Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jctexan OP t1_j8y0qi9 wrote

Reply to comment by 4th-Ale-Or-Lingas in Why is planning allowing this building? Eli5 by Jctexan

It’s a lovely building that absolutely doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood, keeps its residents disconnected from the goings on in the neighborhood, and blocks light to a park. I’m all for multiple mid-rises on that same plot creating the same number of units. High-rises don’t make for good neighbors. Mixed-use mid-rises do!

−12

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j8y71ba wrote

A) It's inaccurate to claim every high rise resident is disconnected. High rise buildings foster their own sense of community. Plenty of NYCHA buildings are high rise. Vienna has high rise social housing buildings (Wohnpark Alt-Erlaa). All high rise residents also need to shop and walk around in the neighborhood.

B) Mid rise is no longer enough to create high density in this big an urban area. This is because of parking regulations and demand among developers to cram in more parking. Once upon a time, mid rise was enough to create density because car-free lifestyles were encouraged, but they are no longer encouraged, and as such you need as much height as possible to make up for the land wasted on parking. I too would support multiple mid-rises adding up to the same number of units, but bank lenders would throw a fit over the lack of parking. Your ire should be targeted at banks who refuse to fund anything but traditional projects

C) This will generate quite a bit of property tax revenue to fund improvements to the area while lowering rents vs. the status quo by ensuring the residents who would live there don't bid up older more affordable housing instead.

10

Jctexan OP t1_j8y98fd wrote

A)no one claimed every high-rise resident, but data shows most are disconnected and the area needs actively engaged residents. B)data shows otherwise C)don’t agree with your argument re more units = lower taxes (take a look at the taxes from 2010 to now) but pretending that’s true, I’m not suggesting fewer units, I’m suggesting same number of units in more buildings on the same lot (and less concrete). Parking minimums are a different argument (and most healthy cities are doing away with them).

−2

objectimpermanence t1_j8ya1lf wrote

> A)no one claimed every high-rise resident, but data shows most are disconnected and the area needs actively

What data are you referring to?

4

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j8y9pqp wrote

Like I said, I support the idea of what you're proposing, but given current lending standards there's really no one willing to finance it and that's why such projects are impossible to find anywhere in the country

3

Jctexan OP t1_j8ya2gu wrote

Even the developer was open to mid rise. High rise is not the future.

−1

Jctexan OP t1_j8ycawi wrote

I'm in real estate and I'm not sure I understand your arguement. Are you saying that a bank will lend on a 17-story project with 420 units but not 3 six-story buildings totalling 420 units on that same lot? I'm not sure I understand that.

−1

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8yxi7s wrote

"Data shows most are disconnected".

Can you link to this data? I'm very curious how one measures how connected or disconnected a resident is.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8z0eej wrote

Happy to, but you should really rely on your own research. You likely won’t accept any data sources I provide so I urge you to do your own research and look at peer reviewed data or at least data summarized by reputable publications. I know we have a tendency to dig our heels in and just want to be right, but I would guess that intuitively you know and understand that neighborhoods full of high-rises don’t promote neighborly interaction and engagement the way a more human scale building does. If you want to pretend it does, I won’t stand in your way. It’s ok to prefer high rises, but it’s not fair to stick one in the middle of a neighborhood, blocking sunlight to a park, so that a developer can make $$$, and a few people have a good view. This is not what’s best for the city or the neighborhood. The benefits of housing density can be obtained with mid-rises and without the negative effects of high-rises.

0

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8z9daj wrote

Multiple people here have asked you to link to this alleged data and you seem to be extremely hesitant to do so.

You say you have data that shows a high rise apartment building makes the residents less "connected". Okay, cool. Sounds interesting. Let's see it.

Thanks.

5

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8zdryk wrote

Arguably, the post itself is disingenuous because the title includes the Reddit phrase "ELI5" which is "Explain like I'm 5". Folks have pointed out that some of the concerns OP is raising don't hold water (ex. casting a shadow, preventing connection between two areas, etc.). By doing so, these responses are somewhat providing the explanation: setting aside qualitative reasons, there wasn't a clear-cut quantifiable reason to not approve it.

Using "ELI5" in the title seems like a way to get people commenting with the assumption it would be an informational thread exploring the reasons for and against the building, but...well, you've seen how this thread has played out.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8zbumw wrote

Because you’re not being genuine. You’re playing the “give me the proof so I can refute it” game and it’s silly. If you really want to know the answer you will look it up.

I posted asking why this building is getting approved when it doesn’t meet zoning or fit in with the character of the neighborhood. It doesn’t make any sense to me. If you have no reasons why, that’s cool, no worries, you don’t have to come up with one - but man, you have to learn how to google if you want to know something - don’t rely on other people EVEN IF THEY GIVE YOU A LINK. One link shouldn’t convince you, lol.

If you want to remain uneducated, you can do that. If you want to educate yourself you can do that too. Google is free.

−1

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8zcxrp wrote

So there is no data, got it. You could have saved us some time by just not claiming to have data in the first place.

Since there is no data, this basically comes down to something that is purely a matter of personal preference and opinion. I am a fan of buildings like this, I live in one myself and it's the best place I've lived in this city. I think the design for this new one looks pretty great and will make a good addition to the neighborhood.

If you had some sort of study with data that literally showed people who live in a particular type of building are "less connected", I would find that pretty interesting. It probably wouldn't change my overall opinion on the building, but it might sway other people and would be worth considering. As you've indicated though, the data doesn't seem to actually exist, so it's not really relevant.

For future reference, when one person claims to have data, other people asking to see it is not a weird or hostile request.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8zdnv5 wrote

I didn’t indicate the data doesn’t exist, lol

1

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8zevhs wrote

It is certainly implied by your refusal to share it. At this point I'd just find it weird if it did exist, I mean who claims to have data, actually does have it but just refuses to share it across multiple replies? That's weirder than just making it up to begin with. Still, if by some odd chance this data that literally measures how connected people are to their neighborhood and shows, in your exact words, "most people are disconnected", I think myself and others would find that very interesting. That's a very specific claim on a metric pretty hard to quantify, so if such data exists I think it would be fascinating to read.

A few replies ago when I first asked if you'd share, you said "Happy to to", and then didn't. And then didn't again. And didn't again after that.

It either doesn't exist at all, or it does but doesn't show what you claim it does and you've realized that and don't want to look silly, or you're just maybe not that polite. I can't tell which. I'll say again though, asking for data when one person claims to have it is not hostile and not an abnormal request. If you claim to have data that shows a specific point you should be prepared to share it on request, and probably just include it in your initial remarks to begin with. Citing sources, and all.

I'll reply again if you have any actual data to share, otherwise I think this conversation is pretty much purposeless.

4