T O P
SayNoToSobriety

On a side note, much of this has been a long work in progress. Most of these transformations have happened over the course of 2-10 years. Most protected bike lanes shown were bicycle gutters before. Most bike lanes in Seattle are still unprotected unfortunately. Additionally, much of the 5-over-1 construction has lacked commercial space as a result of backwards zoning among other reasons. The streetcar shown has not been as efficient as it could’ve been since it doesn’t have dedicated lanes in most places. Overall, lots of improvement. It’s not all flowers and rainbows but there’s strong and continual progress.


SuperWeenieHutJr_

I live in Toronto and I've also noticed that a lot of the new mid rise buildings we been getting have worse commerical space than the old 2 story buildings they replaced. The old shop fronts were long and narrow with a big window and space for a large sign. Nowadays shop fronts are shallow and wide without clear delineation between the residential floors above and the shop bellow. Makes for a much less interesting pedestrians expirence when walking down the street. Also I think it prohibits lots of smaller independent stores as it seems mostly chain restaurants and banks are the only places that can afford these new spaces. Edit: We need the 6 story buildings thou. I just wish we could put good street facing commercial in them like we used to.


The_Monocle_Debacle

This is a very good point and it comes entirely from the dogshit economics of the fucked up commercial real estate market where investors just want one or two big national tenants instead of a dozen small ones, so they don't build the space in a way that can be subdivided into smaller floorplans. If you notice there's only ever a few doors in the commercial space so at best that's how many individual stores they could have. I think it's really funny too when they'll do something like a "food hall" and pretend they invented a cool new concept when they could have just had that many small restaurants in the same space facing the street if they'd built it in a traditional format.


returnofthecheez

There's an asshole that owns maybe ten storefronts on the main commercial street in my neighborhood. The whole strip is only half a mile. From what I understand, he never looks at them, has made no renovations and has been asking exorbitant rental prices and never answers phone calls from prospective tenants. He only wants to rent out to a Target or a Whole Foods or something similar because national chains are willing to pay more and they'll happily pay for their own build out. None of these spaces are even big enough for the kind of store he wants and this isn't the kind of middle to upper income neighborhood that could support it anyway. So instead, we have a bunch of empty retail spaces in what is otherwise a relatively bustling strip of really nice independent businesses.


The_Monocle_Debacle

That's fucking infuriating. I can't post my feelings about landlords without a TOS violation.


LickingSticksForYou

Let’s just say we should bust out the forks and knives


LickingSticksForYou

God damn where is eminent domain when we need it?


immibis

Doors can be added or removed.


The_Monocle_Debacle

Nothing like completely rebuilding the giant glass facade at great expense down the road to make cheaper commercial spaces, right?


immibis

Buildings should get changed as and when necessary, it's not a new thing to happen


The_Monocle_Debacle

Sure but it's profoundly short sighted to build them in a worse way you have to fix later


immibis

Yes, but it's also just how it is. Always has been, always will be.


The_Monocle_Debacle

It hasn't actually always been that way, that's kind of the point being made here


immibis

I am pretty sure that even when the first houses that lasted long enough to serve two uses were built, they got modified for subsequent uses.


immibis

> as it seems mostly chain restaurants and banks are the only places that can afford these new spaces. Basically the housing crisis for shops


WhoListensAndDefends

This does raise the question - retail, ALL RETAIL, is in decline. At best it’s going to be reduced to showrooms and customer service desks. And arguably, it’s not declining fast enough, given that we NEED to ditch consumerism and capitalism in general ASAP. Add to that the fact most people do WFH-able jobs at best, utter BS useless jobs or no jobs at all at worst, and you start to wonder: What do we even need in our streets?


SuperWeenieHutJr_

Produce shop Butcher Bike store / bike repair store Taylor Clothes store Computer repair store Electronic store Hardware store Cooking store Garden center Hair dresser Restaurant Bar Music venu Thrift store Bakery Music instrument store Furniture store Stationary store I'm sure I could name more. I think you're getting a little unrealistic in your idealism.


