this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
431 points (100.0% liked)

196

16509 readers
2480 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] regul@lemm.ee 193 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah these 5 over 1s really ruin the neighborhood character of my suburban strip mall state highway hell.

Leave them as derelict auto body warehouses tyvm.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I thought the idea of the post was the pictured buildings are far too small and we need much larger apartment buildings.

A desire for single-family homes (protecting suburb character) or no change (leave the warehouses) would be something else entirely.

Did I miss something?

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Climate-wise, 5-10 story buildings are the most efficient, and they are plenty dense enough to support a good level of public transport service etc. It's probably not desirable to go much bigger except in the most constrained areas.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Source for them being more efficient than taller buildings?

[–] regul@lemm.ee 30 points 3 months ago

The people who post this meme often do not want for-profit housing development of any kind.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

5-over-1 is frankly larger than is needed, many downtowns in europe are mostly 2 or 3-over-1.

the real secret is just to not stop building them

[–] figjam@midwest.social 8 points 3 months ago

As an American going to Vancouver (South of the river) I can't disagree

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

I've seen these around my area. In theory, it's great: replace strip malls with medium/high density housing and walkable retail.

In practice, the units are always high-end condos or expensive apartments, with nothing but nation-wide franchise shops in the retail space. And they come with a colossal parking deck in the rear since you're likely car commuting at these prices. It's neither for local business, or to create a walkable community, or to help with affordable housing. If anything, it's purpose built to be attractive for people looking to downsize from a detached home.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Well, they’re building three in one go in my urban area. And they’re fucking up my neighborhood. The whole neighborhood is lower rise buildings and prewar apartment buildings, so they have character. And then they knocked down a grocery store to put up these three ungodly ass warts.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good neighborhoods should have a mix of older and newer buildings.

From Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities

[–] SpeakingColors@beehaw.org 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for sharing that excerpt! Definitely a concept I had not thought about, makes perfect sense, and is seen demonstrated in the gentrification process.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, she definitely has some thought-provoking explanations on how cities work.

I would say gentrifying 1 building is ok, and is something you can do every 5 years or so to help boost the economy and modernize the building stock. But it becomes a problem when an entire block or an entire neighborhood becomes gentrified all at once. It'll lead to a slum in the long run.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

They did a bunch of them near where I used to live. The problem with these (and really all unplanned high density housing) is that while their intent is to create walkable communities (a great idea in itself), they ignore the reality that most people are going to commute to a job, and they create the nastiest traffic bottlenecks ever. They're not bad when they're located next to a major highway with preplanned egress/ingress, but many of these halfwit developers will plop them with an entrance exit on an already busy 4 lane road and wonder why everything is all wacko.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If traffic gets bad enough people will make different decisions.

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Only if the infrastructure is there tbh. Every time I get on my bike I have to make peace that I might just die that day because I can't hardly get out of my apartment before a car tries to hit me. And we even have bike lanes all over here they just aren't set up well. Tons of people don't want to do that even if the alternative is to sit in traffic for longer than it takes me to bike somewhere

[–] regul@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

the impetus to improve the infrastructure will be stronger if conditions are worse

don't chicken-and-egg yourself out of densification

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My neighborhood has been pretty long standing in its current state. This is part of a hugely explosive new wave of gentrification. I’m seeing it happen before my eyes. It’s pretty sad.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Indeed. I will say that we certainly need to rethink the way we go about planning and engineering our cities in a way that removes the necessity for cars as a primary means of transportation, but these designs need to come from a higher collective level within local governments that allows for a more intertwined planning and management. As of now, you have individual developers doing whatever they think is best (aka most profitable) and it tells these subpar effects.