I was raised mostly in nature - farms, rural. Then I worked mostly in nature...tree planting, teaching skiing and snowboarding, WWOOFing..now I could understand why someone wouldn't want to spend a frikkin second in nature...it's flat scary...bears, weather, bugs...and reminds a lot of people of a meagre, hand to mouth subsistance and being at the mercy of something uncontrollable. I think concrete is like the comforter of civilization, blanketing one from all the stressors of tooth and claw.

Yes we need to use less concrete flooring in cities which is a major cause of flooding.

I was born in LA and I agree with you. There was a rush to build big big bigger, and unfortunately many of those houses are ugly ugly ugly. The city is famous for tacky McMansions, and I am glad that the designer featured here was able to make 2 good looking quality homes on 1 lot. He had to navigate all the code regulations aimed at preventing those McMansions, I think he did pretty well. It could have more green.

You can't do that where I live: increasing the volume of the buildings is forbidden, even if you do it on your own plot. The gardens/empty spaces are there to stay...

Most people hardly use their yards. If our cities were denser, we could also have more parks and farms close by. The big yard with pristine grass may be green, but it's not natural, not to mention the amount of chemicals and water it takes to keep it that way. If people want a big yard, fine, but don't mandate it.

I understand - I live in a 1940’s 1000sqft home. 1,600sqft looks large to me.

Im in Melbourne and looking at this “tiny house” has me laughing…. how is this house tiny? Its literally so large? Also in any inner/ semi inner suburb of Melbourne this house would be $2,000,000 easily 🥲

@@jhey5639 It is probably around that price in LA, if not more

At least you don’t need a car for literally everything in London

You have my sympathies! When we visited London we stayed at the back of someone’s house. There was a “kitchenette-ette”, (it was too small to be called just a “kitchenette”!), a lounge area, bathroom off the stairs & a bedroom. Though this was 28 years ago, it was memorable, as it seemed every inch was used and there was nowhere to put anything extra! We now live in a single storey home - what English people seem to derisively refer to as a “bungalow”! They’re still the most common homes here in Adelaide, South Australia.

Reminded of that boat architect with a Napoleon complex.

People tend to repeat the same thing when they have nothing else to say.

I’m one of those who no matter how much he repeated that, I couldn’t understand the concept.

Yes!!

I agree. I am sure that they did not want huge buildings looming over their homes, peering into their back yard.I would hate that.

Bad feng shui

Yeah... the definition of "density" keeps changing. Once, street after street of modest single-family homes was considered dense. Then someone comes along and decides that there should be two houses on those lots instead of one. Then someone else decided that each yard should instead be a condo tower!!! Does nobody take into account the traffic/utilities/sanitation/park usage/etc. that this causes?

Better than the huge apartment on the other side.

@@ravent3016 They are now boxed in.

Yes, it is odd shaped and this make it difficult to maintain and get things replaced. Yes and no. That is true that homes were and to build to protect against fire spreading. But now you have more power engines and can contain fires better so less risk for a single houese fire to spread. Appartment complexes are still a high risk when they are build from light construction wood with a lot of voids. In case of an expanding wildfire if you can hold bundaries of a settlement your doomed till the fire reaches a wide road or other obstacle like a river. The fire storm would project amber several hundert feet even up to miles so no safety from that.

Yes and no. Compared to an bigger apartment building it is a waste of space. Those are increasingly more difficult due to NIMBY culture. So many north american cities or developers are pushed to built condo (or less common apartment towers for rentals). Compared to a classic single family house sitting alone on a lot it is a gain and almost a 100% improvement. It is about the building missing middle allowing two units or more per lot with out building 4 or 5 stories high.

And do what? Live how? I am curious, seriously. I am not agreeing necessarily with the architect's vision, but there are more people living in urban spaces than at any other time in history. We are also dealing with technology in ways our immediate ancestors never imagined. What lifestyle do you think would not be able to be achieved in the spaces featured in this video? How does an older home work better? Thanks in advance for your answer.