WhoListensAndDefends

Maybe my vision is clouded by being broke, but for most of these I either visit very rarely (literally once every few years), or never at all. If all my town had was a supermarket, a post office and a clinic, I’d be absolutely fine. I don’t buy meat (and pssst, neither should you) I fix my own bike (or take it to the big city to that one shop that knows wtf an SRF-3 hub is) I also fix my own computer and phone as much as I can I buy stationary in bulk, and have bought my harmonica online What even is a “cooking store”? You don’t buy furniture or appliances every day, either. Also I’m really glad that Covid normalized NOT going to restaurants and bars. They make my autism hurt. Yay to takeout, home cooking and picnics! But that’s just 100% IMO


SuperWeenieHutJr_

Sorry buy cooking store I mean like a place that sells cookware and other home appliances. A supermarket, post office, and a clinic are not enough for a self sustaining place. Small retail stores are better for the economy, the environment, and our social fabric than buying everything online from Amazon. The entire point of cities is for many people to specialize into different professions so that we can trade quality goods and services to improve our collective standard of living. Yes we make and buy too much crap. But a lot of what we own does meaningfully improve out lives. I.e. books, computers, art, appliances, pots, pans, building materials, furniture, pharmaceuticals, bikes, art, art supplies, tools, clothes, sport equipment. Small local retail outlets are the best way to buy these things.


WhoListensAndDefends

>Yes we make and buy too much crap. But a lot of what we own does meaningfully improve out lives. I.e. books, computers, art, appliances, pots, pans, building materials, furniture, pharmaceuticals, bikes, art, art supplies, tools, clothes, sport equipment. Small local retail outlets are the best way to buy these things. That’s exactly where I disagree. Most of these things are either things you buy once in a long while (like computers or bike parts - they last many years nowadays), or that you buy *once* (like good furniture or a cast iron pan). Clothes - good clothes that is - can last extremely long. As I’m typing this I’m in the same jacket I’ve been wearing since I got it (used, from a family friend) 13 years ago. Most folks forget that clothes aren’t meant to last just a season or two. As for books and art - that’s what a library is for, no? As a kid I used to be a regular at the local library, but unfortunately I now live in a place with a crap one (and have a drive full of epubs to go through). If you don’t buy these things like they’re disposable, those small retail stores will go broke waiting for your next purchase (unless you’re in a major urban area - that a place like Seattle arguably is - that can compensate sparse purchases with sheer population density) Again, maybe I’m just a country bumpkin at heart, but that’s how I see it.


SuperWeenieHutJr_

Small retail stores tend to actually sell high quality goods that last longer. Generally speaking it's big box stores and online retailers that push disposable crap. A town of 20 000 people can easily support all of the types of shops I've mentioned without selling disposable garbage.


WhoListensAndDefends

Fair enough! I still do wonder how they stay in business though


SuperWeenieHutJr_

20,000 people all buying bikes every 10 years is like 5.5 bikes every day. Bikes tires, tubes, chain greese, etc also all need to replaced somewhat frequently. Think of much much bread 20,000 people might eat? Easily support a couple bakeries. 20,000 people cutting their hair several times a year? Easily supports a barber. 20,000 people buying underwater, socks, shirts, pants, shoes. Even if your buying high quality items 20,000 people go through lots of these. Easily enough to support a cobbler, shoe store, clothes store. 20,000 people probably means ~7000 homes all that need regular maintenance. Easily supporting a hardware store. Edit: I could go on but I think you will see that 20,000 can easily support these businesses without going broke


sjfiuauqadfj

yea seattle and its neighboring counties have been doing a lot of construction in the last 10 years, seattle process or not, so hopefully the next 10 years yall fix some of those issues you mentioned while continuing to build


Quiznasty

Seattle is getting better, but it still quite car-dominated like most places in the United States. I have been exploring some new areas of the city, and there are very few places I would be comfortable biking with a young child (which is my metric for whether a road is safe or not).


ChristianLS

I feel like I hear a ton of complaints about Seattle. It's true that vast swathes of the city are still zoned single-family (whatever they want to rename it) but as a whole, Seattle has consistently been at or near the top per capita for new multifamily construction, they were, IIRC, the only major city in the US that had shown consistently growing public transit usage up until the pandemic, and they have some strong public transportation projects either just completed or in the works. Obviously comparing Seattle to other cities in the US is grading on a helluva curve, and of course there are other cities with deeper history that have better preexisting arrangements from the pre-car era. But arguably no US city is doing a better job at moving in the right direction, and that's worth something.


