[HN Gopher] A Multi-Billion Dollar Real Estate Project Is Rising...
___________________________________________________________________
A Multi-Billion Dollar Real Estate Project Is Rising on Native Land
in Vancouver
Author : jkestner
Score : 36 points
Date : 2021-10-11 21:24 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.architecturaldigest.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.architecturaldigest.com)
| GaryTang wrote:
| Look at what we can achieve when taxes are out of the picture.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| If realized, this might be one of the first Solarpunk building
| developments.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Genuinely excited for that. I love the Solarpunk aesthetic. The
| Park Royal in Singapore is awesome. Qiyi City Forest Gardens
| may not have worked out but it's a good look for sure.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Wow. The renderings are always misleading, but there is no way
| this type of project could easily be approved in a traditional
| planning process
|
| https://senakw.com/img/vision/MountainTowersfromVanierPark.j...
|
| They obviously did not try to fit into "neighborhood character" -
| very impressive though looking at details (the bikeable
| underground garage, the density + green space combo - super
| interesting).
| TedShiller wrote:
| It looked a lot nicer when it was just nature
| epistasis wrote:
| There is a tremendous negative cost to keeping this little tiny
| chunk as "just nature." If it weren't for these buildings, we
| would need thousands and thousands of homes sprawled out across
| many square miles, requiring roads, and literally millions of
| vehicle miles every year.
|
| This sort of structure preserves nature and allows thousands of
| people to experience Vancouver that would not be able to
| otherwise.
|
| Stanley Park is close by for those who want actual nature,
| rather than the little speck of lawns that was where these
| buildings are being built.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| > If it weren't for these buildings, we would need thousands
| and thousands of homes sprawled out across many square miles.
|
| I mean you could build these towers elsewherez perhaps even
| demolishing some existing single family dwellings.
|
| Youve made a bit of a false dichotomy here.
| epistasis wrote:
| Really excited to see this move forward. It's been announced for
| many months, and been in design for a long time.
|
| This is what can happen when NIMBYs are finally cut out of the
| picture. So many people's lives will be improved by this project.
| TedShiller wrote:
| Actually everyone's lives will be collectively worsened. More
| development means more pollution, more depletion of natural
| resources. What is actually sustainable is less housing, not
| more housing.
| mfcl wrote:
| What you mean is fewer people?
| nikanj wrote:
| Do you live in a house?
| tryptophan wrote:
| Dense housing like this is much more environmentally friendly
| and sustainable.
| renewiltord wrote:
| All right, Thanos.
| epistasis wrote:
| We have tried four decades of your "let's limit housing" plan
| in California. In contrast to improving people's lives, it's
| made everybody's lives worse, through these means:
|
| 1) massive commutes by car 2) astronomical housing prices 3)
| forcing people out of state due to these massive housing
| prices 4) increased pollution because of increased commutes
| from further and further exurbs 5) massive homelessness from
| those that aren't able to move before they run out of money,
| or who hit a massive car or medical expense as the struggle
| to pay for housing.
|
| Take a peak at the carbon consumption of households in dense
| areas and suburban areas across the US:
|
| https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cmjones/viz/USHouseho.
| ..
|
| Dense urban living is sustainable, suburban living is burning
| the planet.
|
| The world needs a lot more of these towers. If there's going
| to be less of any sort kf housing, it's time to tear down
| suburban homes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-11 23:00 UTC)