Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Why don't you need a lot of parking for low-income units? Proximity to a streetcar line would reduce the need for parking--but without a fixed transit system, I'm a bit worried that the hoped-for "urban" neighborhood in West Sacramento will wind up looking like the parts of Natomas that were supposed to be "transit-oriented" but never got the transit.
|
I agree with wburg here. It appears to me as though there's some cause for concern if this neighborhood is going to be everything it could be in terms of a creating vibrant urban neighborhood on the river.
With that location, it's hard to imagine it failing to generate demand (much like Natomas), but that's why it's even more critical for local leaders and planners to demand more from the developers and architects.
As far as parking and affordable housing, many jurisdictions require less parking assuming that the projects will generate fewer car trips. This is the case in San Diego where you can also get credits by locating what is often better described as "workforce" housing near places of employment with applicable wage scales (think hospitality).
But I am not at all impressed with this project. There are countless ways to incorporate all of the required parking and still embrace the street. It just looks like the David Baker team was lazy here.
The Sacramento area deserves better and should demand better...