121–130 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time I went to Denver I actually got chased.
Last time I went to Denver I didn't get chased and everyone I met seemed pretty great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replacing unused office space with dense multifamily housing would benefit the climate long term as city dwellers have a much lower carbon footprint. Not to mention that they've gotten good enough building with engineered timber that they can safely build midrises with the stuff. No need for concrete.
but by demolishing you're releasing and generating a ton of embodied carbon for a likely relative limited output of residential homes on the other side (because the economics doesn't stack up). I'd contend that the trade off is as simple as you're suggesting.
I think Denver (I live here) is an example of our horrible zoning. We have entirely focused our cities (especially Denver and RTD (Regional Transportation District)) around people commuting in for work. This is one of the main principles of BAD design, where you create an entire area around close to a single use (offices). That creates a very fragile city. This "single use" zoning that the US proliferated makes us re…
> I went to Park am Gleisdreieck in Berlin and stayed in a multi-family unit right along the park That's a favorite running spot of mine when I'm in Berlin. It's also along a great bus line, close to gyms, a technology museum, a bio market, Victoria Park and not far from Tempelhof. But that little park shines on its own. And the cars parked along the road are down a half level so you don't feel surrounded by parked c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The good news for you is that you can live like this in almost any major city. Those of us that absolutely want to drive places and live in SFH zoned areas can also do that. Win win.
Why would you want to have to drive everywhere?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you want to have to drive everywhere?
It's quiet, I get a larger piece of land with a yard that I can enjoy, I can have a porch, there are no homeless people accosting me when I sit on my porch, when I go to the grocery store it is clean and doesn't have a homeless encampment outside the front door, and nobody shoplifts from it so nothing is locked up, etc etc. I used to live in Seattle, these are not invented problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quiet, I get a larger piece of land with a yard that I can enjoy, I can have a porch, there are no homeless people accosting me when I sit on my porch, when I go to the grocery store it is clean and doesn't have a homeless encampment outside the front door, and nobody shoplifts from it so nothing is locked up, etc etc. I used to live in Seattle, these are not invented problems.
50% of your problems are homeless people. Seattle should get homes for those people and that would make it 50% nicer for you.
This is not mentioning the gorillion dollars Seattle already spends on homeless help to no avail; asylums are probably the only real solution to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but by demolishing you're releasing and generating a ton of embodied carbon for a likely relative limited output of residential homes on the other side (because the economics doesn't stack up). I'd contend that the trade off is as simple as you're suggesting.
Razing buildings generates no more carbon than what is required by the machinery to demolish it and cart off the debris. I'm starting to question whether you're speaking in good faith
https://restoreoregon.org/2021/04/12/understanding-the-carbo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Homelessness is a choice that society has made. We have enough excess that we can feed and house these people. People are a lot less scary when they have some measure of security.
It’s the raving drug addicts that cause the problem. That is a choice those people made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I went to Park am Gleisdreieck in Berlin and stayed in a multi-family unit right along the park That's a favorite running spot of mine when I'm in Berlin. It's also along a great bus line, close to gyms, a technology museum, a bio market, Victoria Park and not far from Tempelhof. But that little park shines on its own. And the cars parked along the road are down a half level so you don't feel surrounded by parked c…
American cities are built around cars, not people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
… So live where you want. I do, and it’s a SFH neighborhood. We don’t all need to live in Kowloon City, just because that’s what you like. So tired of this strident bullshit (“and SFH zoning should not exist”) from people who can’t seem to figure out other people exist and have thoughts and preferences, too.
I'm just going to copy and paste the end of my last comment since it seems you didn't read it >I'd have no problem with this if dense, multi-use zoning were common. As it is, very few places in the US are as livable as much of Europe and the more developed parts of Asia. It's easy to say 'live where you want' when your preferred housing isn't illegal in most of the US.
> It's easy to say 'live where you want' when your preferred housing isn't illegal in most of the US.
And yet, even if we take this obviously bogus statement on it's face, there are still many places you could live if you were more interested in living there and less interested in trying to force me to live there, too. You could even, if this were honest concern, join your local city's planning commission and talk to people who actually understand your local area about it's zoning, though I suppose that takes more effort than shit posting about SFH BAD on social media.