The person I responded to was arguing that new “luxury” housing raises rent prices across the board. If we pretend that nonsense is true then isn’t the solution to rising rent prices to stop building “luxury” housing?

My second point (that you misinterpreted) was that if developers were forced to only build affordable housing they would have to do so at a loss because construction costs in our region are too high to support a unit price that would be considered affordable. It’s not even close when you factor in added costs for parking minimums, height and other zoning restrictions, and elevated land costs due to the structure of our real estate taxes.

> Your arguments have been too strawmany to take seriously.

Lmao what?? You suggested that we build more affordable housing instead of regular housing. I asked how you propose we do that. I haven't even made an argument let alone a "strawmany" one.

> But developers can still build affordable units and make a profit, especially if they take advantage of the aforementioned zoning bonuses

Sure, but that only works if they're part of a market rate development. The person I replied to before you jumped into the conversation is opposed to market rate development of any kind.

> 90% of the time a developer will take a zoning bonus with the promise of having a green grocer and then you end up with a bank branch

If you're going to completely make up numbers it usually helps to make them semi-realistic. What a ridiculous claim lmao. I'm also not sure how any of that answers either of my questions....

Are these government built affordable housing projects? Or are you proposing a way to force private companies to build housing and sell it for cheaper than it cost to build?

Yeah building less housing is for sure the best way to lower rent prices! We should probably just stop building any new housing at all

I've had pothos in water like this and the water getting murky really isn't too much of an issue. The biggest problem I've seen is with dust settling on top of the water. Maybe consider making lids with cut outs for the different stems (sort of like a toothbrush holder)? You'd keep a lot of the dust out, help limit some of the evaporation so you have to fill it less, and be able to pose the stems much easier as they grow.

It'll be fine. As long as the plant remains healthy it won't mold or decay in the water. The only issue is dust that will settle in the opening, but that could be solved by adding a lid that has cut outs for the stems. Pothos are really stable in water

Yeah I was talking about the Rivers parking lots that are open 24/7 and free to park in (technically only for Rivers customers but still). I was more so commenting on how this section of the city is more parking lots than it is people so acting like this building has the same parking needs as the rest of Fishtown is ridiculous

Right? Its only technically in Fishtown too. That section on the other side of 95 is so different from the rest of the neighborhood

Its a minimum parking requirement. The builder absolutely could include parking in this design if they wanted to. Ironically, what you're talking about is what builders face when they don't want to shoehorn in excess parking required by parking minimums.

Ah okay found what you were talking about. Its a CMX 2.5 zoned lot which has a minimum parking requirement of 0 which is pretty typical for multifamily buildings of this size

A lot of the comments in this thread are nuts lol. This is a good looking building with the types of details that make for a high quality design. The city would be better off with this exact building going up in every neighborhood. Also, its literally attached to a public transit line and across the street from an acre of surface parking lots. Do those of you who are obsessed with parking even look at the building before commenting?

What part of the code are you talking about? I'm not aware of anything in section 14 close to what you're implying

Slightly off topic (even though I think it fits the thread), but there is a severe lack of condos designed for families with kids in our city. Every new condo/apartment building seems to be designed for students, singles, or the extremely wealthy.

I think an important step for the continued growth of our city involves figuring out a way to legislate/pressure developers into building housing options for parents other than row homes. I think we'd end up with a lot more neighborhoods with a similar amount of amenities for children if we filled this gap.