You must log in or register to comment.
Plus you can live in a pentagon! Just not the Pentagon.
I wish we’d just do non luxury apartment high rises with underground parking in HCOL areas. Then there is room for green spaces, and more people can be accommodated.
Parking is always expensive, and even more so for underground. The counter argument is that you can build much cheaper without, so the units can be more affordable.
I don’t entirely buy that, since developers could already choose less high end finishing for more affordable units and they usually don’t.
Also, “less parking” is not the same as “no parking” and that hinges on their being useful transit or walkability. I know that’s one of the points of a district like this, but this is why you do need to think big, so that an individual developer can make the choice
See also “transit oriented development”. Boston is one of the cities that has been pursuing that idea. Recently it was extended into the suburbs with new higher density zoning being a requirement for every community served by the regional transit authority
All that goes up are luxury units that nobody can afford and it is usually the same stick built BS that is inefficient in use of space and adds more tarmac
Sure, but zoning has some effect - developers will build to maximize their profit within what is allowed by zoning.
- if zoning allows multiple units, they maximize profits by building as many as they can
- if zoning requires less parking, they may maximize profits by replacing some parking space with more units (assuming sufficient transit to allow them to sell)
- if zoning creates areas of higher density, a town center type of area can create a synergy that draws more people, more profit.
- while not everyone wants to live in a town center or a large building, more housing supply can drive down prices for everyone: supply and demand
I’m not claiming zoning is sufficient nor does it act quickly but it can be a tool for improving livability, setting the conditions for developers to profit more by building what the town benefits from.
Currently zoning is mostly a weapon enforcing the status quo, but it doesn’t have to be
Yeah but then rich fucks wouldn’t have a place all to themselves to be rich fucks, so that’s a fuck you, poors, just be rich like us, thanks.
but then where should the rich people go golfing?
On Mars
in hell
But that runs counter to my need as a developer to bulldoze the entire area, build mcmansions 6 inches apart from eachother and at the barest mimimum of code (and perhaps even lower with a $$friendly$$ inspector), and then plant like a grand total of 5 trees that wont survive the first year.
Oh, and also pave everything over. Gotta pave everything over. No one wants green space! /s
When I was first committing to my no automobile lifestyle, one of the first things that struck me was the pavement. Fucking everywhere.
Next time your about town , take a mental picture. Then subtract the parking lots. The huge road. Put the buildings closer together. Make a nice bikelane, something just wide enough to get a fire engine down. Plant some trees. Pretty nice right?
Instead we have salted earth. It really is just rude to the earth. Fuck your car!
Welcome to why the sim city games don’t have visible parking. They consciously removed parking spaces because it spread everything out too far.
All I want is the infrastructure to be more convenient. I cant walk anywhere unless I want to spend an hour+ walking, which is just impractical when i need to run and grab some fucking garlic powder real quick in the middle of dinner.
Neighborhoods should have special commercial zoning inside of them to allow small shops, cafes, bakeries, etc
Agreed. A corner store, bakery, and a few other odds and ends as a cluster would be pretty solid.
I hate not being able to just… walk to what I need.
They do exist, even in the US. In general, look for a place that was built out before cars were everywhere
I feel like neighborhoods not having local small-scale stores is a uniquely American problem.
Here in Brazil every neighborhood is expected to have at least one grocery store, one convenience store, one pharmacy, one bakery, and one gas station. And most of them have a lot more than that, and a dozen other businesses.
Like sure, you have to drive to the city center to get to the big shops and you’ll generally have more options if you do, but still.
The exception is like. Specific developments built by and for wealthy people who want to Live Away From The Poors ™️ in a tropical imitation of American Suburbia. But THOSE people are there by choice.
@VinesNFluff @A_Random_Idiot Yup, and yet the US and its consulting firms desperately try to export this failure to other countries and expect to be paid for their “expertise” in how to destroy cities.
Yeah, special commercial zoning, if we can’t eliminate restrictions on small businesses in neighborhoods entirely, which should be the end goal. But yeah we desperately need anything we can get.
My local public golf course was closed and sold to developers a few years back.
Promises were made to the community of keeping all the trees and lots of green space, as there was vicious community opposition.
The developers have of course instead done what you suggest, and every house is crammed in next to each other just like every other new suburb. Its still in progress but it looks like once they’re done you wouldn’t even know it used to be a golf course.
