On 6/26/2018 2:32 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
sms wrote:
:On 6/26/2018 11:25 AM, Joerg wrote:

: No, that comes from not having the stupid zoning laws we have. If I
: needed groceries or nearly anything else I could walk. As in "just
: across the street" which is, for example, where the grocery store was.
: The bank was immediately next door, literally. The post office was
: diagonally across the street. The next church was less than 500ft away.
: And so on.

:This feeds on itself.

:We have approved numerous "Mixed-Use" developments. The businesses
:struggle and don't last long. The amount of housing isn't enough to

Every one I've every seen has been done wrong. Not enough density.
Stupid zoning that reduces density, like requiring setbacks and
clearances, and parking. Do that, and get back to us.

Tell us where to build the additional schools, where to get the
additional water, where to get the money for transit, roads, water,
schools, parks, etc., and get back to us.

The problem with "just build taller and denser" is that those entities
advocating that don't want to look at the big picture. In fact they are
explicitly told to ignore the big picture by their handlers. The last
thing that a developer wants to talk about is money for schools, parks,
reservoirs, transit, or roads.

It's short-sighted to not include parking in areas with no transit. What
happens is that the residents still have cars but they park in adjoining
neighborhoods. Look at NYC where the car-ownership rate is 46% and there
are 0.63 vehicles per household, which indicates that some households
own multiple vehicles. In San Francisco car-ownership rate is 70% with
an average of 1.10 vehicles per household. Even though many people don't
commute by car, they still own a car for other purposes. Commuting is
only 21% of private vehicle use (by miles).

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-vehicles-by-city-map.html

http://traveltrends.transportation.org/Documents/B2_CIA_Role%20Overall%20Travel_web_2.pdf