Thanks to parking minimums the actual buildings you want to go to are _dwarfed_ by their parking lots.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/13/the-whole-city-of-flo...
Also, forcing everything to be so far apart makes it nearly impossible to traverse on foot, serve with public transport, ride a bike to, etc.
Because of high city density, I can walk to nearly every destination of day-to-day shopping or services. I can commute in 30-40 minutes from (more) affordable Brooklyn to job-packed Manhattan.
I can take a train if I want to read, or a bike if I want to enjoy the view.
Car traffic is pretty slow here, admittedly. But I need a car maybe once or twice a month, and Lyft provides it.
The cost of it living in an apartment, and not your own house with a lawn to tend. I'm fine with that.
Unfortunately, the US lacks another such city, except maybe Chicago. Most US cities are large sprawling villages around a small downtown where all buildings are offices and commerce, and nobody actually lives.
New York exists because it was built before we made it illegal to build cities like it.
One of the reasons we lack other cities like it is because we made it illegal to build large buildings without huge amounts of parking and gigantic roads.
Though, would Boston not qualify?
You just described San Jose, which brings us back into the Bay Area.
Is that for you, or for the average person, or for most persons ? If not the last, it's just a personal opinion, and a possible typical mind fallacy.
Noise pollution exposure is known to be associated with stress, raised blood pressure, memory loss, nervousness and depression.
Congested traffic is associated with stress and aggression, even domestic violence.
Air pollution is associated with perceived annoyance, not to mention all manner of medical conditions that have (IMO) obvious mood implications (COPD can be a real downer).
As a matter of opinion it seems obvious to me that a space designed for cars is not as comfortable to people as a space designed for people. As a matter of statistics, there are a lot of associations between motor traffic and poor mood, and illnesses with mood implications.
If nothing else, inhaling less poison and, crucially, hearing less engine noise helps.
This equation has shifted due to eBikes, as they can blow past the snarled traffic on the handful of roads that connect the area, but it still leaves elders, youngsters and the infirm housebound.
Has anyone put together a summary of parking minimum ordinances are across the US?
At the end of it, we live in a world where every bit of profit matters more than earning slightly less and having something better looking.
I mean let’s compare Los Angeles County vs Greater London: 4,058 sq mi vs 606 sq mi Density 2,100/sq m vs 14,550/sq mi.
I mean the difference is insane! And ignoring the towers springing up all over London because of greedy developers, London doesn’t feel all that cramped or as if there’s concrete everywhere.
US cities need better public transport and more dense areas. Leave the rest to nature!
You need to build systems where people trying to maximize profit isn't a problem. It's not something we've completely figured out (see: externalities)
Ironically if greedy developers got their way in the US we'd have more low or no-parking buildings, as evidenced by the fact that they weren't build "enough" (whatever that means) parking until the law forced them to.
What's wrong with people building things that others want to buy?
Plus, I don’t think housing should really be left to the free market. This is the UK after all, social housing is one of the best things we’ve ever done (IMO).
I.e. the article isn't credible.
A quick search would’ve shown you who the author of the column is.
Not sure I understand?
Edit: Anyway, the poster I was replying to was making the point that these towers are alleviating demand and subsequently pushing prices down, which is not happening.
If I have a market of 10 dumpy old cars, people will pay X for it. If I destroy 1 dumpy old car and add 2 brand new cars, people will pay more for the new cars (like your new building) but the dumpy old ones will be slightly cheaper.
I.e. relative vs absolute.
This research shows that there’s an average of 1.5% price increase per floor. Care to share a counter-claim source?
Also I do hope you know the context of my posts relate to the UK market?