This meme is so stupid because it doesn’t present an even remotely possible outcome. A far better option is to keep the public golf courses for people to spend time outdoors and to provide homes for wildlife - and then remove regulations limiting building heights to encourage multi-storey development.
Build up, not out - because once green space becomes houses it never changes back.
it never changes back
Generally speaking, when it takes a nuclear reactor meltdown to reclaim space that is… what is the word…
Terrible.
Cause no way in crap would that many people living that close together not cause issues
imagine being so antisocial that you’d rather drive to buy some fucking bread
you should visit honkers
Under which rock have you been living? Ever heard of “a city”?
Why building something on it instead of converting it into a park? People love green stuff, you know.
Why building something on it instead of converting it into a park?
Because rich people need money to build a bigger golf course somewhere else
because poor people are already living on the golf course and would really appreciate roofs
In lots of cities vacancy rates are too low making it hard to find housing
This particular golf course is a park. Seattle Parks and Rec uses a management company, but it is one of the cheapest ways to play.
Why does it need to be a dedicated park? They’re not proposing getting rid of all the green stuff. Even better than having green stuff some distance away is living in the middle of the green stuff.
deleted by creator
Look at the picture. There’ll be not much green left. They’ll only leave the trees alone and based on the figure of 40 000 new residents the buildings will be taller than the trees. I don’t think that is great.
Cities are more livable when there are parks every few blocks. I mean big ones, at least half a mile long. People need nature, not a tree here and there.
I think the proposed homes near the highway should be forested as a buffer.
Not sure how it works in the US but here in Oz (where water scarcity is always present in our collective psyche) golf courses are usually placed on flood plains where it would be dangerous/too expensive to build housing. In addition most allow people to walk through them and many even allow dog walkers so they have quite a lot of public amenity.
I would still prefer if they were just designated as public parks rather than having huge swathes of grass that needed frequent watering, but they’re not nearly as bad as most make them out to be.
Public golf courses are one of the best things about Oz. They provide a forest island for birds and mammals among the suburbs. Many golf courses have large swathes of natural bushland around them. They are often run by the local council, and are hence not for profit, and generally they are very cheap to play.
They make most of their money via selling beer and expensive golf clubs.
Turn them over to property developers, and they’ll pave it with cheaply built single dwelling houses and flog them for way too much money resulting in just more urban desert and padded the obese wallets of billionaires.
That’s if they are even build able. Some areas on floodplains and marshes that serve as a local soak for stormwater, hence the water hazards. Some are built on landfills that contain mu icipal waste or even asbestos, hence you can’t risk putting houses on them where someone might dig up the asbestos or waste. Turning them into a revenue-generating forest parkland is one of the few good things you can do with that land.
The revenue earned by the golf course that is used to offset local parks and recs costs would otherwise be gained by taxing the local residents through land rates.
I used to hate on them a lot before I learned that the economics of public courses is way different to that of private ones. There are still some private courses, and I wouldn’t be opposed to these being taken back into public hands and/or converted into affordable housing. To the gallows with the greedy exclusive fucktillionaires.
Yeah, here in the US, golf courses can be extremely wasteful. There’s two golf courses on my drive into the city, one is on a river floodplain, the other is a HOA golf course full of sprinklers that could absolutely be more housing. If I go the other way, there’s another HOA golf course that could be housing too. So, to start with, there’s three golf courses in a 15km radius.
One of the HOA ones is exclusive access to the surrounding retirement community, the other HOA one doesn’t have a fence or anything, but idk if they chase people off. The one on the floodplain you have to pay to access the grounds.
But you know you have to be a certified rich asshole to live in those HOAs.
In Germany most courses only have a few public walkways and if you leave them security will escort you right out
Let’s also get rid of golf courses in arid deserts in the midst of droughts
You had me at “Let’s get rid of golf courses”
This is a municipal course as well, so Seattle could literally do this. The city government doesn’t want to.
This heavily neglected sidewalk, next to the fenced off golf course, alongside a high speed and very busy highway onramp just 2 blocks from a light rail stop, tells you just how much the city cares about the area.
There is no excuse not to cleanup and widen this sidewalk except apathy and malaise from the city.
That lady is Seattle personified.
A fairly generic lady and that’s what you took from that guy’s comment?
There’s nothing generic about that lady in fact that’s a pretty cruel thing to say about someone.
