airquotesNotAtWork

airquotesNotAtWork t1_jegvwug wrote

Loved central. Also note they had a yearly programming fee of like $600 or thereabouts but you could work that down by volunteering for events and stuff like doing laundry over the weekend. It’s a great community I highly recommend. I’d have my second going there, like my first, if our current daycare wasn’t significantly closer now that we don’t live downtown anymore.

4

airquotesNotAtWork t1_jda0892 wrote

The increases in those neighborhoods is more meaningful to those who live there because they’re already low income and disproportionately more rent burdened. And because most of the area around there is zoned for single family homes(when not industrial) developing anything other than that (even just low rise apartments or other lower cost housing) is more expensive for the private sector because they would have to go through a long and expensive variance process, getting neighborhood feedback, etc.

part of the reason there hasn’t been expansion of trailer parks is because of our zoning as well.

Finally as someone else said, expanding supply of “market rate” housing in wealthier areas keeps rents from rising elsewhere even in low income communities https://research.upjohn.org/up_workingpapers/307/

2

airquotesNotAtWork t1_jd9pe8p wrote

You’re right the curves are not linear. That’s also why with vacancy rates at historical lows even minor increases in demand (due to natural population growth or transplants) causes rents to spike faster than population growth rates. Coming back down from that spike would require a lot more housing than a few projects here or there but widespread regional construction which even under some of the rosiest forecasts by people (like myself mind you) isn’t going to happen. This is in part because even in a more permissive regulatory environment there’s going to be a mismatch between buyers and sellers due in part to rising interest rates on the cost of moving to a new home. To say nothing of sellers choosing to sell to a developer rather than an individual. But that’s part of why we need more widespread legalization of housing forms in the roughly 70% (will have to calculate this again) of this city is explicitly zoned for single family homes. This permissibility also makes it easier to build more of the much needed affordable housing too, for what it’s worth.

All housing is good and we need more of it at every price level. That’s it. (I’ll get off my soapbox now)

2

airquotesNotAtWork t1_jahhdz9 wrote

You’d want the pedestrian crosswalks to be a few feet back from the circle for better visibility. Overall not a viable solution for this intersection especially with a bus tunnel lol

I do really like the changes to the intersections with Marshall and Meyers though!

2

airquotesNotAtWork t1_j9de2gb wrote

Not tomorrow. Now. Get on lists. Be prepared to have to travel out of your way for care until your preferred/close daycare has a spot for yours at their appropriate age. This is not something to sleep on. I’ve had two kids in daycare, pre and post pandemic and both times it’s been a PITA for care.

That said, congrats, being a dad is awesome.

18

airquotesNotAtWork t1_j5w9fi5 wrote

Yeah. Now that I see this is a list for places where pedestrians are it 100% makes sense for 24th and main. Pulse stop. There’s been so many times where I’ve seen close calls there while getting on/off the pulse. E.g. get off the westbound station, someone turns west on main from 25th and takes off, person getting off the pulse crossing main at 24th, can’t see the oncoming car because of the bus and bam, close call at best.

3

airquotesNotAtWork t1_j2yvxv5 wrote

There are higher density buildings that aren’t ugly and they can and have been built even here in Richmond e.g. 541 N 2nd st & the Canopy at Ginter Park. It is plainly illegal to build them in much of the district or city. And for what it’s worth, that Ginter development was by right and still had appeals by the neighborhood that delayed the project. By right doesn’t mean everything goes but it allows more variation in what is possible in most cases. The 2600 Kensington block ($600k townhomes in 2016 for what it’s worth) were also by right because they happened to be in a multi family district (R-48). And 2601 still needed a variance for yard size just to meet the style of adjacent lots!

1