4 ms·
yes, that's very useful for discussions. down vote people for saying what they feel. this isn't a research paper. > "Wanting to live in single family housing
by autokad 7y ago
yes, that's very useful for discussions. down vote people for saying what they feel. this isn't a research paper.
> "Wanting to live in single family housing near the city and enforcing it legally is exactly why public transit projects like subways become impossible. You need to have critical pockets of density before it becomes a sensible investment."
Also, Philadelphia has a ton of single family homes, and one of the best subways in the country. You are just simply wrong.
- nostrebored 7y agoThe thing is that your feelings are completely unmoored from reality add contribute nothing to the conversation. If you backed any of your statements up with some sort of thought it might be useful, but there's just nothing. Going off of this comment it might be a trend. If you'd like to discuss any of the actual arguments I'd be happy to. I had a lot of time to reflect on it while I lived in a 2br house with a garden a mile from 4th and pike! Edit to address your edit: Philly is an aberration. Obviously when presenting why to build a subway you have to present data to make your case. When an entire block has the housing density of a single apartment is a harder case.
- autokad 7y agoI don't feel you are wrong, you just are. I already cited a city with twice the population of Seattle that has ample amounts of single family use and a great subway system.
- darksaints 7y agoPhiladelphia is nearly twice as dense as Seattle, and the subway only serves the densest parts of Philadelphia, and it was built when the city was much denser than it is today. Philadelphia's single family zoning is effectively as dense as Seattle's LR3 zoning: 38 ft height limits, no front setbacks, no parking requirements, and townhouse widths. Your assertion isnt just wrong, it is wackadoodle territory.