3 ms·
It’s true, Portland isn’t nearly as dense as it should be. The result is that (hundreds of) thousands of people who would like to live here can’t afford to. Bu
by n8cpdx 4y ago
It’s true, Portland isn’t nearly as dense as it should be. The result is that (hundreds of) thousands of people who would like to live here can’t afford to.
But everything I shared about access to nature would be just as true if the urban core was made more dense. Replacing sfh lots with multi use buildings doesn’t affect the access to nature in any way. If anything, it would help the situation by providing more ridership and tax revenue to support transit to nature and investment in parks.
- throwaway894345 4y ago> Replacing sfh lots with multi use buildings doesn’t affect the access to nature in any way. It may if it just pushes people who prefer sfhs farther outside of the urban core, thus increasing the distance between urban core and nature. Maybe if you can pass zoning laws to prevent it, but that seems like a politically uphill battle (if there's already an existing state or national park or conservation area, it's probably not at risk of becoming a subdivision, but it will be hard to keep a patchwork of farms, acreages, and privately owned timber from being parceled off to meet the demand for single family dwellings).