• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    One way I have seen some buildings smartly handle this requirement was making most of the bottom floor of the building a parking area. I have seen both garage and open-air versions of this. It definitely has to cost more to build the building this way, but at least you’re using the existing space and building upward to add more units instead of wasting space around the building.

    While it is indeed stupid, it’s also valid because, well… when there isn’t any public transit to speak of, these low income people are sadly going to be forced into needing a car.

    • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 days ago

      That used to be a common design in Southern California called a dingbat. Unfortunately the local authorities considered them to be eyesores and now they’re becoming very rare. The few that are still around are an excellent source of affordable housing to its tenants.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Normal looking house with a parking spot under it is an eyesore yet strip malls and walmart parking swathes are okay…

      • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Eyesore wouldn’t be how I describe them. Lots of TV shows and movies take place in them and always look cool as fuck. I never knew what they were called, thanks.

    • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah but it’s myopic to treat both sides of that coin (the lack of public transit and the parking minimums) as if they are separate and unrelated matters. Both are policy decisions supported by the auto industry.