Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto
I would guess a couple of reasons for the parking:
1. locals would hate it even worse if you proposed many units and few parking places; street parking and other lots would become even more crowded. This brings people but also creates parking spaces to ease congestion.
2. this is not DT SF; this is closer to the San Mateo or Santa Monica model, which are thriving thanks in part to very large, fully utilized parking structures.
3. there is no rail transit even planned for within a mile of this area. I would have a very different attitude if the "Beverly" or "3rd St." subway were in the works, but there isn't even a proposal. Why would I buy a condo in an area with bad traffic, no parking and no subway plans?
|
^^^ that's why i don't believe any statement about la's urbanism whenever a big dense "urban looking" project goes up. it's still a sub-urban development when there is no fundamental walkability and everybody served by that development is forced to drive. that is la's as yet, unaddressed problem despite all these "positive developments" which pretty much amount to nothing as far as urbanism is concerned.
our two subway lines and our rapidbus, as sad as that sounds, continues to remain the only thing that really counts toward anything so far, despite all the new lrt lines which have gone up over the years. world class my ass.