[discussion] …. But can you walk the walk - eviltoast

I can talk the talk, but this is really going to test that ……

I live in a fairly walkable town outside one of the most walking and transit oriented cities in the US. I’ve always been a transit and walkable communities advocate.

My town is centered on a train station/bus/taxi/scooter/bicycle hub and we have a traditional walkable “Main Street” with shops and restaurants that we pedestrianize for the summer. We have a new rail trail that will eventually connect to a statewide network, a riverwalk and even kayak rentals in the middle of downtown

Higher density housing is centered on the downtown, dominated by 4-6 story apartment/condos, including residential over commercial. Works great. Surrounding that is a belt of 2-3 story multifamily houses, townhouses, and small apartments. I’m the first street zoned for single family, but I can still walk to the town center, and take the train into the nearby major city.

I even spoke up in favor of new statewide zoning, requiring “as of right” zoning for large apartment buildings near transit …… maybe you see where this is going ……

When I was out walking my dog this morning, I saw construction …. apparently there are a couple huge 6 story apartment buildings going in just a couple blocks away. It all seemed like a great idea until it was my neighborhood. It was a great idea when things were grouped by size. But now it’s a behemoth towering over three deckers and the like, and even looming near single family housing.

I’ve “talked the talk” but really don’t know if I can “walk the walk”. This really seems excessive for the neighborhood.

What do you think? Could you still support higher density housing when it means something twice the height going into your neighborhood, hundreds of tenants where now it’s 3-10 per building? What would you do when you get what you were asking for but it’s in your neighborhood and way out of scale?

  • AA5B@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    11·
    10 months ago

    The usual nimby stuff.

    • It’s a small quiet street that can’t handle the traffic. You know they all will need a car even with transit for most things
    • narrow sidewalks that can’t handle if they walk, and really no room to expand without closing the street
    • the yards are already small, as an urban neighborhood but they generally exist. Where will greenery go?
    • neighboring houses in permanent shade
    • “changing the character of the neighborhood” because where you used to have houses, now a huge apartment block.

    Really the thing is the excessive change. I’m in board with allowing taller increments everywhere, on board with expanding the borders of high density areas. I’m in board with a progression from single family to double/triple to multi-family, then separately, onto apartment blocks, then taller, etc.

    This just seems like plopping something excessively larger as an apartment block down into the middle of a multifamily neighborhood where there’s a range of sizes but all on similar scale

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      Why should the “character of the neighborhood” not change with the rest of the world? Your concerns seem so petty next to the concerns of the people who need that housing. If you’re so well off that you can afford to worry about such trivial concerns, then why don’t you use your vast privilege to move somewhere that suits you better? Someplace expensive where they don’t have sidewalks at all so you don’t have to be bothered about other people’s struggle to survive.

      • AA5B@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        Because I’d much rather advocate for controlled growth of housing to also support existing residents, as well as grow infrastructure to match. I’d rather focus that growth closer to our transit hub and walkable town center. I’d rather we have an overall growth pace rather than plopping down a huge apartment block in the middle of more middle range housing at a more human scale