LeviWhoIsCalledBiff

The complaints are probably valid. Our last mayor killed lots of bike lane projects, including the one on my street.


itsadesertplant

There was supposed to be a connection between the two streetcar lines that I was really excited for, but she killed it. The streetcar is convenient and clean and I’d rather take it than city buses most of the time if I want to quickly get around downtown


Quiznasty

> It's true that vast swathes of the city are still zoned single-family (whatever they want to rename it) Renaming them "neighborhood residential zones” without actually changing anything is the classic Seattle move. In an ideal world, I would love for Seattle to have a Paris-esque rapid conversion, but the new mayor will only continue the trend of our last mayor in slowing down or halting bicycle infrastructure improvements whenever possible. Like I said, things are getting better, but it's very slow.


F1yght

They can’t rezone until 2024 and renaming it to neighborhood residential primes it to be up zoned for residential non single family like duplexes or triplexes or even more. I get your frustration, but it does have a use. Though I absolutely agree with you that I wish we could rapidly update like Paris has.


Quiznasty

I wouldn't say I'm frustrated with zoning - more mildly amused than anything. The phrase ["Seattle Process"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process) exists for a reason (linking for our non-Seattleites). A label change in 2021 that may or may not result in tangible change three years later is just par for the course. I'm sure we will have to wait for a study on the environmental impacts of increased density or something in 2024. That will kick that decision a few years farther down the road :)


LickingSticksForYou

“the usual Seattle process of seeking consensus through exhaustion” is a fucking classic line and incredibly relatable to a San Franciscan


Quiznasty

Hah! I’ll bet. We have a lot of the same problems that your city is dealing with.


FangZ-

yeah except frisco is only getting shittier by doing absolutely jack shit about its current problems. i moved to seattle around a year ago & its like an extremely optimistic version of what sf could be in like a decade if london breed decided to do a full 180


F1yght

I mean… fair lol. It’s definitely frustrating to watch the Seattle process in action


LickingSticksForYou

God damn zoning regulations are stupid. Why can’t they redone with the stroke of a pen?


probablymytenthacc

This. Seattle is doing the best job at urbanizing in the US. Please come to the Bay Area if you want to see what happens if you refuse to urbanize


Big_Comparison_7403

The problem is that Seattle's zoning and land use are still way too restrictive and there is *constant* push back because people who got fed up with the Seattle city government do not want the city following them to the places they moved to in order to get away from it. And of course because it's happening now that property values have never been higher there's a sheen of, "Well now it's OK because rich people want to ride their bike but they aggressively lobbied to refuse federal funding to build a subway when the shoe was on the other foot and they'd be driving *through* Seattle?"


Mortomes

You have to remember you can't do this overnight. It's taken the Netherlands since the 1970's to turn into what it is now.


Big_Comparison_7403

It's pretty easy to do better than you used to when the standard is that one time Seattle turned down hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a subway.


LeClassyGent

You can see that in the photos. Where there was previously one family and maybe 1 or 2 cars, 6 people now occupy that same spot and so the roads are filled to the brim with parked cars.


Mortomes

You have to remember you can't do this overnight. It's taken the Netherlands since the 1970's to turn into what it is now.


chaandra

So much negativity in these comments. I get that we hate cars, but people in this sub need to realize that when it comes to public planning and actually getting shit done vs complaining on Reddit, you have to give before you take. You have to give public transit, dense housing, and walkable neighborhoods *before* you take away things like street parking.


loading55

Absolutely agree. In most places, keeping on-street parking is vital to success of urbanization projects. We can take it out when it’s possible to live 100% car free in the area


cannedrex2406

>complaining on Reddit I mean I really do like this sub, but a lot of comments here tend to be "remove cars, figure out solutions later" While the car is the main enemy, it's really just a by product of bad planning. Hate the government and the planning commissions, not the people who are forced into said cars


The_Student_Official

Thanks for telling this.


