3 ms·

No, what it does is force development thru sprawl which decimates wild lands. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards.

Abekkus 5y ago
Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty
- thetinguy 5y ago
  Tell that to delivery drivers
  - paranoidrobot 5y ago
    When talking about "throwing out cars" I suspect what most would mean is re-architecting cities to be less car-dependent. Walkable cities with well integrated public transit and mixed retail, restaurants/cafes and residential, so that you don't need a car to go and do your grocery shopping, get a coffee or even most regular purchases. Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go. You don't eliminate cars, but driving a car isn't the default option because it's more convenient not to. But if you need a car for something, well, that's still an option.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - davidw 5y ago
      > Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go Yes! Where we lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a 'right tool for the job' situation. We did have a car, and used it from time to time, but we also walked, biked and took transit, depending on what we needed to do.
- thereisnospork 5y ago
  Agreed 3-5 is plenty; one of the worst parts about these sorts of overly-onerous regulations is that the regulatory overhead and expense is per project and not per floor or per dwelling. This makes it all the more difficult for 'modest' or 'common-sense' upward development.
- davidw 5y ago
  I've always loved this article comparing different kinds of growth in the real world: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/ https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-... I'm a 'Montreal' guy, and you sound like one too from your comment, but everyone has different tastes.
- ciphol 5y ago
  Very little of California is 3-5 floors, it's mostly 1-2. This "environmental" law is preventing the construction of 3-5 floor buildings.
saurik 5y ago
Why do you feel development through sprawl would be easier to get through CEQA than building upwards? (As someone currently serving on a Local Agency Formation Commission, I actually think I would have told you the opposite?...)

Abekkus 5y ago

Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty

thetinguy 5y ago
Tell that to delivery drivers
- paranoidrobot 5y ago
  When talking about "throwing out cars" I suspect what most would mean is re-architecting cities to be less car-dependent. Walkable cities with well integrated public transit and mixed retail, restaurants/cafes and residential, so that you don't need a car to go and do your grocery shopping, get a coffee or even most regular purchases. Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go. You don't eliminate cars, but driving a car isn't the default option because it's more convenient not to. But if you need a car for something, well, that's still an option.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - davidw 5y ago
    > Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go Yes! Where we lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a 'right tool for the job' situation. We did have a car, and used it from time to time, but we also walked, biked and took transit, depending on what we needed to do.
thereisnospork 5y ago
Agreed 3-5 is plenty; one of the worst parts about these sorts of overly-onerous regulations is that the regulatory overhead and expense is per project and not per floor or per dwelling. This makes it all the more difficult for 'modest' or 'common-sense' upward development.
davidw 5y ago
I've always loved this article comparing different kinds of growth in the real world: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/ https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-... I'm a 'Montreal' guy, and you sound like one too from your comment, but everyone has different tastes.
ciphol 5y ago
Very little of California is 3-5 floors, it's mostly 1-2. This "environmental" law is preventing the construction of 3-5 floor buildings.

saurik 5y ago

Why do you feel development through sprawl would be easier to get through CEQA than building upwards? (As someone currently serving on a Local Agency Formation Commission, I actually think I would have told you the opposite?...)