@@tdsims1963 The architectural style is unappealing for residential buildings. The style and material choices would make for a great looking office building. But who wants to live in an office building? Green architecture is being relegated to the sidelines as long as it is dominated by non mainstream styles. Personally, I'd rather live in a bungalow duplex with solar on the roof and a gray water system irrigating the community garden in a shared neighborhood backyard space. I appreciate his ingenuity and innovative spirit, but the harsh structure and tall fences feel like I'm cornering myself off from the world.

Santa Monica is getting down right ugly with these "stunning architectural" homes. Gone is the feel of a seaside bungalow village with a nice ocean breeze across your yard. Block your neighbors view and air rights seems to be the entitlement games these days. Sad, like that one little house shows us, of the Santa Monica charm that once was.

As someone who lives in Santa Monica I completely agree. Most of the housing was built decades ago when upping the density was not desired...if it's ever really "desired". While at least this is an original design and interesting I wouldn't want to be the neighbor having to deal with someone now looking into my yard 24/7. People buy into a neighborhood with low density because that's what they want and are willing to pay more for. Not sure which neighborhood this is but I'm sure both of these units would cost somewhere between 1.5 - 2 million. Los Angeles where the politicians want to up the density but do next to nothing about the infrastructure.

Developers are building "luxury housing" because it's literally the only type of housing it's possible to build when zoning regulations in many cities, particularly in California, make multi-unit buildings unfeasible or straight-up illegal in many urban areas. How can you build affordable housing when land prices are extremely high and zoning forbids medium- or high-density housing? It's impossible

@@e.l.france5136 It's legitimate to have an aesthetic preference for a "seaside bungalow village" over higher density, but we should be honest about the fact that the inevitable consequence of enforcing such a preference is low supply and high cost of housing, and sprawling, car-dependent communities

he isn't *blaming* the housing crisis on the zoning regulations, but he does indict them as a contributing factor .. plus I don't consider this 'luxury housing' ... luxury housing is largely single family detached houses -- the opposite of the higher density development he is speaking about

This is a very high-priced, seaside property. Most in this area are tearing down smaller homes to build apartments or giant homes. This is a somewhat better choice - both homes are bigger , more private, and have more green space than an apartment, but still adds a property to the scarce housing situation.

Often this does result in long commutes the demand for a second or third car. Not everybody works just remotely.

@@paxundpeace9970 we are all different, I used to commute 1 hour to and from work because the job I wanted was not near my home. I dont expect everyone to feel the same way but some like me are willing to make the sacrifice if it means I/we will have space to enjoy when we are home.

That makes you happy but doesn't do anything to solve the problem of urban density and stagnant building code laws. That's what this build was about.

Some varieties of Bamboo are not invasive

Was thinking the same. I remember a neighbors' fight about the very thing.

Judging by the house it doesn't look like he cares much about what the neighbors think.

Plant inside of a metal box

Planted from right type of bamboo trees . There are certain varieties that don't spread. Or do you can do with mint, plant them in a container in the ground.

It`s not two apartments instead of six, it's two houses instead of one. If you want another old-style apartment block, that is, of course, an option.

Maximizing house density is different than building motel style apartment buildings. Of course the motel will have more units, but it's not about that. It's about having a nice, liveable house. Nobody wants to live in the matrix in a wall of pods. We want sunlight.

The question is how is it even allowed to have both on the same street at the same time? The entire street should be redeveloped according to a coherent model, not this mess

There already isn’t enough room in LA. I commute 67 miles to job in Santa Ana.

Traditional architecture in the 1900 was 6 people living in 700 sq foot with no bathroom. The patch of space was there to grow food. If you could afford it, everyone always assumes they'd be one of the ones rich enough to live nicely if they went back in time. At the time you speak of 20% of the US population lived in crowded u unit's with families (average family size 5.5 people) jammed into one maybe 2 rooms. If they were lucky enough to live in the country the houses weren't much larger but lacked central heating and plumbing. The reason the houses that remain look so pretty and nice is that they were the exception, they were the nice houses so they survived, but don't presume they were how the majority lived.