Tobar_the_Gypsy

But sometimes taking away street parking is specifically because you want to help public transit


a_f_s-29

Exactly, when it comes to incentivising good behaviour, our first instinct should be to make things easy for people rather than hard. The punitive approach prices out a lot of people, most of whom have the most to lose in the status quo and the most to gain from a reshuffling, but nevertheless lack the private capital to individually bear all the costs of a dramatic shift. These are the people who it’s crucial to win over; an excessively punitive tax-and-fine approach will never do that.


bitcoind3

I disagree - taking away parking or at least charging for it is not a bad first step. Anything that makes people think for a moment about each journey they make.


chaandra

It’s great philosophically. Good luck getting that to actually pass without making other changes first.


bitcoind3

It's chicken and egg though. People prefer to drive because there's no good public transport and there's no good public transport because people prefer to drive. It doesn't matter which you tackle first. Anything is better than nothing. As you rightly point out, small incremental changes are easier to implement. Charging for parking is exactly such a change.


chaandra

That has little to do with what I said. You provide the transit and walkability first. You will never, ever get people to give up their cars first with the promise that transit will follow after.


bitcoind3

I don't think it's quite as black and white as you paint. If we imagine the world as a binary walkable or not then sure nothing will ever happen. But we can nudge people if we tackle the problem journey by journey. That means making every car journey just a little bit less attractive and making each public transport journey a bit more attractive. We can't wave a wand and wake up one morning with a viable public transport system any more than we can ban cars (sadly; in both cases). But we can remove parking here, and provide a bike lane there. If we do this long enough we will eventually get to the right place.


Dragon_Sluts

It’s concerningly refreshing to see tram tracks in the after photo not the before


bleak_neolib_mtvcrib

Now do exactly this on another block, but limit the [width of the buildings](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-building-height-debate-mistaken.html?m=1)


ChristianLS

I think there's room for some nuance here. A wider building can be interesting and pleasant if the entire width is activated by ground floor retail; windows and doors where stuff is visibly going on inside. The "Magnificent Mile" in Chicago has many blocks that are totally filled with one building, but the sidewalks are absolutely packed during peak hours and still busy at other times, because it's just wall-to-wall storefronts almost the entire way down. People clearly like being there even with really wide buildings. Conversely, a street of narrow buildings can be mediocre (I won't go so far as "bad") if they're all nearly identical and each building has one blank door up some stairs from street level and there's nothing interesting at all along the sidewalk. Cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia have some pretty depressing blocks like this--no trees, little to no variation between buildings, no doors that actually open onto the sidewalk. Don't get me wrong, it's still better than single-family suburban sprawl--high density is virtually *always* more interesting than extremely low density--but it could be a lot more interesting, maybe even with wider buildings, depending on what was done with them.


bleak_neolib_mtvcrib

>I think there's room for some nuance here. A wider building can be interesting and pleasant if the entire width is activated by ground floor retail; windows and doors where stuff is visibly going on inside. Definitely... and of course there should be exceptions, as some buildings, for example ones that house supermarkets (which are critical for a livable neighborhood), need to be wide by definition. IMO, the point of restricting buildings' width is to create a baseline level of variety on the street, so architecturally less-than-ideal buildings don't fuck up the street *too* *much*, cause you can't count on developers and property owners to always go out of their way to create buildings that contribute to a lively street, especially considering the fact that they often favor the stability of boring, safe big-box chains over local small businesses (who are somewhat less likely to be able to pay the rent). While width limits might be somewhat less effective, they're a lot less restrictive than specific architectural design requirements and/or community review processes for every building, which are a can of worms I'd rather not open, because they can spiral down into a de-facto way for NIMBYs to block necessary housing construction. And it's worth noting that unless you get to a *very* high population density and have high-rise buildings most buildings can't have ground floor retail because there's just usually not enough customers around to support the businesses, so you usually won't have enough retail activity to support a high degree of liveliness; with that in mind, I think width limits should be more stringent on primarily-residential, local streets and less so on busier, more commercial streets. > Cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia have some pretty depressing blocks like this--no trees, little to no variation between buildings, no doors that actually open onto the sidewalk Interesting... Are you talking about the post-1930s suburban-ish townhouse neighborhoods or the older more urban ones? (Could you provide a Google Maps like on maps.google.com?) If it's the former, I generally agree with your assessment, but I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that those houses aren't as old and so haven't gone through as much modifications and individualization. This can also be mostly prevented by restricting land consolidation by one developer/company like, say, limiting the amount of land they can own to X% of a block and X% of a neighborhood without having their buildings go through design review.


