4 ms·
I'm personally in the category of wishing government just set some very basic limitations (max height, lot coverage, maybe light output at night, max noise outp
by snapplebobapple 3y ago
I'm personally in the category of wishing government just set some very basic limitations (max height, lot coverage, maybe light output at night, max noise output, basic electrical and plumbing interoperability and then stamped approved on every proposal that came in within the spec in a very short period of time while telling everyone who doesn't actually own the land to STFU.
So, while I don't agree every building deserves appreciation or preservation, wishing everyone would STFU comes to the same conclusion that things should be built if someone is willing to put their own money up to do it and it doesn't violate very basic rules (what those rules should be and what should be zoned under what set of rules is a whole different discussion).
- klenwell 3y agoAsk and ye shall receive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 See a lot of these in my area (Southern California). I'm ok with them. Probably need more.
- snapplebobapple 3y agoI'm a fan of those, however, I do think they are a symptom of bad overegulation of the higher density rather than the ideal. The ideal for me is much closer to what lots of Europe looks like with basically that but all next to each other filling the whole block, usually along a narrower street so you get the more ideal 3 to 2 ratio of street width to building height and on the first floor it's all small to medium shops so the street is interesting to walk on. To make that possible here would would have to get rid of minimum parking requirements and change a bunch of practices around building public roads, which would probably be for the better. I am happy to see the 5 over 1 being allowed and gaining traction though.