We don't need additional zoning ordinances. Mpls has to realize that middle class people (especially with children) are not going to move here - or if they live here, they will leave. Why? Many of the homes are too small, don't have 2 car garages, have alleys that are hell in the winter. Many Mpls homes were not designed for later 20th century living, let alone 21st century. People want 2,400 - 2,800 sq ft, with closets, decent size kitchens, bedrooms, something more than a 5x7 bath,good floor plans, etc.

These bungalows and double bungalows are just awful. They probably were awful when they were built. Must of met a price point. IMO this character is not worth perserving.

What Mpls should do is buy blocks and blocks of homes (for a fair market price), tear them down, survey the land into bigger lots. Then people can build 21st century homes, ajacent to one another. If we do this over a period of years, we build a base of attractive housing stock.

Building a large house on a small lot, is not attractive either. These poor folks will have less of a resale value, and the homes do look out of place.

People live in Minneapolis for the character and charm of the old houses. Move to the burbs if you want giant cookie cutter homes.

People live in Minneapolis for the character and charm of the old houses.

I had to live in a South Mpls home, I've first hand experienced their 'charm'.

What's so charming about houses that weren't designed for todays style of living? It's obvious that not a lot of thought went into most of the 20's - 30's - 40's homes. Just take a look around South Mpls.

Is it charming because many of them have only a one car garage? That you have to park your other car on the street, and perhaps get towed when it snows? Or you have to shovel the car out? I've had one car stolen, and one vandalized - both times because I had to park one of the cars on the street. Is this charm?

When we have a cold, snowy winter, take a drive around S Mpls, see how many homes get ice dams because of improper design, venting or insulation. How about the 5-6' rain gutter leaders, cause the house isn't graded properly, and the lot is too small to correct the problem?

My 'spacious' S. Mpls home had a MB that was about 10 x 12. About all you could get in the room was a bed and a small dresser. Is it charming to have only two closets in the house? I know couples who used their 2nd bedroom as a closet - cause there was no other place to store stuff. Only in Mpls do you find the converted attic MB - If the ad says 15 x 40 MB you know it's the attic. This is charm? Go to Gabberts and try to find a sofa that you can comfortably get in S Mpls livingroom.

IMO this isn't charming. They are houses that were built cheap - on lots that are too small, rooms that were too small, with little thought about function or expansion or the future.

Move to the burbs if you want giant cookie cutter homes.

The facts are that a lot of these 60+ year old houses have outlived their usefulness and need to be replaced. They are not shrines. They are the cookie cutter homes of yesteryear.

Your attitude of wanting to make Mpls a museum is what keeps middle class people from settling in Mpls.

If you don't belive that, think about the ever dwindling number of students in Mpls schools.

Is a home 'giant' because you have enough space to store your belongings and your cars?

To the person who feels "These bungalows and double bungalows are just awful." I've lived in my bungalow for 14 years and it's been perfect for my needs. I love the hardwood floors, the woodwork, the built-ins and the character. I like knowing my neighbors, and not just driving away from an attached garage. I like having a neighborhood store that I can walk to. I like not needing a car at all, though I do have one. While every type of neighborhood and housing meets a need, don't insult my preferred housing choice because it doesn't meet your needs.

Living in Minneapolis is about the charm of older houses that have unique designs. The different places I have lived in Minneapolis have always had large bedrooms and great sized living and dining rooms. I am not wealthy, so i think that if i have this lots of people do. Why is it important to have so many cars? Why do you need so many things? Living in Minneapolis is about not living in the subburbs where everything is cookie cutter, and people are secluded from their neighbors.

We sold our 50s SW Mpls rambler to a developer who is keeping the existing foundation and adding a level. What's wrong with that? The poor house had suffered from having new owners every 4 years because it only has 2 bedrooms. We just bought a 20s Tudor in SW Minneapolis and while some don't like alleys and smaller yards, I love not having to plow a driveway and spend 3 hours mowing an acre of yard like folks in the burbs often have to do.

