this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
77 points (93.3% liked)

Canada

7193 readers
460 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, I believe that we just need to change the definition of the single residential unit so that it only restricts to residential units of a certain size. Allow townhouses and low-rise apartments in the same area. They're about the same height and their appearance doesn't have to deviate much from what's already being done to single units.

A properly made town-house making the most use of a single unit lot can easily house four families. Take a double lot and you can quadruple it by making some concessions on each unit.

People might complain about three or four story buildings suddenly popping up everywhere, but in reality most houses are as tall as three and four story buildings already. They just waste the extra height with a triangular roof. Modern materials make a flat roof work fine even with how much snow we get, and you can multi-purpose the roof as a patio space on top of that. No more yards needed to waste space not being used for anything.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Great idea! I don't think anybody has a problem with the fact that a building houses more than one family... The troubles begin when a castle tower pops up next to their pool!

How would you manage car traffic in a neighborhood that is slowly converted to houses 3 or 4 times as many families with as many cars?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think anybody has a problem with the fact that a building houses more than one family…

I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with being forced to obey the petty, tyrannical whims of whoever manages the building. HOAs have a bad reputation for a reason.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Haha yeah this! I lived in a HOA and we had to fight over petty details! I moved out as soon as I could! We should have broken down the HOA instead.

The leader of the council had a very small backyard and almost convinced everyone to ban patios and sheds because he didn't have enough room for either... πŸ˜‘

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't think anybody has a problem with the fact that a building houses more than one family...

It is because of parking. Every additional unit will require parking spaces, those units will have guests who must likely will park on the street and that's what gets the neighbourhood pitchforks out. They will scream how there will simultaneously be too much congestion and no parking spaces but also that people will speed down the street and make the neighbourhood unsafe. Parking and building height (neighbourhood character) are the two bullets nimbys use to kill a lot of housing projects.

BC will be introducing legislation in the fall that permits up to 4 units per parcel on all parcels. I'm interested to see how its handled by zoning and what things will look like in a few years. Hopefully this gets cities to start investing in transit as the higher densities might be able to support it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

With density, which enables adequate public transit, we need much less parking. Get rid of the parking requirement, and a lot of that problem goes away. I'd love to be able to buy a place without a useless-ass patch of concrete attached to it that'll cost me an extra 20k for no damn reason.