duplex survey-summary
TRANSCRIPT
Duplex Survey
March 1, 2016
City of Orlando
Survey Data
• Survey open from January 20 to March 1, 2016
• 384 responses
• 83% of respondents live in one of Orlando’s two-family neighborhoods
• Most responses came from people living in Colonialtown North, Eola Heights or College Park
Front-to-Back Duplexes
• One unit is behind the other
• 1 out of 3 examples is well-liked
• May look more like a single family home
• If the units lack architectural detail and variety, they may not be well-liked, even if the garages are not the dominant feature
Site 7
• Front-to-back duplex
• One driveway • Garage in the
rear • Second unit is
smaller, with a side entrance
Site 15
• Front-to-back duplex
• Lack of architectural interest
Site 8
• Front-to-back duplex
• Shared driveway
• Parking in the rear
Side-by-side duplexes with front facing garages
• One unit is next to the other
• Most common building type for new development.
• Only 2 out of 7 examples are well liked. Those two examples are the same building elevation in a different location.
• Garage becomes the dominant feature.
• Difficult to add architectural interest.
Site 1
• Side-by-side duplex
• Lots of landscaping
Site 19
• Side-by-side duplex
• Same elevation as site 1, but different context
• Two driveways
Site 14
• Side-by-side duplex with adjacent garage
Site 12
• Side-by-side duplex with adjacent garage
Site 4
• Side-by-side duplex
• Two driveways
Site 3
• Side-by-side duplex with adjacent garage
Site 18
• Side-by-side duplex
• No garages
Side-by-side Duplexes with garages in the rear
• 2 out of 3 examples are well liked
• Provides an opportunity to highlight the building’s architecture
• Units can be a mirror image, or each look unique
• May need an extra-wide lot to fit two units plus the driveway
Site 17
• Side-by-side duplex
• One driveway
• Garage in the rear
• Each unit is different
• Oversized lot
Site 10
• Side-by-side duplex
• One driveway
• Garage in the rear
Site 11
• 4 units • Shared
driveway • Lack of
architectural interest
• Repeated units with little differentiation
Corner Lot Duplexes
• 1 out of 3 examples are well liked
• It is difficult to hide bulk and mass on a corner lot
Site 16
• Corner duplex
• Both units under a single unified roofline
Site 5
• Corner lot duplex
• Two driveways
• Units are connected only by a 1-story garage
Site 6
• Duplex units on a corner lot
• Connected by a garage only
Corner Lot Tandems
• 1 out of 2 examples are well-liked
• Potential for the same concern with corner duplexes: mass could be overwhelming
• Two units can blend in to the neighborhood, but this doesn’t work as well if they are too similar to each other
Site 20
• 4 units
• Tandem (yellow and green)
• Side-by-side duplex (navy blue)
Site 13
• Tandem units on a corner lot
• Lack of architectural interest
Court Homes
• Two pairs of duplexes or tandems with a shared driveway
• No longer allowed for interior lots
• Both examples are well-liked, despite being older units
• Garages are not visible from the street
• Four separate units means the scale is similar to nearby homes
Site 9
• 4 units
• Tandem court homes with shared driveway
Site 2
• 4 units
• Tandem court homes with shared driveway
Conclusions
• Level of architectural detail stands out as the most important indicator
• Front-loaded side-by-side units are difficult to design well, and most are not liked
• Duplexes on corner lots are also not well liked
• Court home tandems, side-by-side duplexes with a rear facing garage, or a unit that looks like a single family home are most well liked