4 ms·

The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas, and that the ground-floor ret

by ajkjk 2y ago

The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas, and that the ground-floor retail tends to be (apparently) reserved for overpriced retail chains that come and go every few years, presumably because they charge high rents for large spaces. They also tend to not have balcony space for people to decorate so from outside they look completely un-personalized. If they were less soulsuckingly lifeless nobody would mind them. Also as a result of their soulsuckingness it's hard to imagine treating one as a long-term home, which compounds because they're more soulsucking due to having nobody people treating them as long-term homes. Also they are usually not for sale as condos either so that's another reason they don't feel like long-term homes. (Nor are they able to personalize them significantly).

TulliusCicero 2y ago
> The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas What I noticed with development patterns when I lived in Munich, is that there were a LOT more "pedestrian plaza" type areas scattered throughout the city compared to US cities. I think that's what's needed, is any given neighborhood having at least a few plaza areas with some open space, some benches, a fountain, etc.
- mjevans 2y ago
  Personal observations... I'm not sure the culture in the US would lend itself that way. Parks and public commons areas tend to become the dumping ground for unsolved social issues. Those who've fallen through society's cracks. Those who would abuse the ability to interact with others to interact in uncouth ways. Issues of space size and use density. Even during the height of Pokemon Go when (mostly) nerds were incentivized to visit city parks the mostly polite use was frowned upon as an unwanted crowd interfering with those who'd traditionally use the same public space. Then there's the more 'accepted' version of gatherings in cities: paying various retail places for the privilege of being there, usually at a markup that reflects the value of being in such a dense area. Fixing both of those problems, and any others I didn't mention, will take political will and a shift in culture. Programs to connect the unfortunate with the social integration or support help they need, and measures to combat rent-seeking (laws and tax biases) seem like a distant pipe dream.
  - jordanb 2y ago
    Where do you live? I live in Chicago and everyone goes to the park. I have friends in New York and that's even more true there.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Probably the 95% of the rest of the US that is not as densely populated as NYC and Chicago. If the park is not sufficiently used by sufficient numbers of “normal” people, then it can quickly get taken over by sketchy people.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        That same 95% might have less than a thousand homeless people total and theres just too much park acreage for the few who might loiter there to ever dominate a park. Its a non issue. People go to the park in places I lived that are large and small. By and large the few homeless people who congregate in parks very much don’t want to cause a big nuisance and a police visit and keep to themselves.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        yunwal 2y ago
        In my experience parks in suburban areas tend to be reserved for sports facilities (baseball, tennis, etc) and playgrounds. They’re not usually nice places to hang out.
  - chasil 2y ago
    You can't really paint all parks with this brush. I went to this park two weeks ago, because it is one of very (very) few that performs ancient Greek drama in mask every year. This is quite a rare thing. https://www.genesius.org/ https://www.genesius.org/
itronitron 2y ago
When you have a lot of them it creates community. There will be more demand for specific types of shops and businesses, more space for parks, and more pedestrians so generally safer. But that requires planning and time.
dangus 2y ago
A big fat citation needed on all of this. It’s all just your personal opinion and you make a lot of assumptions about all these developments lumping them all together as if they’re 100% identical. You really think none of these 5-over-1 buildings have community amenities like gyms, pools, coworking spaces, party rooms, and other features like that? I think the truth is that there’s such a deeply ingrained hatred for multi-family buildings in the United States that buildings like this are held to impossible standards, and that’s what you’re doing here. You could accuse almost any McMansion sub-development of every sin you’ve listed besides having hallways - which is kind of a hilarious accusation to make, that hallways impede communities. Tell me, which McMansion development forces you to walk by your neighbor like a hallway does? It’s really the opposite, you can leave your McMansion home without even stepping food outside your private property - garage to car to road to Starbucks drive thru. No need to get out of your car or interact with anyone. And the idea that all these developments only have overpriced retail is not only laughable but it still beats out McMansion developments for having zero retail of any kind. But again we are holding multi-family developments to higher standards than single family homes that are so lovingly adored.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  They have amenities but they are often reserved for the people who actually hold a lease vs the community, unless that amenity is renting one of the public facing retail units. In contrast seems like there are more public/municipal improvements brought in when bog standard suburbia is built by developers instead, where a developer might have to also build public parks and roads and schools.
  - dangus 2y ago
    Since when do suburban subdivision developers build public parks and schools? I have never heard of a single family housing development that did that. They may build roads and then turn over the more expensive long-term maintenance over to the town. What’s wrong with multi-unit buildings that have private amenities? Do you let people into your yard to use your swing set and pool? Aren’t there a lot of single family home communities not have private HOA amenities too? Once again a higher standard is being applied to multi-family homes because of how much Americans are conditioned to hate them. Anything a multi-family building does is sinful but the God-fearing single family home’s private amenities are sacred freedom-loving private property.
theluketaylor 2y ago
Some of that blame can be laid at the feet of north american two staircase fire code requirements. Rules that all units need 2 different staircases really dictate the sort of layout that is physically possible, nearly always resulting in a long central hallway with stairs at either end that feels very impersonal. The resulting units are also not great places to live, with windows on a single wall. Every bedroom needs an egress window, so building 3+ bedroom units almost never pencils out. It's all 1-2 bedroom 'starter' apartments, rather than the types of beautiful 'for life' apartments you'd see in pre-war new york buildings. Since the staircases are required no matter what, developers are incentivized to stretch the horizontal distance between them as far as possible to amortize the space penalty of the stairs, making the building feel even more impersonal once inside. If single stairs plus a sprinkler or other fire suppression was allowed multifamily buildings could be set on much smaller lots, with more corner units that have windows on 2 sides or even small, skinny apartments with half or the full floor dedicated to 3-4 bedroom units. The interiors would have far more light and the buildings would be much more human-scale, all contributing to things feeling a lot more personal. There could also be a lot more green space and gathering space scattered in smaller parcels, breaking up the hulking 5+1s we have all become used to.
- ajkjk 2y ago
  A bit, yes, but most of the community problems can be solved without changing that. The community problems are due to the way they're run: basically, owned by profit-maximizing hedge funds.

