Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kayakyakr t1_iv2muer wrote

Good

  • Housing supply is good
  • Waterfront housing is better than waterfront industrial and contributes to cleaner water overall

Bad

  • Not great walkability, mixed use zoning for that inland lot would be a boon for both this development and the existing neighborhood.
  • No transit, that industrial track is a wild one
  • Capitalism!
5

FunLife64 t1_iv2pzca wrote

East Providence isn’t exactly a walkers paradise.

3

kayakyakr t1_iv2v298 wrote

Doesn't mean that it can't be developed to be

2

FunLife64 t1_iv34eoq wrote

ReDevelop…an entire city? EP is never going to be anywhere near that. It’s not like there’s not sidewalks - they just aren’t building a city development…that’s not in a city environment.

2

kayakyakr t1_iv3pjto wrote

One the course of many years, a lot of the city will be redeveloped. You can build it the way it is or the way you want it to be

1

FoleyisGood t1_iv553kh wrote

> It’s not like there’s not sidewalks

actually it is like that in many parts of the city. its not safe for anyone that doesn't drive a car

1

FunLife64 t1_iv5ylfa wrote

I’m saying the development has them. The rest of Ep? No haha

1

degggendorf t1_iv2uwti wrote

> mixed use zoning for that inland lot would be a boon for both this development and the existing neighborhood.

Do you mind expanding on this need for mixed-use? I asked elsewhere in this thread, and it's apparently a controversial question but as yet no one has really helped me understand why.

My perception is that there are plenty of (too many) vacancies in light commercial spaces. Meanwhile, we desperately need more housing units. So then it seems like we should maximize the number of housing units we build, rather than sacrificing housing units to build even more light commercial space.

Why is it better to build fewer units in favor of more commercial space?

3

ToadScoper t1_iv3dd9d wrote

Mixed use zoning is basically what you see in most dense cities or in most of Europe, it means having commercial and residential in the same building or vicinity. Mixed-use is regarded as smart/efficient land use and is more economically stimulating as opposed to the separate residential-commercial zoning divide you typically see in American suburbs. Most of the US still upholds antiquated zoning ordinances that only allow either purely residential or commercial for a single parcel, even though there’s no laws that prohibit changing zones to mixed-use

1

degggendorf t1_iv3q48h wrote

How does that square with our current inflation and housing crisis though? Simulating the economy and reducing housing is kinda the opposite of what we need right now, isn't it?

1

ToadScoper t1_iv3r2ut wrote

Your putting housing and commercial in the same area… your effectively increasing housing and reducing car dependency while also promoting commercial business. Putting multiple housing units on top of a base level commercial space greatly increases return on the space… it’s a win-win situation

1

degggendorf t1_iv3tdba wrote

>greatly increases return on the space

Are investor returns really our top priority though? I just kinda want people to be able to find a place to live. I'm having a hard time seeing fewer homes as a win-win.

1

ToadScoper t1_iv3toh4 wrote

This is not fewer homes, it’s mixing homes and commercial… it makes amenities more accessible for the residents too. I’m also referring to a maximized return in terms of land used, not investor returns

1

degggendorf t1_iv3uhq0 wrote

>This is not fewer homes, it’s mixing homes and commercial

How is that not reducing the number of housing units? Whatever space is commercial could be residential instead.

> I’m also referring to a maximized return in terms of land used, not investor returns

Okay then swap in "promoting commercial business" to my previous comment and the point remains.

1

ToadScoper t1_iv3v8yk wrote

https://youtu.be/bnKIVX968PQ this video summarizes mixed use zoning in pretty well if it helps

1

degggendorf t1_iv3wvwb wrote

I'm pretty sure I understand the idea, I'm just not following how it's not a zero-sum game, nor how it makes sense in this little plot in question.

Here, there's nowhere close to enough space to make anything remotely self-sustaining, and there are tons of businesses nearby already. Like, I'm pretty sure Aldi corporate isn't going to go for building another Aldi 1 mile away from an existing one, on an out-of-the-way peninsula behind a neighborhood. So what's it going to be, like a food desert style convenience store? Overpriced fancy market?

Or can we maybe just let it be residential so more people can have more affordable housing?

1

kayakyakr t1_iv3os5v wrote

The closer you can bring light commercial to residents, the lower the need for cars and more benefits to residents are nearby. I follow a school of urban development that's closest to the new urbanists who say that the healthiest neighborhood is going to be one that people don't have to get in a car to get necessities. A corner store and a restaurant and a bit of space for some sort of small retail.

1

Wide_Television_7074 t1_iv31muf wrote

why is capitalism bad… weird

1

kayakyakr t1_iv3p52n wrote

Was mostly tongue in cheek. Generally, someone will make a good chunk of change here. Other comments are calling out this for being the result of crooked dealing, so it was referring to that

2