@New Moon they could rebuild at higher density. There are many more densely populated areas than LA and surrounding…

@@wwaxwork yes, I should have thought about my comment a bit more. What ‘d say is that those houses that survive are still relatively high density (for houses, not apartments) . So I am excluding detached villas and considering large areas of terraced or closely spaced individual houses; a pattern which was emulated in the 1960’s social housing boom in the UK and by many private developers. Say houses of 600 to 1800 sq ft, with some sort of garden front & back. These give people room to breathe, optionally grow some food, small children a safe place to play and have sufficient flexibility to allow people to live their lives. So family of four 700 sq ft , 2 bed, house is what I grew up in, and it’s still a useful home for someone 60 years later.

@@Brian-jv8iy If by "working out well for Boulder", you mean working very well at making Boulder extremely expensive. So people have to live much farther away and drive to boulder, instead of being able to find a place in the city and walk/bike many more places.

Can confirm that cork is awesome.

Friends laid a cork floor in their kitchen and then had a party. The heels worn by most of the women resulted in multiple little dents in it. Must have been a nightmare to clean after that.

Why isn't solar part of the building regulations? Thats the question that needs to be asked.

People that live in townhomes (like myself) will tell you that it really depends. Although all he built here was a duplex, and duplexs are not exactly a new idea either. Modern construction and soundproofing is pretty good about that stuff. I cant hear my neighbor almost at all and my place was built in 2001

This video was a little on the short side a little more detail about this build would have been nice!!... Interesting layout !

8:51 I have to agree with this kind of roofline it is very odd. It does work and it doesn't look like they would have wet patches at the wall. But construction of a roof like this is pretty hard and not perfect for mass production.

Agree. Leaks from the roof will be a potential issue in future years because there are so many fluctuations unless there is a rainwater collection system that could be used during rainy season

@@gnostic268 Its LA. Theres almost no rain. But it looked like they had drains in the roof.

Artificially enforcing car-dependent suburban sprawl isn't environmentally or economically sustainable.

There's also the issue of lots zoned for multifamily dwellings instead being used by developers to circumvent single-family home size limitations. A McMansion fetching $5 million (and counting) is more worth it than a duplex or triplex on the same lot.

Russia is not famous for having a housing crisis like this . They mass produced housing and in europe and asia mass produced housing mainly for rentals is pretty common. This can range from 2 or 3 stories appartment buildings too 15 stories like in Russia in the 1970s or 1980s

@@blueberry01120 5 Million dollar homes are usually in 5 million dollar neighborhoods . Even in San Francisco other popular cities on the west coast normal homes don't usually cross the 2 million and are rather priced at 500k to a million. Even many Mc Mansions are in not so desired places usually where land is not so expensive.

I do think that his comparison is adressing that building 100 units once isn't better then permitting to build a second or more unit on some of over 500,000 lots.

God help you if you ever have to replace the roof.

Couldn't agree more. They could have built an architecturally sensitive duplex that would be more affordable. Additionally, as you note, there's a whole host of reasons to have setbacks or even easements - fire safety, utility and emergency access, light and ventilation, sound buffer, added landscape and green space, and a safety buffer between buildings during natural disasters, like earthquakes. I get that zoning and regulations can be inconvenient and certainly many are outdated, but they protect communities.

That's whats suburbs are not about but building regulations make you because how else would you fit you a double garage and 1800 sqft home on a 3000 sqft lot. Homes had been getting bigger and lots are getting much smaller.

Who is building luxury housing? When almost no new houses are built housing becomes a luxury.

one reason ( at least for me when I was considering cork flooring is that there is a lot of ignorance of cork and it is considered fragile.

Cork is quite cheap or considered cheap this is why some people don't like it.

While you raise some good points, it’s a lot easier and cheaper for the city to expand the utilities on an existing street than to add utilities to a new street. And if areas are more dense, then public transit works better, which means not everyone needs a car anymore, which gives more area for housing (fewer parking spaces) and reduces noise and traffic for those that still drive.

