The "life cycle" abstracts mobility out of the picture! Transportation and access to goods/services is invisible (this clip occurs in several docs) |
But of course, the bulk of the "buildable" land is on the edges of the city, distant from employers and not yet served by neighborhood and walkable businesses. It's pretty much all heavily car-dependent. Is this in fact where we want to put growth? (Tonight, in fact, the Planning Commission will hear an appeal on a 140-lot subdivision out in West Salem.)
Development and growth on the car-dependent edges (from the May slide deck) |
The Study's data on housing doesn't capture transportation costs and trade-offs (from the June draft analysis) |
But at least some of this data is available, and should be included in the study.
Yet some information exists! |
Another problem is neighborhood resistance to infill and upzoning. You might have noticed in the NEN-SESNA "Looking Forward" project a pocket of land zoned multi-family that the neighborhood would like to revert to single-family zoning. (The proximity here to the apparent interest in an Urban Renewal district just on the other side of State street is interesting.)
The brown along 14th street is zoned multi-family, but has mostly single-family houses on it (from the State Street TGM discussion) |
There are pockets like this in other places, and neighborhoods don't always like them (from the May slide deck) |
Could we get some of this humility on the 3rd bridge and in transportation forcasting? (from the June draft analysis) |
No comments:
Post a Comment