I’m a fairly generic looking person, we are more than our looks. She has nice glasses and isn’t unattractive or anything it’s just there’s basically nothing there to tell you where the picture is taken. There aren’t even visible brands anywhere.
Other than maybe being able to guess the pacific northwest based those maybe being barefoot shoes, which is still a reach, what else is there?
Also damn, going after me for being “cruel” while reducing her to a stereotype of her city? On a post about sidewalks I mean fuck, who asked you anyway?
Sorry, I didn’t mean any offense but it really feels like you’re trying to start a fight here and I don’t want any of that.
housing
no parking, all walkable BS
You people just want to give a huge middle finger to every single person with mobility issues, don’t you?
Fuck you.
Why wouldn’t it make more sense to provide mobility assistance like motorized chairs for the 1% of users who need such to get them to and from transit options including parking even if its not house side.
I fucking hate me, so this tracks
What. Effective public transport and less car centric infrastructure is far and away better for those with mobility issues. Walkable areas does not mean the abolishment of cars, it means more effective use of space and transport. Try visiting Austria or the Netherlands. Getting around is far, FAR easier than any city in the US. I have mobility issues, and require a cane to get around if I’m standing for significant periods, and yet the easiest time I had getting around was the time I spent in Vienna after living in different parts of the US for my whole life.
How do you have an easier time with a cane walking around everywhere than riding in a fucking car? I think you’re lying.
Bus. Tram. Subway. Train. And yes, I do drive if necessary. Walkable does not mean walking is mandatory, and a huge part of the push for a decrease in car only infrastructure is the increase in public transportation. The idea isn’t to remove the ability for cars to exist, but to make other forms of transportation accessible and possible, and make reliance on cars a thing of the past. I don’t know why you’ve got it so wrapped up in your head that cars are going to vanish and we will only be walking, as if there aren’t dozens of other forms of transportation accessible for those of us with disabilities. The time I’ve spent living in places with good public transportation is the most independence and self determination I’ve experienced. I’m not lying, you’re just disingenuous, stupid, or misinformed.
YOU HAVE TO FUCKING WALK TO AND FROM THE BUS, THE TRAM, THE SUBWAY, AND THE TRAIN. THOSE ARE NOT POOR MOBILITY FRIENDLY OPTIONS.
HOW FUCKING HARD IS THIS FOR YOU TO FUCKING UNDERSTAND, YOU HATEFUL SHIT?
I’m not hateful. The bus stop is never more than a short walk away. If you need a car to go 100 feet, then you shouldn’t be living alone. Do you think every disabled person is stupid? I’m not going to choose an apartment up 3 flights of stairs on the other end of the block from the bus stop. I’m going to use the ADA apartment on the ground floor that is a shorter walk to the bus stop than half the parking lot. If I need to get somewhere that I can’t access with public transportation without excessive walking, I’ll drive or get my fiancee to drive me. I’m sorry you think I’m hateful for sharing my own lived experience. That’s on you for lack of comprehension, not me.
Edit: And again, I USE CARS. I will continue to use cars when necessary. An increase in walkable cities and good public transportation means the roads will be more free for those that need them! It’s just an all around win, even if you absolutely need a car for any form of transport for some odd reason (even those that require a wheelchair use public transport over cars in most cities that have good transportation, because the infrastructure is built with us in mind).
You seem to think having mobility issues is an all or nothing, can’t-move-at-all or you can run around at will thing. I swear to fuck, people like you are the goddamn problem.
Grow up and figure out the reality of the world. Then get back to me. I am not going to live somewhere where I have to walk a path, pull myself onto a bus with tons of other people, cram myself into a seat, ride where I need to go, get what I need, CARRY THOSE THINGS BACK DOWN TO THE BUS AND GET ON THE BUS WITH THOSE THINGS, AND THEN GET OFF AND WALK BACK HOME ALSO WITH THOSE THINGS. Hell, even if I was healthy, that’s a pain in the ass.
Do you not understand such fucking simple things? Maybe you need to take the time to think about them. Don’t reply to me for a couple of days. Look at people who have mobility issues that don’t look that bad. See people getting out of their cars in the mobility parking that just snap up right out of their cars and walk seemingly without issue to the place they’re going? Hint: most people who do that are not faking a disability. Disability can manifest itself in many ways, and it doesn’t take much beyond simply walking down the street or living alone and being able to do enough basic tasks to get by safely to run into their actual problems.
