5 ms·
Some local councils around here want to make it a condition of approval that the first floor of mixed-use must remain commercial. Developers want it to be flexi
by zbrozek 3y ago
Some local councils around here want to make it a condition of approval that the first floor of mixed-use must remain commercial. Developers want it to be flexible because they can't predict future need. Constraints cost! Euclidean zoning is an unspeakably expensive economic blunder.
- epistasis 3y agoUrban Planning has to be one of the worst professions in the existence of humanity. We were all better off without urban planners, and everything they advocate for and enforce makes the world worse.
- screye 3y agoModern urban planners oppose most of the dystopian development seen in the US. What you see here is the stakeholders getting what they want. (Which might not be what they need) Only in this case, the stakeholders are other residents in the neighborhood...not prospective buyers.
- CamperBob2 3y agoNo, modern urban planners basically want us all (except for them, of course) living in a modern Kowloon.
- epistasis 3y agoI actually want to live in a modern Kowloon, but the planners will not allow that, whatever their wishes, because they are the prison guards to a prison system. They must enforce what they are told, and at the same time wish to not take responsibility for their actions.
- adrianN 3y agoNo they don't.
- hackerlight 3y agoIt's the opposite. Urban planners have a vested interest in zoning because their career relies on it. Also, the existence of Kowloon is a good thing. The people who live there would have worse lives if Kowloon was never allowed to build like that. They would be forced to live further away from their work, subjecting them to an hour a day on a cramped train, for example. The wrong question: "Is X bad?". The right question: "Is X worse than the alternative if X wasn't allowed?".
- candiodari 3y agoThis can result in a race to the bottom, is the argument against it. If we allowed people to live in "capsule hotels" for example.
- thereisnospork 3y agoThe problem with the argument is that capsule apartments aren't the bottom - living on the street is. So as a society we've skipped right past bad to horrid while clapping ourselves on the back as if we're doing the 'undesirables' a favor. Abhorrent.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ryandrake 3y agoIf capsule housing or cramped tenements were allowed, economics would push already-housed people down into them, rather than raise unhoused people up into them. Everything is a race to the bottom. For example, let’s say the worst homes in your area legally allowed to be occupied are currently renting for $500/mo. Now capsule housing suddenly becomes legal. They’re not going to magically cost less. Landlords already know the poorest people will at least pay $500/mo, so the capsules will cost that, and the previous worst housing would rise to $750/mo or something.
- hackerlight 3y ago
- tmnvix 3y agoAt least in the US I assumed the opposite. Enormous setbacks, parking minimums to meet the busiest day of the year, extra wide lanes with no dangerous things like tree trunks alongside, etc. It all looks like some cheap developer got away with something when in fact they know that old-style main streets are highly desirable and would build like that if the regulations allowed.
- epistasis 3y agoDespite what they might oppose, as part of their profession they must uphold the determinations of the stakeholders. The purpose of a system is what it does. The supposed opposition of planners, a completely ineffectual and meaningless opposition that has zero effect on any policy outcome, does not change the fact that planning as a profession ends up being this means to an end.
- chongli 3y agoUrban planners are people, not systems. Firefighters oppose fires and try to put them out, yet fires still happen. Would you say that the purpose of firefighting is to burn down houses?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- epistasis 3y agoThe proper analogy here would be that the firefighters, despite personally opposing more fires, go out and set houses on fire because their profession requires them to do so. The entire system is set up to produce worse outcomes, and the planners are the ones constructing and enabling the system.
- chongli 3y agoplanners are the ones constructing and enabling the system No, they aren't. The worst outcomes would happen regardless of whether or not planners were involved. The ones to blame are the vested stakeholders (homeowners and developers), not the planners working for the city trying to fix things. You can see the whole thing play out (comedically) on the show Parks and Rec. Real life is just a drier, more cynical version of that story.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- breather 3y agoFunny, I feel the same way about developers. Urban planners tend to hate them too.
- epistasis 3y agoDevelopers built everything, existed long before planners ever did, and despite their greed and avarice, actually produce things that people want, and live in. Planners can claim none of this. They have complete control over the developers, but tend to make the outcomes worse both for the people buying homes. No matter the intention of the developer or the planner, the planner has made things worse and the developer better.
- breather 3y ago> Developers built everything, Well, no, this is just straight-up not true, that's just a description of recent american history.
- epistasis 3y agoYou must have some weird definition of "developer" then, something that's not compatible with what I'm talking about. Who built all the brownstones in New York, for example? Today, they'd be called developers. What is your definition?
- adrianN 3y agoWho needs a canalization or public transport anyway?
- refurb 3y agoI mean go to a low income country and you can see the results. No setbacks, sidewalk encroachment (building or parking), restaurants on the ground floor of houses (i remember going into one huge restaurant and seeing the family in a separate room watching TV). Bizarre road layout, etc,etc Not all bad, but man is it chaotic.
- Animats 3y agoUsing the first floor of mixed-use buildings being commercial is a huge flop in the SF bay area. Drive down El Camino on the SF peninsula. Look at all those ground floor vacancies, low-end tenants, and oversized "leasing offices" to fill up space.
- electrondood 3y agoI think the issue there is actually the cost to lease vs the amount of traffic. On El Camino there's usually not enough foot traffic to sustain a business in one of those locations. If you go to similar shopping centers like San Antonio in MV, you can see those first floor units are pretty consistently occupied by businesses.
- Animats 3y agoThat's because those places have more parking.
- eastbound 3y agoThat’s a good point; An urban ecologist once told me the most environmental-friendly city is made of 6-floor buildings (like Paris): - Ground floor: Shops, - 1st and sometimes 2nd floor: Offices, lawyers, doctors, companies, - 3-6th: Housing. It was environmentally friendly because the density allows people to drop the car and go shopping and work with 15 minutes of their home.
- doikor 3y ago> - Ground floor: Shops, Only the street facing side. A lot of the buildings in Paris have an inner yard where the ground floor has apartments.
- thuuuomas 3y agoI love to live within smelling distance of the urban slaughterhouse. I love not knowing what chemicals may be wafting out of tanks buried, forgotten beneath my brownfield luxury condo.