by ajkjk 2y ago

TulliusCicero 2y ago

> The main issues with them is that they are don't create much community, with their lifeless corridors and alienating common areas What I noticed with development patterns when I lived in Munich, is that there were a LOT more "pedestrian plaza" type areas scattered throughout the city compared to US cities. I think that's what's needed, is any given neighborhood having at least a few plaza areas with some open space, some benches, a fountain, etc.

mjevans 2y ago
Personal observations... I'm not sure the culture in the US would lend itself that way. Parks and public commons areas tend to become the dumping ground for unsolved social issues. Those who've fallen through society's cracks. Those who would abuse the ability to interact with others to interact in uncouth ways. Issues of space size and use density. Even during the height of Pokemon Go when (mostly) nerds were incentivized to visit city parks the mostly polite use was frowned upon as an unwanted crowd interfering with those who'd traditionally use the same public space. Then there's the more 'accepted' version of gatherings in cities: paying various retail places for the privilege of being there, usually at a markup that reflects the value of being in such a dense area. Fixing both of those problems, and any others I didn't mention, will take political will and a shift in culture. Programs to connect the unfortunate with the social integration or support help they need, and measures to combat rent-seeking (laws and tax biases) seem like a distant pipe dream.
- jordanb 2y ago
  Where do you live? I live in Chicago and everyone goes to the park. I have friends in New York and that's even more true there.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Probably the 95% of the rest of the US that is not as densely populated as NYC and Chicago. If the park is not sufficiently used by sufficient numbers of “normal” people, then it can quickly get taken over by sketchy people.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      That same 95% might have less than a thousand homeless people total and theres just too much park acreage for the few who might loiter there to ever dominate a park. Its a non issue. People go to the park in places I lived that are large and small. By and large the few homeless people who congregate in parks very much don’t want to cause a big nuisance and a police visit and keep to themselves.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - yunwal 2y ago
        In my experience parks in suburban areas tend to be reserved for sports facilities (baseball, tennis, etc) and playgrounds. They’re not usually nice places to hang out.
- chasil 2y ago
  You can't really paint all parks with this brush. I went to this park two weeks ago, because it is one of very (very) few that performs ancient Greek drama in mask every year. This is quite a rare thing. https://www.genesius.org/ https://www.genesius.org/

