|
Don't parking minimums kind of self reinforce? In that you demolish everything to build car parks and now nobody actually lives in the city so you've turned your area into a giant out of town shopping mall except it's in the town, and the lack of local custom means that usage drops and now you don't use any of the car parks you built.
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
I mean in the sense that do the problems with them not self reinforce leading to a sort of eutrophic collapse of the area? Because yes I know the US overprescribes parking, I've seen the pictures and watched the video.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
So are the developments planned to account for the fact that they're steadily obliterating their own customer base with each one added? Do people actually use the massive oceans of businesses where once there were houses? Or do they not just all die out due to lack of use like malls do? I just don't see how you go from building a business in the middle of a busy urban center, then steadily replacing all the urban stuff with more businesses and car parks until you've shoved everyone who would have gone to the first business out of reach of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i cant quite parse this, do you have an example either real or theoretical? In the town I live in there is a small shopping block with supermarkets, it has a car park (much smaller than a US one) and there's a bunch of them like this dotted on the main roads in the suburbs. https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5305755,-1.1985998,245m/data=!3m1!1e3 This as you can see is fairly busy a lot of the time because it's located in a residential area, not high density even, but most of its custom likely stems from the major road it's on, and the nearby houses. But a US city doesn't have a major road, it's all blocks with massive roads between them. I know they have major roads between the blocks but they have lots of them, whereas this is probably one of maybe three or four major roads into the town center and sees almost all the traffic. If you took this development and turned everything nearby into steadily more shops and car parks like you see for block after block in parts of the US, and there was a massive grid of roads to even out the traffic, it would collapse. It's dependent on the local residential custom, most of these shops are designed to cater to the local residents, hence a local pharmacy, probably a bookkeeper, etc, likely a small branch of a nationwide supermarket in the slightly larger ones. How does the US commercial development deal with that destruction of the customer base, especially when demolishing relatively high density areas to create it? luxury handset posted:oh, this isn't quite how it works in the states. in north america moreso than europe, way more development is either an upscaling of density if not straight up virgin site development. so you rarely end up actually adding parking to busy urban centers with two exceptions Wait so they just set out to build these giant oceans of surface car park for miles in every direction and then the rest of the city gets built around that?? Like these are originally at the edge of town and they just keep building more housing outwards? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
I was kind of operating under the assumption that the US car park blocks were redevelopments because unless you live in, gently caress I dunno, milton keynes the only place you see blocks like that in the UK is in heavily redeveloped town and city CBDs, where they knocked down the old terraced housing set up during the industrial revolution for paup storage and built a bunch of other sutff, because nothing else is on a grid. Even modern suburbs aren't built on a grid, the only time anyone built on the a grid in the UK is industrial era terraces which are incredibly distinctive (especially from the back with them all having a concrete yard+wall backing onto a non-car-navigable alleyway) Otherwise all the developments are a bit more self contained I guess, not just "add another block, keep going". OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
I guess agricultural land is cheap in the US too. Cos we've got shitloads of it here but it tends to stay that way, I can't imagine it getting bought up at that rate other than if the government did it to put, well, milton keynes on top of it in 1967. Also the entire US city structure is just loving weird to me, it just keeps going. I've never been to London but even that seems a lot more structured on the map, where it's taken over smaller towns and villages as the greater london area blew out. My town was made from joining several together during the boom years in the 1800s and it still keeps that root and branch structure too. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
I guess I can't imagine that in the UK, if you handed over a US city, that they wouldn't immediately bulldoze the poo poo out of most of those car park+business places and then turn it into overpriced housing. If everywhere else is two storey then obviously there's money to be made turning a car park into houses. Though I suppose not before they ran out of dilapidated 19th century warehouses to subdivide into barely legal people storage. I also guess this is where the parking min + lack of central planning comes in. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
I mean generally I think you build on floodplains because there's already a major settlement there, owing to access to the water source and good farmland that generally comes with floodplains.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
The reason it's being built on would seem to be "because it's next to a large city" and the reason the city is there is because coastal and river sites are where settlements originate. Settlements are generally next to water, on flood plains, which is probably why so many people live on flood plains, and why unless you move entire cities away from water, you're still going to be "putting people on floodplains". Like sure water management measures are necessary but complaining about the concept of building on floodplains is daft because the reason things are built at all is because of proximity to population centers which until recently could only be built where they are. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 18:15
|
|