this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
20 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
20 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Mixed commercial/housing. Instead of offices, give the first couple floors to commerce and the higher floors to housing. We have the perfect opportunity to build nice integrated cities where people live near the resources they need to live, within walking distance of the places they work.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Mixed-use is a fantastic template for a building, given we can then roll up so many extra bungalows and their hoarded greenspace to be re-wilded (or zoned back agri) or shared as parkland.

But this is a plan for new builds. Rendering some floors to housing doesn't magically fix the issue that every floor is unsuitable as housing without extensive remodel. It just means some floors stay as office and some floors are unsuitable for housing, same as before.

  1. Moratorium on non-mixed-use
  2. Moratorium on sub-20-level buildings
  3. Increase shared greenspace requirements
  4. Increased tax inversely proportional to density due to users-per-metre of infrastructure
  5. Rental income over and above a value related to a single average income per 2 beds is taxed brutally - but let the air b&bs back (with innkeeper licensing and that tax shelf)
  6. Minimum living-space-per-human values, reducing that ceiling if undersized. Because renting out a shed like a house is inhumane
  7. Added property tax if the building is >50yo and fails rule 1+2 above.

And another thing: we often complain about not having enough density, but having too much density in a small, single area can be a major problem too. So while this might be controversial (not to mention unrealistic), I really wish we could reduce the skyscrapers. They're just unnecessarily tall and concentrate far too much in too small of an area[1].

But if you walk around most major European cities like Amsterdam, The Hague, Munich, Milan, Copenhagen, Stockholm, etc. you don't see gigantic skylines or massive skyscrapers. You see endless roads with dense, multi-level housing (3-5 stories), and plenty of mixed-use space. It makes cities more spread out, but still dense enough to have a useful public transit system. More schools, more parks, more commercial space (and more diverse uses of commercial space too).

Oh well, I can dream...

[1]: While there are some residential buildings over 300m tall, most them are concentrated in supercities like New York, Dubai, Moscow, and various Chinese/other Asian cities and require much larger populations than you have in most other major cities in Canada/North America.