I don’t think the infrastructure was built to only function with low density - a few things might need to be changed but most will be OK

Indeed, he is shaming the condo with 5×3 floors/units next to him but he builds one big monolithic eyesore for 2 units... didn't like this one too much

I understand what everyone is saying, but he still doubled the density. And I like the look.

Only 2 units are allowed on the property per the strict zoning limits. It is not his decision to avoid greater density, the city does not allow it

The risk of fire spreading in urban areas (i am not talking wildfires) is pretty low today. So we can reconsider to use some space between buildings. Having 5 or 10 m side or front yards have been very common in many parts of the nation.

@@paxundpeace9970 Agreed - However those buildings that are close together do it because they increase the fire ratings of the walls between buildings. The reason the risk of fire spread is low is because that party walls when they are used have an increased rating that allows for the safety of life first and then property.

Man idk about that philosophy. It seems like here in Utah they only build townhouses now. No small single family homes. Probably influenced by city planners who think density will magically make housing cheaper when it almost never does. Honestly It seems to make it more expensive because more people can live and move here creating a higher demand and driving the locals who've lived here their whole lives out of their homes.

I see it rather as one building, on one lot with two units. Look at the timestamp 1:30 with the top shot? These lots are quite big for an urban area.

😔Cannot answer your question, but LA does have some of the toughest 🛠️ construction requirements. 😉Except Wall Street, big greedy developers & crooked politicians are aggressively looking for ways to change current zoning & exploit all residential neighborhoods for max profit without improving our already over taxed infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, power, community services, etc.). 👹These questionable entities give little consideration for the comfort of others or protecting the aesthetics of a neighborhood. Worse, they usually only give lip service toward 💲affordable housing. The desperate need of low & middle income housing is repeatedly overlooked for high dollar💸 Airbnb's & other exclusive rentals. 🤔 We have many suburban pockets throughout the Greater LA area with a SFR on a double lot. Most of these longer lots have long since added ADUs on them for extended family or rentals. 😱Strict zoning won't permit the sale of lots for building small homes 🏡 (anything 1000sq ft + under is often forbidden). City officials love to argue that a small structure will 🤬negatively impact the "character of a community." 😫In the meantime, they have allowed countless avg. single level dwellings (1200-1800sq ft) to be 💥flattened💥 & replaced by massive ugly two-story boxy McMansions (up to 2500sq ft) &/or multi-unit behemoths (3500sq ft+). No matter how much blight most of these new 🏢monstrosities🏘️ create, local officials🤑 tend to approve real estate transactions with considerably larger tax 💰 potential. 😉While this is a pretty spectacular build, it is a single structure that is split into two units. Two homes with a shared or common wall is typically considered a duplex. In other parts of California & US, it is more common to fully own a "half plex." Such sales are pretty rare here. It's more standard for a single buyer to own the whole property. The owner may live in one unit and rent the other or lease both units. 💚 Bridget from Cali☘️ (using my pal's YT acct)

@@teresacarle294 Thanks.

@@creolelady182 🤗Sorry for my rant. (The restrictions & corruption drives me mad🤪.) There is no easy answer on setbacks. Front, side & rear yards can vary greatly in both the city & county of LA as well as the incorporated communities here. It also depends on how a property is zoned. 🆘 The LADBS has an online Yard Setback Calculator to help figure it out.

@@teresacarle294 Thank You

At that point, why even leave the parking space your car was in all day; just never leave the parking lot at work.

Bet my last dollar that what most can afford wasn't a consideration. We've got the same thing going on in my wonderfully-located neighborhood of late1940's two bedroom 800 sq ft homes. Come in and push a perfectly good little house over then build a giant home (worth 4-5X what the razed home was worth) on the tiny lot. The city loves it because of the increase in tax revenue.

I wish I could put 1,000 thumbs up on your comment. The trees and plants were (in my opinion) the only positive thing about the exterior of the property.

His wife is at ucla

Would you want those two houses next door to you?