itronitron 2y ago

When you have a lot of them it creates community. There will be more demand for specific types of shops and businesses, more space for parks, and more pedestrians so generally safer. But that requires planning and time.

dangus 2y ago

A big fat citation needed on all of this. It’s all just your personal opinion and you make a lot of assumptions about all these developments lumping them all together as if they’re 100% identical. You really think none of these 5-over-1 buildings have community amenities like gyms, pools, coworking spaces, party rooms, and other features like that? I think the truth is that there’s such a deeply ingrained hatred for multi-family buildings in the United States that buildings like this are held to impossible standards, and that’s what you’re doing here. You could accuse almost any McMansion sub-development of every sin you’ve listed besides having hallways - which is kind of a hilarious accusation to make, that hallways impede communities. Tell me, which McMansion development forces you to walk by your neighbor like a hallway does? It’s really the opposite, you can leave your McMansion home without even stepping food outside your private property - garage to car to road to Starbucks drive thru. No need to get out of your car or interact with anyone. And the idea that all these developments only have overpriced retail is not only laughable but it still beats out McMansion developments for having zero retail of any kind. But again we are holding multi-family developments to higher standards than single family homes that are so lovingly adored.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
They have amenities but they are often reserved for the people who actually hold a lease vs the community, unless that amenity is renting one of the public facing retail units. In contrast seems like there are more public/municipal improvements brought in when bog standard suburbia is built by developers instead, where a developer might have to also build public parks and roads and schools.
- dangus 2y ago
  Since when do suburban subdivision developers build public parks and schools? I have never heard of a single family housing development that did that. They may build roads and then turn over the more expensive long-term maintenance over to the town. What’s wrong with multi-unit buildings that have private amenities? Do you let people into your yard to use your swing set and pool? Aren’t there a lot of single family home communities not have private HOA amenities too? Once again a higher standard is being applied to multi-family homes because of how much Americans are conditioned to hate them. Anything a multi-family building does is sinful but the God-fearing single family home’s private amenities are sacred freedom-loving private property.

theluketaylor 2y ago

Some of that blame can be laid at the feet of north american two staircase fire code requirements. Rules that all units need 2 different staircases really dictate the sort of layout that is physically possible, nearly always resulting in a long central hallway with stairs at either end that feels very impersonal. The resulting units are also not great places to live, with windows on a single wall. Every bedroom needs an egress window, so building 3+ bedroom units almost never pencils out. It's all 1-2 bedroom 'starter' apartments, rather than the types of beautiful 'for life' apartments you'd see in pre-war new york buildings. Since the staircases are required no matter what, developers are incentivized to stretch the horizontal distance between them as far as possible to amortize the space penalty of the stairs, making the building feel even more impersonal once inside. If single stairs plus a sprinkler or other fire suppression was allowed multifamily buildings could be set on much smaller lots, with more corner units that have windows on 2 sides or even small, skinny apartments with half or the full floor dedicated to 3-4 bedroom units. The interiors would have far more light and the buildings would be much more human-scale, all contributing to things feeling a lot more personal. There could also be a lot more green space and gathering space scattered in smaller parcels, breaking up the hulking 5+1s we have all become used to.

ajkjk 2y ago
A bit, yes, but most of the community problems can be solved without changing that. The community problems are due to the way they're run: basically, owned by profit-maximizing hedge funds.