• regul@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    193
    ·
    3 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      3 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • regul@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        3 months ago

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

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        3 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          If traffic gets bad enough people will make different decisions.

          • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            3 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.