|
Popular Thug Drink posted:thanks for leading off with this. the streetcar conspiracy drives me nuts Don't forget the goddamned HOV lanes into Cobb County rather than making some sort of rail solution up this way. I-75 is about as packed as it's going to get and an extra couple of $10 a day lanes isn't going to fix it that much. But send a train from Barrett or Busbee Parkway and the thing's going to be permanently packed. Even if it's just students from KSU looking for bars in Midtown, it'll pay for itself because of how massively they outnumber alcoholics from Tech and State. And I've worked with some alcoholics (MBAs) from Tech and Jesus Tittyfucking Christ those guys can hold their liquor.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
edit: n/m
1337JiveTurkey fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the whole of suburbia won't die. the suburbs are still gaining population. we're just going to let the suburbs die in the places where, coincidentally, we stick all the poor urbanites being displaced by gentrification It's probably more accurate to talk about suburbia becoming post-suburbia than just dying. Not urban by any stretch of the imagination, but not something the local neighborhood association would countenance either. I live in a 24 unit apartment building in unincorporated Cobb County. No setbacks or mandatory parking allowances can really hide the fact that it's far denser than the equivalent single family housing and the residents are far more diverse. This isn't an isolated phenomenon: Every new development has been multi-unit apart from some fee simple townhouses. The nearby Town Center Mall is still attracting shoppers, but they're also floating the idea of sticking higher density office space in the outparcels* instead of more retail. It's still hypothetical but if it happens, it's violating one of the central tenets of suburban land use: Thou Shalt Not Mix Zoning, Especially When It Leads To More Efficient Use Of Existing Parking. Hopefully in the future it leads to things like MARTA running out to here rather than depending on Kennesaw State to provide bus service to the local area. *These are pieces of land adjacent to a larger development which are sold off and developed separately. If you've ever seen a standalone restaurant in a strip mall—especially with its own parking—the restaurant is almost certainly an outparcel.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Harik posted:What is the name of the rule that requires a gigantic desert of scalding hot parking lot between the road/sidewalk and the business? That's one of those "gently caress everyone without a car" rules, because there's no practical reason why you can't have parking in the back with the business right up on the sidewalk. Rooftop parking is a bit unusual because it requires the building to be able to support the weight of all the vehicles and that structure isn't cheap or unobtrusive. Rules of thumb for the cost of a structured parking space seem to start out around $15,000 and increase significantly as you go up or down. Multi-level subterranean parking can be over three times as expensive and is impossible in places with a high water table. Surface level parking is closer to $5,000 a space which is why it's so ubiquitous but some of that is driven by inordinately high parking requirements. But the rule you're thinking of is minimum parking requirements. Developers are required to provide a certain number of parking spaces based on a formula, like 3 spaces per 1000 square feet office space, 4 spaces per 1000 square feet retail or 2 spaces per residential unit. Since most of those spaces aren't going to be used most of the time, developers are incentivized to build them as cheap as possible to reduce the cost because it's effectively a very silly tax. This is exacerbated by single use zoning requirements which prohibit mixed development, especially when they exclude "less intensive" land use patterns from zones designated for "more intensive" purposes. Many people don't like living next to retail or office space but enforcing these preferences on everyone else prevents mixed use developments like the one in Orlando. Mixed use developments can make much more efficient use of parking even with the elevated requirements because even if there are circumstances where one particular use maxes out the spaces available, that generally happens when the other uses are near empty. So take some development with 66,000 square feet office space, 50,000 square feet retail and 100 attached residential units and instead of building 600 spaces total, they can build 200 while maintaining the same number of parking spaces that everyone is used to because of better reuse. That makes structured parking financially more viable and the resulting density allows for more efficient mass transit. Mixed uses within a single building are more rare for a variety of reasons. I believe there's a perception that they're riskier and they're considered to be harder to manage because different tenants have different needs. There's also a lot of subtle design differences that make many uses difficult to mix within a single structure. For example the standard girder spacing for a hotel is very different from an office building, making it expensive to stack one on top of the other. In those cases it makes more sense to build two purpose-designed buildings next to each other.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 10:35
|
|