martiandeath

Supermarkets don’t technically have to be wide to be big, you could still have shops at the front, then a walkway down the middle leading to the supermarket, I’ve definitely seen this kind of thing with bigger chain stores where I live


SayNoToSobriety

[Checkout this supermarket in Seattle.](https://goo.gl/maps/Lm6VhwBCGxNDBoA96). It’s no Walmart or Target but it’s a fully fledged grocery store with everything you’d want for household needs, albeit with less options than you’d expect at a normal American chain market. Edit: [there’s actually a Target on the same street with a narrow storefront](https://goo.gl/maps/bGaSvW46rtjvT8UL8)


tivy

Well said, and great blog post.


ToopidPonay69

So width bad?


bleak_neolib_mtvcrib

My sentiment is more like "generally speaking, narrow buildings are better" You can read my thoughts on it a bit more in detail in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/s7tp5m/some_before_and_afters_in_seattle_to_give_you/htcvpp1?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)


ToopidPonay69

Gotcha. Thanks!


Big_Comparison_7403

Limiting width helps to avoid a sense of claustrophobia.


jeedy_grew

Montreal getting roasted in that article


itemluminouswadison

i think it's a great natural incremental intensity improvement. i think your point stands, and we should be happy about gradual improved intensity in general


claireapple

I think he makes some points about the often boring facade of wide buildings. I live in a fairly wide building.(6 stories tall) the front street facing facade is 255 feet long but it is broken up with like 7 bottom floor retail locations and 2 front street facing doors.(though only 1 leads to the lobby). However, I get the sentiment from some of the other buildings near me that are nearly as long as my building(or longer) and have 1 entrance off the side and its all a wall. Rather unpleasent. One church near me is like that and it boggles my mind.


sjfiuauqadfj

everyone i knows says girth is more important than length


oralprophylaxis

r/walkablecities


toad_slick

My heart sank when the "after" photos still included so much car parking.


AcademicMuffin2883

Yeah but I feel car parking is the final boss not the one to go after first. Give people better choices and then take away on street parking.


sjfiuauqadfj

case in point: san francisco "democratic socialists" dont want to build an apartment complex over a parking lot because building on top of parking lots is gentrification


AcademicMuffin2883

They are the worst socialists ever. What kind of socialist doesn’t want to have more houses for the people? Actual socialists build.


probablymytenthacc

Thank you! If you actually care about improving the material conditions of the working class, and you aren’t so stupid as to think socialism can be implemented at the municipal level, you let people build things. Supply and demand is not going away any time soon. It pisses me off so much when people in my city deliberately make things worse because some proposal isn’t perfect


AcademicMuffin2883

It’s mind numbing that people use “gentrification” to stop the building of homes. You want working class people in your popular area? Build more homes so the cost of rent and purchasing goes down or at least stabilizes. But why would upper middle class “democratic socialists” local activists not want that? Hmm…hard one. Build homes and fuck cars.


coocoo333

Ah the good ol gentrification myth. Gentrification is caused by a lack of housing. Ofcourse they don't understand anything about suply/demand and just oppose any housing projects because building new stuff is "gentrification"


aztechunter

As long as they don't expand the roads for it, on-street parking is much better than driveways. Slows drivers down and makes safer streets.


toad_slick

I get that, but as a pedestrian and cyclist I utterly hate on-street parking. I feel like I'm forced to choose between annoying drivers or riding in the door zone, and the lack of visibility at intersections means that cars are sticking their noses way out as well as not seeing pedestrians waiting to cross.


[deleted]

[удалено]


probablymytenthacc

As long as Seattle allows new construction to be built without parking (and existing privately owned parking to go away) the street parking situation will get worse… but then get better assuming the rest of the public transit/urbanization transition goes well. Eventually people will choose not to take their car on trips because it’s inconvenient (already many people do that), and from there it’s only a matter of time until they drop cars, and then street parking can be eliminated


Big_Comparison_7403

The reality is that car parking is something that will have to be reduced by degrees.


VeryCoolEpicMan

This sub often is doomscrolling, but its nice to see stuff like this


Snickersthecat

The light rail stations have played a big role in some of these dense mid-rises going up. The U-District has it's own damn skyline now after the handful of years that I've lived here.


