4 ms·

There's more to zoning than just wanting nice looking grass. For areas not originally built to house 3-4x the density, there's likely issues with capacity for:

There's more to zoning than just wanting nice looking grass. For areas not originally built to house 3-4x the density, there's likely issues with capacity for: utilities (sewage/water), roads/traffic, stormwater runoff, school enrollment, and local services. That's not even considering veiled NIMBYism manifested as environmental concerns: tree removal, disruption of ecosystem, natural/green spaces, etc. Even still, in growing suburban areas, you do typically see what you're proposing: conversion of a multi-acre lot to many, high-density homes (e.g. 'carriage' houses.)

helen___keller 8y ago
Oh sure I get that. Any matter of urban design & planning has infinitely more complexity than you're going to find on an internet discussion. Undoing postwar suburban sprawl is not going to be an easy task. Still, for any person who is a fan of urbanism it's easy to be salty about this topic. City planning has favored motorists living in sprawl for half a century. Nobody cared about the noise pollution that would result to those living in the inner cities when public policy pushed everyone to the suburban fringe. Nobody cared about the risks and the inconveniences to pedestrians and cyclists when we designed our cities to favor motorists. And yet, the moment we start to talk about allowing some multifamily units in a place that is traditionally single family you are immediately bombarded with the Concerns. My schools! My traffic! My parking spaces! I wish the same concern was shown before we covered the entire nation with the suburban blight that rules today.
ip26 8y ago
I'm generally opposed to tree removal everywhere- I guess that makes me a NIABY? They cut down huge trees that provided tons of shade, build something new, plant a sapling, and call it even. I swear half the time the tree wasn't even in the way. Anyway, this process also tends to repeat every twenty years or so as buildings get old, companies die, and style changes. So as soon as the tree is starting to hit it's stride, start all over.

helen___keller 8y ago

Oh sure I get that. Any matter of urban design & planning has infinitely more complexity than you're going to find on an internet discussion. Undoing postwar suburban sprawl is not going to be an easy task. Still, for any person who is a fan of urbanism it's easy to be salty about this topic. City planning has favored motorists living in sprawl for half a century. Nobody cared about the noise pollution that would result to those living in the inner cities when public policy pushed everyone to the suburban fringe. Nobody cared about the risks and the inconveniences to pedestrians and cyclists when we designed our cities to favor motorists. And yet, the moment we start to talk about allowing some multifamily units in a place that is traditionally single family you are immediately bombarded with the Concerns. My schools! My traffic! My parking spaces! I wish the same concern was shown before we covered the entire nation with the suburban blight that rules today.

ip26 8y ago

I'm generally opposed to tree removal everywhere- I guess that makes me a NIABY? They cut down huge trees that provided tons of shade, build something new, plant a sapling, and call it even. I swear half the time the tree wasn't even in the way. Anyway, this process also tends to repeat every twenty years or so as buildings get old, companies die, and style changes. So as soon as the tree is starting to hit it's stride, start all over.