5 ms·

I mean, B.C and a few others are implementing broad upzoning legislation, but there's still quite a ways to go. There's this whole b.s about building "around tr

I mean, B.C and a few others are implementing broad upzoning legislation, but there's still quite a ways to go. There's this whole b.s about building "around transit hubs" which will continue perpetuating a wealth divide if the only place people can realistically live is "where the busses are"

daedrdev 3y ago
Building around transit hubs where people might not need a car its still better than no new housing at all though.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The key is to build more housing units - if an area needs 50k more dwellings it doesn’t terribly matter if you build 50k luxury space apartments or 50k hovels - either is much better than arguing about it’d or decades and building nothing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - fragmede 3y ago
    For whom? The locals who like their way of life selfishly don't want things to change. And unfortunately, the people who already live there are the ones who control whether or not new construction is allowed.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    That would have been true if they didn't already spend those decades arguing instead of building anything which would theoretically reduce the general scarcity. It doesn't make it worth arguing over to the point pf delay now, but it matters that it's only feasible to build 50k luxury units by displacing the last hovels in the tiny amount of new space opened up for them since the 50s
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Any is better than none is such a bleak standard. It's fine though, just upzone the inner streets around transit hubs too, and we'll still be allowing more than none
lwansbrough 3y ago
I don’t really understand your point? If you build density around transit hubs everyone will be able to afford to live closer to the city and within walking distance of transit and thus not need a car.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  My point is kind of exactly that, it's agreeable and it's better than nothing so people don't feel like it's worth complaining about. What about the streets between transit hubs and off of main thoroughfares? They get at most fourplexes, pretty inoffensive. So yes, build and auto upzone the transit stations for people who'd otherwise live somewhere else and arbitrarily live where they'll commute elsewhere and come home, but that just extends downtown for the rich people who'd otherwise be there in this awful compromise. I live about 15 mins walk from the train, and don't own a vehicle, but everyone who doesn't own a $2m house lives in the basements of those houses, or in the apartments that tend to just be on the main thoroughfares subject to apparently unavoidable car noise anyway. If you didn't commute downtown, would you feel like only being able to live next to a bus exchange would be suitable?

daedrdev 3y ago

Building around transit hubs where people might not need a car its still better than no new housing at all though.

bombcar 3y ago
The key is to build more housing units - if an area needs 50k more dwellings it doesn’t terribly matter if you build 50k luxury space apartments or 50k hovels - either is much better than arguing about it’d or decades and building nothing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- fragmede 3y ago
  For whom? The locals who like their way of life selfishly don't want things to change. And unfortunately, the people who already live there are the ones who control whether or not new construction is allowed.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  That would have been true if they didn't already spend those decades arguing instead of building anything which would theoretically reduce the general scarcity. It doesn't make it worth arguing over to the point pf delay now, but it matters that it's only feasible to build 50k luxury units by displacing the last hovels in the tiny amount of new space opened up for them since the 50s
brailsafe 3y ago
Any is better than none is such a bleak standard. It's fine though, just upzone the inner streets around transit hubs too, and we'll still be allowing more than none

lwansbrough 3y ago

I don’t really understand your point? If you build density around transit hubs everyone will be able to afford to live closer to the city and within walking distance of transit and thus not need a car.

brailsafe 3y ago
My point is kind of exactly that, it's agreeable and it's better than nothing so people don't feel like it's worth complaining about. What about the streets between transit hubs and off of main thoroughfares? They get at most fourplexes, pretty inoffensive. So yes, build and auto upzone the transit stations for people who'd otherwise live somewhere else and arbitrarily live where they'll commute elsewhere and come home, but that just extends downtown for the rich people who'd otherwise be there in this awful compromise. I live about 15 mins walk from the train, and don't own a vehicle, but everyone who doesn't own a $2m house lives in the basements of those houses, or in the apartments that tend to just be on the main thoroughfares subject to apparently unavoidable car noise anyway. If you didn't commute downtown, would you feel like only being able to live next to a bus exchange would be suitable?