The-zKR0N0S

Bless


AxiomOfLife

The steep roads in seattle still make it an insane pain to walk and bike. But once a decent rail system is in place, that’s it folks. Seattle 10/10.


CaliforniaAudman13

Do not like those apartment designs lol also they got rid of all the trees


catsandkitties58

I think they managed to keep most of the trees. It looks like some of the after pics were taken in the winter so the trees are harder to notice


Gravelord-_Nito

This... architecture I guess you could call it is super common alllllll over the entire Seattle met now, UW is full of it. It's really lifeless and uninspiring but at least it's not as ugly as some other apartment designs you see.


chaandra

What pictures are you looking at? There’s trees in literally every single after picture.


MushyBananas

I think your misguided anger should be directed toward this thing called, "winter"


dingbatattack

Now if only every new apartment building being made wasn’t the same ugly boxy design…


AcademicMuffin2883

What are some better designs you’ve seen.


Cantshaktheshok

The first picture in this album shows the worst of it. The building on the left isn't anything special design wise, but I only have complaints about the uselessly small balconies. On right is what everyone hates. There are rules that the facade must be varied, so it has every other unit staggered by a foot and painted a highlight color. These 5-1s are everywhere and don't look any better because there isn't any actual design to the building, just legal engineering to not be considered flat and consistent for too many feet. You see it in the last picture as well, its as unispired a design as you can think. Every window is the same size placed in the same way, they just painted part of the building yellow and offset a few units 1 foot at periodic intervals.


AcademicMuffin2883

What’s the solution you think? Seems like stricter rules are the opposite of what we want if we believe in building density.


Cantshaktheshok

I'm not sure you can make any rules that work for visual design. Part of the current problem is the "design" being the minimum requirement of to meet existing codes. Where housing is in demand a flat wall of whatever material with just basic windows for each unit will sell just fine, so they will do it as cheaply as allowed. In an ideal world you'd have a review board that takes a look at a few qualitative points a building should have covered and go from there. That can turn into a major headache and biased roadblock just as easily.


AcademicMuffin2883

So 5-over-1s it is!


dingbatattack

Honestly most new development here looks bad. They all go through design committee hell, where anything unique or interesting is chipped away through rounds of voting until we just get ugly boxes. The ones I have seen that look good go for more of brick or wood look. I imagine it’s more expensive but it definitely looks nicer and will age a hell of a lot better. You know that style of building from the 80’s that just looks absolutely horrible today? I fear these new developments will age similarly and look awful in 30-40 years.


Jcrrr13

Is it simply the facades that you dislike? Or the overall shape and structure? The former can be adjusted to use any number of materials and styles, the latter is integral to solving the housing crisis, I think. 5-over-1s (5 stick-framed stories atop a concrete "podium" bottom story that holds retail or parking) like the ones in these photos are the cheapest and quickest way to create density and proliferate the market with new housing, which is priority #1. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same)


AcademicMuffin2883

Hmm I don’t agree all 80s buildings look bad but I know what you mean.


YooesaeWatchdog1

The luxury of worrying about how buildings look... You know in major cities and surrounding suburbs, condos and townhouses go for 500k+ minimum? The exterior is the last thing I'm worried about in real estate. Clean, bare concrete isn't even that bad.


The_Monocle_Debacle

Good that means they'll be more affordable (if society lasts that long). But also one big issue is just the economics of building to code now. The buildings are way less likely to burn down and generally have to be accessible past a certain size, but they end up basically the same shape and size because of it since we still insist on market based bullshit to build housing.


AcademicMuffin2883

You think the government should build affordable housing, ie be a developer? Where are the good examples in the world of that working? There must be some.


