Parking is always expensive, and even more so for underground. The counter argument is that you can build much cheaper without, so the units can be more affordable.
I don’t entirely buy that, since developers could already choose less high end finishing for more affordable units and they usually don’t.
Also, “less parking” is not the same as “no parking” and that hinges on their being useful transit or walkability. I know that’s one of the points of a district like this, but this is why you do need to think big, so that an individual developer can make the choice
See also “transit oriented development”. Boston is one of the cities that has been pursuing that idea. Recently it was extended into the suburbs with new higher density zoning being a requirement for every community served by the regional transit authority
All that goes up are luxury units that nobody can afford and it is usually the same stick built BS that is inefficient in use of space and adds more tarmac
Sure, but zoning has some effect - developers will build to maximize their profit within what is allowed by zoning.
if zoning allows multiple units, they maximize profits by building as many as they can
if zoning requires less parking, they may maximize profits by replacing some parking space with more units (assuming sufficient transit to allow them to sell)
if zoning creates areas of higher density, a town center type of area can create a synergy that draws more people, more profit.
while not everyone wants to live in a town center or a large building, more housing supply can drive down prices for everyone: supply and demand
I’m not claiming zoning is sufficient nor does it act quickly but it can be a tool for improving livability, setting the conditions for developers to profit more by building what the town benefits from.
Currently zoning is mostly a weapon enforcing the status quo, but it doesn’t have to be
Parking is always expensive, and even more so for underground. The counter argument is that you can build much cheaper without, so the units can be more affordable.
I don’t entirely buy that, since developers could already choose less high end finishing for more affordable units and they usually don’t.
Also, “less parking” is not the same as “no parking” and that hinges on their being useful transit or walkability. I know that’s one of the points of a district like this, but this is why you do need to think big, so that an individual developer can make the choice
See also “transit oriented development”. Boston is one of the cities that has been pursuing that idea. Recently it was extended into the suburbs with new higher density zoning being a requirement for every community served by the regional transit authority
All that goes up are luxury units that nobody can afford and it is usually the same stick built BS that is inefficient in use of space and adds more tarmac
Sure, but zoning has some effect - developers will build to maximize their profit within what is allowed by zoning.
I’m not claiming zoning is sufficient nor does it act quickly but it can be a tool for improving livability, setting the conditions for developers to profit more by building what the town benefits from.
Currently zoning is mostly a weapon enforcing the status quo, but it doesn’t have to be