I see our sale to a developer as a positive move. By improving the stock, the values of neighborhoods increase. The higher taxes mean more money for schools, police, services, etc. The down side can mean that first-time home buyers are priced out of a neighborhood, but that’s just supply and demand at work. Most of the tear-down homes in our new and old neighborhood were in tough shape - one even leaned like the Tower of Pisa. Units like that often turn into rentals which see new tenants all the time, and seldom see improvements. Rentals are not inherently a bad thing a bad thing, but if a disproportionate number of homes in a neighborhood become rentals, dilapidated stock, etc., then the so-called charm is lost.

I agree that some of the new homes being built are a bit too large – but there are also many homes being built/remodeled in Minneapolis with attention to detail and historic charm that actually look a lot like other old homes in the neighborhood. Modest regulation to control lot vs. home size seems reasonable. It's funny, but there are quite a few "artistic" homes in Mpls that were built in the 60s and 70s that originally replaced cottage homes. Many of those homes are being demolished again for decidedly more tasteful homes - at least in the eyes of the author. Perhaps the same fate will affect today's "monster cookie cutter" homes in 30 years when nobody wants to buy the eyesore on the block.

But I thought it was evil to live in the burbs because of all the extra gasoline one needs to use to drive to work? So, either you're stuck in a small, inefficient, and outdated house, or you have to drive 40 miles to work.

I live in southern MPLS. Many of the houses are simply deteriorating to the point that they are no longer manageable. Leaky basements, cracked foundation walls, 80 year old gravity furnaces (which are horribly inefficient), etc etc. They were simply not built to stand the test of time.

And with the size of most MPLS lots, how big of house can you really have?

I'm gonna make a compilation of bad assumptions:

Living in Minneapolis is about the charm of older houses that have unique designs

Many houses are unique and have charm, not just old ones.

Why is it important to have so many cars?

It's an insulting question, and the poster knows it!

Why do you need so many things?

Again, answering a question, with a question.

Living in Minneapolis is about not living in the subburbs where everything is cookie cutter

Talk about assumptions.

and people are secluded from their neighbors.

I like knowing my neighbors, and not just driving away from an attached garage.

Do you hear the superiority in these comments?

don't insult my preferred housing choice because it doesn't meet your needs.

This is interesting, in that I didn't insult her home, I simply said that I thought that alot of the older homes should be dozed. And probably in the next 25 yrs they will be!

Being a transplant from the East Coast, I can detect the Socialist Party leanings of the midwest - from way back in the early 1900's. IMO it's alive and well in S Mpls.

I'm glad you've liked the charm of your older homes. That is your right to enjoy that and as long as enough people do appreciate these older bungalows, there will be bungalows in Minneapolis.

My question to you is, why would you think it's necessary to stop someone else from knocking down that bungalow and building over it with a modern house? If that person wants to do that he should be able to.

I wonder whether we fear neighborhood change because we want to keep things the same or because of envy for what we don't have?

Don't fear progress and change. It's actually a good thing.

I don't object to older homes being torn down or remodeled to meet the needs of our families. I do object to homeowners building oversized structures that come within inches of the lot line requirements or increase the height of new structure so much they blot out the sun in their neighbors yard and turn a perennial garden into a shade garden and tower over the other homes in the area or build a three car garage that means their backyard neighbor only sees a long stretch of black shingles. Not very neighborly.

There are valid arguments on both sides of the teardown controversy. Redevelopment is not only eminent in many areas, but in changing demographics it makes sense. From a market perspective, it is usually preferable that new houses be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, even though in some areas, we are not quite seeing that balance yet. However, restricting teardowns and infill development also restricts the rights of property owners and may devalue property .

Tighter constraints on teardowns further narrows the potential market for your property. I believe that property owners and the market, rather than zoning boards, should determine housing aesthetics and size. In a country founded on private property rights, wouldn’t that be more in line with our national historical character?

Or do we want to allow those rights to be chipped away at, one regulation at a time?