3 ms·

> The article is basically trying to turn them into urban areas rather than suburbs. That was not my take away. Why do you say this and how do you define an ur

> The article is basically trying to turn them into urban areas rather than suburbs. That was not my take away. Why do you say this and how do you define an urban area yourself? My take away was zoning and minimum parking make for inflexible and sparse zoning. Essentially, allow townhomes to have one parking instead of two, allow duplexes, allow a backyard cottage on that 4 acre lot that can be rented. Or, allow some commercial, a small grocery store at the entrance to that sprawling subdivision. IMO there us a large gap between the (relatively) very low density of suburbs and urban. Accotding to the article zoning laws and minimum parking laws require this and are key items to change. Those laws are needlessly inflexible and wind up creating unsustainable environments (eg: tax revenue does not support the road upkeep, per zoning restriction nearest grocery is many miles away, etc..)

jfengel 4y ago
I don't believe the changes they've advocated with suffice. They are, of course, the experts, and I'm just some schmuck on the Internet. So take it with a grain of salt. But I don't think that their plan will increase density enough for people to get where they need to go without a car. Either people won't move in, because they don't want to walk all the way to the subdivision entrance for groceries, or they'll have an extra car even without a place to park it. Maybe they'll get away with a golf cart or other mini-vehicle that couldn't do trips outside the subdivision, though that would take more changes to make that legal. And still, I'm not sure people will find that sufficient. I do think the zoning and parking laws need to change, but I think it requires a lot more. I think it'll require much higher density -- not Manhattan, perhaps, but at least as high as most other US cities. Something more like towns that were designed before cars were invented, and before roads were made primarily for car traffic with no pedestrians.

jfengel 4y ago

I don't believe the changes they've advocated with suffice. They are, of course, the experts, and I'm just some schmuck on the Internet. So take it with a grain of salt. But I don't think that their plan will increase density enough for people to get where they need to go without a car. Either people won't move in, because they don't want to walk all the way to the subdivision entrance for groceries, or they'll have an extra car even without a place to park it. Maybe they'll get away with a golf cart or other mini-vehicle that couldn't do trips outside the subdivision, though that would take more changes to make that legal. And still, I'm not sure people will find that sufficient. I do think the zoning and parking laws need to change, but I think it requires a lot more. I think it'll require much higher density -- not Manhattan, perhaps, but at least as high as most other US cities. Something more like towns that were designed before cars were invented, and before roads were made primarily for car traffic with no pedestrians.