Submitted by magenta_placenta t3_10khw9m in Washington
Yarvard t1_j5rkd5b wrote
Hopefully this means more mixed use and not more apartment complexes...
HillyFellow t1_j5rl1dc wrote
This article only mentions 4-6 unit buildings in residential areas. no mixed use, but also no giant complexes (maybe complex has an exact minimum number somewhere but it feels like alot more than 6 to me)
dubzi_ART t1_j5rzq6b wrote
I just applied for a place like this in Tacoma, it’s brand new and sensible.
agutema t1_j5ru8rj wrote
Developers: it won’t.
NeoliberalSocialist t1_j5twgeb wrote
Why would developers be opposed to mixed use?
domestication_never t1_j5wv3r1 wrote
It's hard to get both sides happy. The commerical side wants lots of cars and traffic for customers. The residents want peace and quiet. Then there is a very limited range of acceptable businesses. You'd have difficulty putting a dog daycare in due to noise. It's gotta be small, low traffic and quiet. There are only so many vets, daycare, clinics, coffee shops and corner stores an area can sensibly have. Then they charge too much and the commerical space stays empty for a year and looks terrible.
EqualShape1694 t1_j5tvh0b wrote
it wont, it will be more apartment complexes to feed the tax machine
VGSchadenfreude t1_j5s9413 wrote
Why can’t we have both…?
domestication_never t1_j5u8okk wrote
Urban growth boundaries. The metro cannot expand, so as the suburbs are flipped for 4/6plexes - it goes away.
VGSchadenfreude t1_j5wzp2c wrote
What goes away?
domestication_never t1_j5x05kd wrote
Suburbs. SFHs. Over time they get rare.
VGSchadenfreude t1_j5x108t wrote
And that’s a problem how exactly…?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments