3 ms·
> I think we need dense place for those who like living there, and suburban ones for those who don't - plus stuff in between. We agree. And this is a key point
by ItsMonkk 5y ago
> I think we need dense place for those who like living there, and suburban ones for those who don't - plus stuff in between.
We agree. And this is a key point made by Not Just Bikes / StrongTowns - when you have exclusively Stroad infrastructure and Single Family Homes, even those who prefer to drive and live in those homes are worse off.
You need single family homes. You need bike lanes. You need multi-family homes. You need mid-rises. You need mixed-development. You need transit. We need all kinds.
- Aloha 5y agoNothing is stopping anyone from building denser infrastructure, I'm in favor of lifting the often absurd parking requirements seen. But I don't wanna see a world where density is required, because I don't want to live in a dense area.
- occz 5y ago>Nothing is stopping anyone from building denser infrastructure, I'm in favor of lifting the often absurd parking requirements seen. That's the thing though - single-family zoning, parking minimums and highway-like standards for streets are very much stopping density from being built. What little density is attempted to be built gets killed by NIMBYism.
- Aloha 5y agoWhat I dont want is to density to be mandated, I think if you eliminate the rules requiring not-density, it will develop on its own.
- ItsMonkk 5y agoJapan's zoning system does a decent job of mediating between the two. Here's[0] a good summary of their system. For your case, category 1 would fit perfectly. When category 1 is 20% of the land, that's fine. When it's 80%, like it is in most of the USA and Canada, that's why we're seeing backlash from the likes of StrongTowns/NJB. [0]: https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.htm...