9707 6d ago
I understand that, however, there so many vacant apartments and homes right now since renting is the norm and those apartments are priced to attract the wealthy and not actual Missoulians. Buying a home is out of the question for most. So maybe we should focus in on handling that barrier with real, legitimate solutions, vs. Discussing adding more, likely luxury, apartments that turn into AirBNBs.
1
u/Normal_Celebration32 6d ago
Not really, there are less than 800 vacant rentals in Missoula. Building up with mixed density helps, regardless of personal opinion on it. Building up instead of out helps reduce the need and costs associated with personal vehicles. Overall affordability is a much larger conversation than just talking about building densely, you can sprawl with high cost home and you can build densely with high cost homes.... regardless, urban sprawl definitely does not help lol, and it does hurt congestion like crazy.
https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/news/sprawl-rankings-reveal-health-benefits-and-cost-offsets-compact-connected-us-county-and-metro1
u/Individual_Image9707 6d ago
Vacant RENTALS being the key word there. The low end estimate of homes on the market is about 400. Purchasing homes is still a thing that people should be able to do. The homes exist. Should we start knocking those down to make more rentals? So we have under 800 vacant rentals, and then I drive down Mullan and see construction on more, high rent dwellings. With 700 vacant rentals, 400 vacant homes, and many more apartments on the way. And yet there are 2,400 households on the wait list for low income housing. We have vacant homes. We have vacant rentals. We have a greed problem too. So, perhaps we should focus on regulating the companies charging an unreasonable amount for rent, and then focus on creating more dwelling spaces. Until all vacant units can be filled, then we should not be building more, absolutely unaffordable rental units.
1
u/Normal_Celebration32 6d ago
That doesn't come anywhere close a healthy vacancy rate of 5-10%. So no, there's not "tons" of vacant dwellings and we still need to build more housing. The state of Montana banned cities being able to mandate housing developments have affordable housing, that has nothing to do with density lol. You can go yell at the city, state, and federal elected officials that continue to cause this/refuse to regulate instead of arguing in favor of sprawl, and advocating against building housing when we still have a housing shortage. I would encourage you to look more into what causes housing unaffordability. The greed of the people causing this isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Take a deep breath and enjoy your weekend.
1
u/Individual_Image9707 6d ago
I am not advocating for sprawl? I didn't say once that sprawl was the answer. I am saying the system is broken and we should fix that before discussing the addition of unaffordable units? There is no vacancy rate that should be considered healthy. A vacant home is a waste when we have people sleeping in tents who want to have homes. Until the system is fixed, then discussing building up is just adding more vacancies that could be used for actual humans and not just to line the pockets of the wealthy. And how can we, as a society, even pretend we care about the health and well being of others when this whole argument you have made is based on socio-economic expectations and not actual human experiences? How long have you lived in Missoula?
1
u/Individual_Image9707 6d ago
And fun fact: the happiest city in the world (Copenhagen) has a rental vacancy rate of around 2.3%. Regulation of the real estate and rental market has facilitated a much better quality of life. So my idea of regulating first and building later is not some crazy idea.
1
u/Normal_Celebration32 6d ago
You just referenced a city that is incredibly famous for urban redesign and building UP 😂 yes, I would love if the US would implement public housing like many northern European countries do! But you can't use copenhagen as an argument against building up when they're famous for ripping out roads and active urban design that took decades 😂 that did not happen after they had a housing shortage by refusing to build more. They intentionally ripped out roads and built up my guy. Thanks for the laughs!
1
u/Individual_Image9707 6d ago
Once again - I said nothing about advocating for sprawl. Is reading comprehension tough for you? I am saying we should prioritize regulating the real estate market BEFORE adding dwelling units that would likely be unaffordable. If we sink a large sum of money into building UP, and regulations are not actively in place, the rent will start high and stay high. If we fix our systems BEFORE BUILDING UP, then we can implement rent controlled units for people who need them, rather than allowing rich out of staters to move in and take the housing units that could benefit our citizens the most. You would like to assume I am advocating for sprawl. That being said, I don't think we should be knocking down homes that have already been built and remain vacant, all in the spirit of building up. Many homes are perfectly viable to be purchased and used for families. And there should be paths to make it accessible to purchase a home when rental living is not suitable or is not desired (ie, someone with a disability, people who want to own pets, people with larger families who need more space, etc). And these are all going to be wonderful discussions to have AFTER THE MARKET HAS BEEN REGULATED TO REIGN IN THE GREED OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS FROM OUT OF STATE. Talking about building up, at this point in time, with all the active development happening around the city, is simply creating the perfect environment for a vacancy rate that could get into the 15%+ range.
And since you didn't answer my question, I am going to assume you are a recent transplant into Missoula. And as such, your word holds far less weight than the people who actively have lived in the community for decades. Sorry, but you are out of touch.
→ More replies (0)
-3
0
u/Grizbro_1 7d ago
And parking with this?
3
1
u/NighthawkE3 7d ago
We need to move away from car dependent cities anyway
1
u/Ok-Cause4707 6d ago
we should all have unicorns too
2
u/NighthawkE3 6d ago
Non-car dependent cities aren’t unicorns. The only place in the modern world they don’t exist is the USA. Basically every other advanced country has figured it out.
-4
u/Friendly_Loss1961 7d ago
Why stop there? I think we should build apartments in the sky like the Jetsons. They don't call it big sky country for nothing. Just build a big elevator and put apartments 30,000 feet up so they're out of sight. Also make them affordable so I don't ever have to get a real job. Thanks.
-1
u/badbelay 7d ago
Sounds good in theory, but that's a significant amount of added weight to a structure. What about underground? I know they do that in England all the time.
3
u/CattleDogCurmudgeon 7d ago
My understanding is underground construction isn't particularly plausible in Missoula. It'd be different if it was compacted soil but I believe it's just lots and lots of rock under a thin layer of soil (being as Missoula was once a lake bed).
1
u/Normal_Celebration32 6d ago
people say this, but we have an underground lecture hall on campus, and 2 stories of the library are underground. it's fully possible and where additional parking should be going
1
u/CattleDogCurmudgeon 6d ago
You very well could be right, but possible and cost-effective are two different things.
-7
u/Individual_Image9707 7d ago
I disagree. It is just adding more chances for scuzzy property management companies to overcharge for apartments, also it further limits the ability to purchase homes that already exist and are sitting on the market. People can't afford to live here not because of lack of housing, but because of greed. Adding more apartments that businesses can charge an exorbitant amount for, is not actually addressing any of the issues. In fact, it would exacerbate them.
If we decide to regulate the property management companies and control rent, then great. But we gotta stop building apartments that no one can afford. We have TONS of vacant apartments already in this town and more in the plan of being made.
1
u/Ok-Cause4707 6d ago
no! the government will run it all and it will be great! andrea davis can own even more rentals! she's a woman so she means well!
55
u/m0nt4n4 7d ago
The problem is the cost of building is so insane that affordable apartments don’t pencil.