• Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the article makes it look like it’s evil not to allow promoters to replace single-family houses by massive skyscrapers of 12+ units on a land that is surrounded by single family homes

    That’s because it is.

    There’s a housing crisis on. When my kids grow up they’re going to either live in my basement, their cars, or Texas. I don’t care about you wanting to carve out the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to decorate the top.

    • i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, it’s challenging… I’ve seen hostile promoters creating undesirable “condos” just to squeeze out as much profit as they can from a lot, for example by removing all the greenspace and putting parking lots.

      How do you propose to manage preservation/improvement of green cities when promoters try to cram as many units as possible in a tiny land?

      I want to increase housing density, but not by forcing everyone to live in “Judge Dredd” tenements everywhere…

      • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s worth looking into why they cram so many units in. In my opinion, because there’s so little room to build any kind of density, where it is allowed, developers feel the need to maximize their space budget to cater to the segment of the population that really does want the smaller place.

        If we had more flexibility, we could have a wider range of places, rather than just giant mansion houses and small tenements. The law doesn’t allow for much else.