3 ms·

It’s fantastic that they’re bypassing the NIMBYs and building high density, but it’s terrible that they’re building the 10,000th attempt at modern architecture’

It’s fantastic that they’re bypassing the NIMBYs and building high density, but it’s terrible that they’re building the 10,000th attempt at modern architecture’s worst idea, “towers in the park”, which fails every time it is tried.

jollybean 5y ago
These arguments about the NIMBYs are a bit ridiculous. Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose. You have no say in someone else's community. Even then, Vancouver has added quite a bit over the last 25 years. Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive. Given that this is a different bit of land, under different governance, they can do as they please, that's fine.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose. The problem with this way of thinking about it is that communities are not people, and they do not "make a choice" in an organic, unified way. Instead, questions about development get resolved through messy, often complex political processes, with the outcome often reflecting specific subsets of the community rather than the whole. In addition, there's the time preference problem, in which the decisions and choices of today's community is given excessive weight compared to those of the many different future communities that could emerge with different decisions.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's fair to point out that building and permits may not be very democratic, but the argument being made here is generally that people in a community shouldn't be allowed to decided. Some people believe that they ought to be able to have homes bulldozed and skycrapers build 'because they want something'. There is basically infinity livable space in the US, so find a place that works. Employers will have to adjust to cost of living.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >You have no say in someone else's community. Fantastic. You have no say where the jobs are and you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are. Absolutely perfect. >Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive. Developers aren't running a charity. They only fulfill existing demand and if you don't even do that things are going to become even less affordable.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "You have no say where the jobs are" Anyone can list jobs anywhere they want. "you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are" You can go anywhere you want, so long as someone is willing to sell you or rent you a place to live. "They only fulfill existing demand" The 'demand' for living in places like SF, NY etc. is infinite. There's no such thing as 'existing demand'. None of your arguments are working out here.
Arn_Thor 5y ago
"Towers in the park" may not be for everyone (certainly, the cost of the model restricts who can afford to live there unless the government subsidizes), but in my experience it's working pretty well a lot of places. Where I live in Hong Kong, towers built atop mall/park combinations are some of the most attractive places to live. Convenience with public transit, child care and shopping all in walking distance. Green space for family walks and exercise, decent air flow for an urban setting. I'm a fan

jollybean 5y ago

These arguments about the NIMBYs are a bit ridiculous. Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose. You have no say in someone else's community. Even then, Vancouver has added quite a bit over the last 25 years. Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive. Given that this is a different bit of land, under different governance, they can do as they please, that's fine.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose. The problem with this way of thinking about it is that communities are not people, and they do not "make a choice" in an organic, unified way. Instead, questions about development get resolved through messy, often complex political processes, with the outcome often reflecting specific subsets of the community rather than the whole. In addition, there's the time preference problem, in which the decisions and choices of today's community is given excessive weight compared to those of the many different future communities that could emerge with different decisions.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's fair to point out that building and permits may not be very democratic, but the argument being made here is generally that people in a community shouldn't be allowed to decided. Some people believe that they ought to be able to have homes bulldozed and skycrapers build 'because they want something'. There is basically infinity livable space in the US, so find a place that works. Employers will have to adjust to cost of living.
imtringued 5y ago
>You have no say in someone else's community. Fantastic. You have no say where the jobs are and you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are. Absolutely perfect. >Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive. Developers aren't running a charity. They only fulfill existing demand and if you don't even do that things are going to become even less affordable.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "You have no say where the jobs are" Anyone can list jobs anywhere they want. "you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are" You can go anywhere you want, so long as someone is willing to sell you or rent you a place to live. "They only fulfill existing demand" The 'demand' for living in places like SF, NY etc. is infinite. There's no such thing as 'existing demand'. None of your arguments are working out here.

Arn_Thor 5y ago

"Towers in the park" may not be for everyone (certainly, the cost of the model restricts who can afford to live there unless the government subsidizes), but in my experience it's working pretty well a lot of places. Where I live in Hong Kong, towers built atop mall/park combinations are some of the most attractive places to live. Convenience with public transit, child care and shopping all in walking distance. Green space for family walks and exercise, decent air flow for an urban setting. I'm a fan