Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you argue sometimes just comes off as completely bizarre as if you have no idea what you're trying to argue but you just know that you're supposed to argue something
What you argue sometimes just comes off as completely bizarre as if you have no idea what you're trying to argue but you just know that you're supposed to argue something
One might wonder what point you're trying to make when they notice the spatial density of what you decided to post juxtaposed with what I posted.
One might wonder what point you're trying to make when they notice the spatial density of what you decided to post juxtaposed with what I posted.
The point of that post is there are suburb-like developments in both places, though the SD one actually has cul-de-sacs in a very much residential-only area and very much does *not* seem like an urban streetscape, within about the same distance from their respective downtowns and that it's ridiculous to say that because such exist, this means that the actually urban parts of downtown are somehow less urban. It would seem like a pretty bad argument by itself *and* it's applicable to either place. I think that should be pretty clear from the context of the conversation and the streetview posted, but if that was unclear, hopefully I made this explicit enough now to understand.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-18-2022 at 08:58 AM..
I will say though, as more of the parking lots and SD get developed and if these freeway caps end up happening, there's a good chance for SD to be as urban even at its peak as Seattle. I think the splotchiness of downtown is part of the issue, but with some of the local and state level ordinances for allowing greater density and less parking coupled with the larger surface lots available and the high demand for housing, downtown SD can probably see some really rapid changes.
Seattle has a big lead in projects at pretty extreme densities, like 1/3-acre sites with 300-400 apartments, one-acre sites with 1,000, and 1/6th acre sites with 50. This is all because we get a lot of buildings with no parking or low ratios.
A scan through SD's code suggests large amounts of parking are typical, despite reduced requirements in some areas.
Seattle has a big lead in projects at pretty extreme densities, like 1/3-acre sites with 300-400 apartments, one-acre sites with 1,000, and 1/6th acre sites with 50. This is all because we get a lot of buildings with no parking or low ratios.
A scan through SD's code suggests large amounts of parking are typical, despite reduced requirements in some areas.
San Diego eliminated parking requirements for residential in much of the city in 2019 and for business and commercial in 2022.
I guess we're supposed to ignore this though, doesn't really fit the prevailing narrative on this thread.
I'm sure Seattle has these all over the place, probably all adjacent to light metro stations.
Actually since then all parking minimums have been abolished in the entire State of California for areas within 1/2 mile of high quality transit (bus every 10 minutes or something like that). I think that's what San Diego already had. For LA that's almost the entirety of the city except for mountains.
Edit to add that doesn't mean that SoCal won't still have parking, just that it's up to the developer. Seattle residents are much more willing to use transit so I'd expect them to still lead.
Actually since then all parking minimums have been abolished in the entire State of California for areas within 1/2 mile of high quality transit (bus every 10 minutes or something like that). I think that's what San Diego already had. For LA that's almost the entirety of the city except for mountains.
Edit to add that doesn't mean that SoCal won't still have parking, just that it's up to the developer. Seattle residents are much more willing to use transit so I'd expect them to still lead.
Yea, fairly recent changes in zoning are going to be great for making SD, and many California cities that have fairly high land values, more urban. For SD, this makes the recent extension of the Blue Line even more important for making the city more urban. Seattle's already had more lax zoning for parking minimums for longer so it makes sense why it's noticeably ahead of San Diego when it comes to more urban streetscapes. I think the question is if that remains the case as downtown San Diego, as in that expanse wedged between the waterfront and the freeways and all of which is within half a mile of a high quality transit, currently still has substantial surface parking lots and some of them are quite large. The change in zoning and the density of transit which affects what can be developed could mean that those surface parking lots lead to some fairly rapid, high-density and potentially mixed-use developments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