Grow up, shut up, think, and get back to me. If this was any other goddamn condition, you’d be ostracized from society for being so goddamn hateful, but for some reason, ableism isn’t a real enough thing to people for them to be angry, and it absolutely should be as someone who does have some serious mobility issues.
You. Don’t. Have. To. Use your car! It’s not being taken away! You will have EASIER access to the roads with less people on them. I’m genuinely dumbfounded by your inability to understand this, or your apparent belief that disabled people either don’t live in or don’t use public transportation in places that have great transport. Seriously. You’re fighting ghosts here with how off the mark you are.
I have mobility issues and car infrastructure does nothing for me and in many cases makes my life harder.
Nobody said you couldn’t build paths between places.
Fuck you.
For people with no assistance that just have to walk, it’s ableist and hateful. And if you really had mobility issues, you’d be against these dystopian car-hating people, too.
Why do you love dystopian cars?
Why do you love dystopian societies where people aren’t able to get around freely unless they are privileged?
Thanks for the link! I’m saving that!
I’m happy you’re disabled enough and/or rich enough to get fancy-ass fucking disabled bikes for yourself. Privileged shitlords. The rest of us are fucked.
Because public services and transportation hasn’t and can’t provide services to disabled people? You really think that? Fuck man, these systems can work and provide for you easily. Japan and the Netherlands have a lot of handicap support and you can get around without needing to be privileged. I hope you get the help you need.
I can’t use public transportation. They make a nice show of how they’re “accessible” but they’re really fucking not. Fuck public transportation. Cars are so much easier and go RIGHT TO AND FROM WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.
You’re just being ableist and parroting the same anti-car bullshit.
I’m not. But you’re unwilling to have a productive conversation. With unproductive language. So it’s pointless to really continue this.
Both countries still have cars. You can still get around with a car. The idea is to reduce car usage so that people that have a need for a car can and with less traffic. You’ll get to point a and b quicker without people that don’t need a car clogging the street. But hey I’m apparently being ableist. When you’re willing to be productive in conversation we can continue with this. But if you’re gonna be thick about it. I’m not interested in continuing this.
What the fuck? I’m in the poorest
5%4% bracket of my country
Lol, what makes you assume they couldn’t build parking?
Fun fact: massive parking lots also cause problems for those with mobility issues. So do really wide roads. Dense and therefore walkable city infrastructure is also the most disability-friendly city infrastructure, full stop.
God, I don’t want to imagine how awful it must be for a person with mobility problems to cross those wide ass roads they have in the US…
BuT wHeRe WouLd i PaRk mY cAr?!?!!?
That’s the neat part, you don’t.
car
car go
car go bye
cargo bikeif I saw this on a billboard/poster I’d have a new bike
Truly the poet of our generation 🥲
Preach!
You’re probably not going to save 95% of the trees given the major earthworks likely needed for managing sewage, stormwater, and other utilities. You’ll probably save most of them, though.
40k looks pretty optimistic for the size and number of buildings, too.
probably not going to save 95% of the trees
I was wondering that too… maybe they meant: plant new trees, and the total number of new trees would be 95% of the number of old trees?
I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.
I supposed they meant “And this amount of space is still available for greenery” rather than “These, specific, trees will be preserved”
The best part about this is that this will give blackrock more homes to purchase with cash to the rent out to people at ridiculous prices. /s
Sorry, I’ve become way to cynical these days about virtually everything, I need to go touch grass.
We need to go touch pitchforks.
Even Blackrock is affected by supply and demand. We clearly haven’t been building enough in most high demand places and that is not under Blackrocks control. Insufficient supply leads to high prices, regardless of corporate ownership
Let’s start with how can we help supply catch up with demand, then take additional steps if that doesn’t bring prices down
There’s a few solutions out there to this, but it’s going to take a push to get city councils to agree to them.
The city can provide loan guarantees to co-operative housing projects. Once the loan is paid off, everyone owns their condo.
The city can also build its own housing rather than relying on developers.
Not for nothing, but this wouldn’t fly in the USA. You’d need to replace most of those trees with roads.
Or better yet, reduce the number of housing units and keep the trees.
This is Seattle btw, but I think the meme is that it won’t fly.
Now add in mixed use zoning, and affordable housing units and this could be a winner
