Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY

NIMBY?
	NIMBY
	YIMBY
	I can't afford my medicine.

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Cicero posted:

Completely understandable in and of itself, but in practice many of those people will then vote against things that would actually improve transit, like bus lanes or reduced parking requirements or higher density zoning.

That's sort of the conundrum, a lot of people will claim "well I'm fine with transit when it's good" and then fight it ever becoming good because in reality they mean "I want it to become good with zero side effects whatsoever impacting my lifestyle and preferences".

It's not entirely unlike people who say that they're totally against racism and sexism but are mysteriously against anything that might actually reduce said racism and sexism.

A wonderful example;

quote:

Residents in Lawnswood are up in arms over proposals to remove a �landmark� roundabout on a busy road and replace it with a multi-lane traffic light junction.

Leeds City Council has been consulting on plans to create new traffic light-controlled six-lane crossroads - along with cycle lanes and footpaths - at the junction of the Outer Ring Road with Otley Road in Lawnswood, instead of the current roundabout.

The proposals are part of the council�s Connecting Leeds initiative - to improve travel around the city - and bosses it would improve �one of the busiest� junctions in north Leeds, with over 60,000 vehicles passing through each day, and help reduce bus delays.

But residents living on the ring road say the new junction is unnecessary and fear it will cause more traffic problems as well as add to noise and pollution in the area.

They also argue losing the grass verges on the ring road could lead to danger to pedestrians and cyclists from residents backing out of their drives.

Graham Sugden, 67, who lives on the ring road, said: �We are losing a landmark roundabout. It is a busy junction but also a lovely roundabout in terms of its aesthetic appearance with the flowers and garden in the middle. They want to replace it with a massive junction which will have no impact on travel times. They say it�s to decrease bus times in Leeds but we want to see their data.�

Neighbour Shameela Khan, 45, added: �It�s actually a very nice roundabout when you come from Harrogate or the city centre. In bloom, it�s beautiful. It makes no sense to take it out and put horrific traffic lights there. It�s just not well thought-through. I think we would have been willing to compromise if they had to get rid of the roundabout.�

Another resident, Beatrice Rogers, said she fears being �stranded in her own home� if the proposals go ahead.

�I do not drive, I have never owned a car but I do have a wheelchair, a mobility scooter and frequently use taxis. I am deeply concerned by plans to remove the grass verge and trees in front of my house in order to install a cycle lane and widen the ring road on the approach to the Lawnswood Roundabout. How are taxis going to be able to park and pick me up? From the plans it looks like with great difficulty. Has an assessment been made concerning the safety for pedestrians?� she said.

But my flowers :qq:

# ¿ Oct 20, 2018 16:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 19:37

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Nitrousoxide posted:

Roundabouts actually typically have better throughput than light controlled intersections. I'm not sure what benefit they're even hoping to achieve. The primary downside of roundabouts is that they take up significantly more space than a regular controlled intersection, but that's primarily an issue for demolishing existing structures or buying up land that was previously owned/occupied to expand it. If it's already in place than you're probably not going to see much, if any improvement.

I think that there are cases where unequal traffic flows benefit from light controlled junctions over roundabouts because there can be throttling applied to the heavier used routes etc. But would be interesting if they did post the studies though

# ¿ Oct 21, 2018 10:48

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Elendil004 posted:

I know MAPC well, but they are a good example of good, thank you.

https://www.escp.org.uk

Or https://www.push.gov.uk/partnership/ as a slightly larger model?

# ¿ Jan 15, 2019 00:41

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Looks like the best you can do given the constraints, I imagine they�d have a flyover of some kind for one of the legs otherwise, but it�s impossible to fit it in the space.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 22:11

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

"To avoid situations in which wild animals are drawn to bodies of water that would harm them, #SB10 will require that all swimming pools and hot tubs within the Woodside wildlife reserve are enclosed in buildings."

# ¿ Feb 3, 2022 11:53

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

OddObserver posted:

The one in that NYT article looks like the world's saddest courtyard. And I can't imagine that even a bigger ones would work very well on any highrise...

Do like Singapore and go sideways

https://twitter.com/xavierlur/status/1493134245384327169?s=61&t=Q_MG2HXdCXipsm84GALAyQ

# ¿ Jul 28, 2023 23:28

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Jasper Tin Neck posted:

My city has recently stopped mandating underground parking because it's by far the most expensive way to facilitate parking. In addition, if we're serious about reducing car dependence, a parking garage can be later torn down easily, an underground parking facility not do much.

Retail beyond the convenience store also typically prefers deeper and more open floor plates than residential construction. Especially in seismically active areas this increases construction costs and risks.

A fairly obvious solution is to stack a parking garage on top of a store, but this can get snagged on minimum parking requirements, if those stack as well.

Isn�t the answer to do reinforced parking structures under stores, with access ramps for loading and unloading, so that you can put PV/Wind on the large roof print and shade cars etc underneath for cooling?

At that point you�ve used as much steel as any parking structure on top of a store would take, but increased efficiency and power draw?

# ¿ Sep 21, 2023 14:10

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Nitrousoxide posted:

Requiring underground parking will just massively drive up construction costs. I mean sure, let people build underground parking lots if they need it, but honestly, requiring it just reinforces car dependency and drives up rents for retail or homes.

Neither of those are underground though?

# ¿ Sep 21, 2023 21:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 19:37

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Everyone gets a mini hovenring until they�ve caught up to the Dutch

# ¿ Sep 29, 2023 14:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY