• moonbunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This looks great, but I feel like the trees might become a problem to the adjacent buildings when they mature, unless they’re the type of trees that only grow tall and skinny?

  • Humanius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    While this is nice, I do not really see any places where one can now cross the street?
    Some cut-outs for pedestrians would probably be helpful for people who need to access a building on the other side.

      • Humanius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I don’t mean crosswalks, I mean places where people can cut through the greenery to get to the “road”.
        As it stands now I don’t see a way for people to actually get to the other side of the street.

        Maybe they exist, but I don’t see them in the picture…

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah. I’d do more little islands instead, which would also give space for other stuff, like benches or other seating areas, bike racks, etc.

      • Humanius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Move the road over to one side, and give double space for greenery on the other side.
        Then you can add benches, playgrounds, etc.

        Still… As it currently stands it is an improvement over what came before

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Definitely agreed. Strictly better than cars, but there has to be something we’re missing here, else this is a huuuge pain in the ass for literally no reason.

      • humblebun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yes and no. Yes because fuck big corps that buy houses and set rent price to achieve fill factor of 0.7, no because very these corps buy cheap dirty houses, renovate them, and double the rent.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 minutes ago

          I bet you don’t live in Paris or even France.

          There is a lock on rent in heated housing markets for example. Not everything in the US is the same on this side of the pond.

    • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I think your statment here is actual in reverse of what you may want to point out.

      An increase in rent shows a induced demand for the property. More people are wanting to live in this location, thus the rents have gone up because of this demand. The rent did not go up because of the cost of installing those trees, but because the trees are there.

      Similarly homes located near public parks, schools, hospitals, or transit may have a higher price tag because more people want said properties.

      • humblebun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        An increase in rent shows a induced demand for the property.

        Nope. Increase in rent shows the pumped up scarcity.

        More people are wanting to live in this location, thus the rents have gone up because of this demand.

        Again nope. You are spreading propaganda without knowing it. Rent is driven by rental algorithms like Yardi and Realpage. Supply and demand do not work if the property is in the hands of few that calculate their prices using the same database and the same algorithms.