It's my opinion that anyone who thought about upzoning logically for two minutes would come to the conclusion that it is necessary to substantially increase housing supply without also needing to substantially increase infrastructure. I'm glad to see the results are starting to be noticed.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

That sounds like making decisions based on the good of all, instead of me in particular. Sounds like a slippery slope.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah increasing single family to 1-4 family isn't going to affect the neighborhood fabric that much, especially if you consider that it's literally just not banning slightly higher density structures

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The thing I dislike about high density housing is the lack of trees. Some thought needs to be put into this if it is the path we are going to travel

[–] cashew 5 points 1 year ago

The space for trees is where the road is. Reduce the lane width and curbside parking and you have plenty of space for greenery along the street. Just take a look at some streets in Amsterdam.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The beauty of high density housing is it takes up a lot less room and should leave land for green spaces. If we're no all living in a suburban hellscape a hopefully more people are walking to shrink roads there's more room for parks and trees.

[–] themusicman 1 points 7 months ago

It shouldn't be this way if done right. High density housing should make room for lots of parks and green space, green courtyards, etc.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

So glad to see our city planners being praised by Chuck's outlet. I've followed Strong Towns for a few years now and they really are beating the drum for how we should build urban settlements in the future.