3 ms·
They aren't incompatible. The people who want houses with gardens just need to live further away from the transit stations than the people who want to live in a
by twblalock 8y ago
They aren't incompatible. The people who want houses with gardens just need to live further away from the transit stations than the people who want to live in apartments and take transit.
- Brakenshire 8y agoLondon has recently mandated a minimum housing density for any development within walking distance of a train or tube station. Seems a good idea.
- selectodude 8y agoChicago keeps trying to encourage that and apparently that causes "gentrification". Everybody is going to get pissed off about something.
- shanghaiaway 8y agoYou know what really causes gentrification? Artists.
- pessimizer 8y agoThere's a perverse incentive in that, considering that the people who want houses with gardens have them already, and the developers are making a request to build apartments, i.e. if you destroy local public transportation, you will make it more expensive to build apartments in the neighborhood.
- jakelarkin 8y ago"just need to live further away" there's the rub. most suburban outposts of transit on the west coast just have SFH around them, which is a nice $billion entitlement to public infrastructure if you can get it. anyway THOSE people have the most to lose (neighborhood, lifestyle) from new apartments and a huge amount of political leverage over land-use in their area. in summary, very fine grain local control of housing/transit planning is bad.
- masonic 8y agomost suburban outposts of transit on the west coast just have SFH around them If you define "suburban" as SFH neighborhoods, that's a tautology. With respect to Caltrain, it's not the case at all.