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?

  • nofob@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Pointing out that the proposed development would be out of place does not make you a hypocrite. Maybe you and any like-minded neighbors can explain your viewpoint, emphasizing that you would be happy with a smaller apartment building.

    It may be that in a few decades, such structures will not look so out of place in your neighborhood. Developers seem to think there’s a demand. You live in a desirable location.

    I can commiserate. I’m in a similar area, with a mix of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments, a few blocks from a walkable downtown. I don’t think a 6 story building would be aesthetically pleasing next to the 2-3 story structures near me.

    With that said, I emailed my representatives, and hope to attend the city meeting in support of a new zoning plan allowing for more apartments and businesses, without parking minimums in my neighborhood.

    • AA5B@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s too late to voice displeasure: the elevator core is already at six stories and the foundation is in. I guess that’s what happens when you don’t pay attention

    • Evkob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Prioritizing your aesthetic pleasure over others’ access to housing is peak NIMBY.

      • nofob@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s valid.

        I do think it’s reasonable to have an interest in what kind of development is approved and funded. I wouldn’t support developers who wanted to build McMansions, and luxury condos are less appealing than affordable housing. I expect there could be some extreme, unrealistic case in which you too might oppose a specific development, even if it was high density.

        Aesthetic appeal (and yes, NIMBYism) is what kept a lot of small cities in North America, including mine, from being replaced by strip malls.

        Of course, this line of reasoning could be continued to oppose anything and everything.