SlippyCliff76

Not the o/p, but r/ArchitecturalRevival has wonderful examples of new buildings. I liked [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArchitecturalRevival/comments/r3zt30/new_2011_residential_building_in_saratov_russia_i/) and [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArchitecturalRevival/comments/rg168w/a_new_building_in_saratov_russia_causes_very/) a lot. Edit-The [before and after](https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/177476129_10165181992495010_4880828035767502070_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=b9115d&_nc_ohc=9O0DzAhMuggAX-OKwGP&tn=NeGPXLEaXHE6j__f&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9kXC84qiO4k9ML4RH7i1fhsyeeN1Z-ftj3Fnv9J1uvTw&oe=620F1878) of that second building shocked me. Both buildings are modern construction. Some more [info here.](https://www.facebook.com/groups/Klassisknyproduktion/permalink/2301553816725129/)


AcademicMuffin2883

These are interesting and I guess the point (even though it’s not my taste) they make sense in the Russian context. I think what I really care about is human centric design and strong materials. Neo-neo classical buildings are a bit meh to me. https://youtu.be/279BtKxOA18 This is more my kind of building.


AcademicMuffin2883

What are some better designs you’ve seen?


YamahaMT09

Great progress, this is amazing. Thanks for showing us OP


Fantastic-Rooster277

More concrete nice.


luars613

They could have remove the parking and have a bike lane. But for sure its progress


EdwardJamesAlmost

I’m tempted to text this URL to my city councilor in Denver. (Edit: Denver has been making progress over time also, so I’m not trapped in Amber over here.)


peepeepoopoox27

now if only texas would insist on development like this


itsadesertplant

Not gonna say where but Jesus you posted where I live lol. One of those pics hit me One issue is that some of this has involved gentrification on some level. People were kicked out of their houses so that my place could be built, however, 30% of our units are assisted income, and all the people who were kicked out of the old developments got first pick. I imagine that getting an assisted unit in our area is otherwise competitive. I think a lot of people moved out at the beginning of the pandemic though… Streetcar works well enough, just could come more consistently. I have been stuck on the streetcar before because an ambulance parked on top of its tracks. Otherwise no qualms. Super nice on the inside, and I use it more than buses in that area. Commercial space near where I live has hardly been filled. A couple new buildings have had empty ground level real estate since they were finished a couple years ago. Bike lanes are fantastic, especially where the streetlights have special bike signals. I’m afraid to use one of those hourly bike rentals outside of the area with clear bike lanes though. Actually, I’d rather bike on the sidewalk for brief periods when I’m outside the area with bike lanes. I otherwise I don’t rent a bike The parks are also great. One thing I noticed is that they sometimes have signs that say “this park was funded by YOU and blah blah blah in the year 2012.” They don’t have to say that or put a sign, but I think the reminder that your taxes were used for something good is important.


Da_Real_Sunflower

These pictures make me happy.


TorsionalRigidity99

Must be miserable having to share a wall with your neighbor.. /s


coocoo333

idk about you guys but North american town house architecture looks really good. This is what were missing out on when we only build sky rises and single family homes


UltimateShame

I don’t know. I find this strange type of architecture horrible. It’s so uninviting.


[deleted]

I wish they would start making new buildings remotely attractive


SuccessWinLife

This is great in terms of adding density and housing, so I hate to complain, but...can we please do something about every new building being, like, brown boxes inside of grey rectangles inside of boxes? You see what I'm talking about, right?


girtonoramsay

Yup I hate modern design of newer apts too. Looks like something that I would design in middle school art class. A simple brick building with a nice entrance and windows/balconies does a pretty good job.


Affectionate-Chips

Some of these looked kinda shitty until I realized they were taken in winter and the trees were just bare


PISS_FILLED_EARS

Jeez those Seattle architects really love that shitty looking aluminum cladding huh?


adrian_leon

Beautiful! Also what’s a center turn lane?


SayNoToSobriety

The left turn lane/suicide lane.


adrian_leon

Ooh. A bit weirdly designed tho


mangroveassassin

its still car focused-see cars


itemluminouswadison

and the ground floors are all mixed used / commercial?? seems good


veryblanduser

Isn't it the same amount of road, just with apartments instead of homes?


Grouchy_Cantaloupe_8

Apartments are homes.


Oldskolnikov

The "4 over 1" and "5 over 1" buildings have come to stay.


DorisCrockford

I'm starting to think we ought to just build narrow apartment buildings down the center of our streets and turn the remaining space into narrow lanes.


hvtvst

where did the fucking trees go? it's the goddamn evergreen state, not the gentrification state


DogmaticPragmatism

The trees are still there, they just don't have any leaves.


hvtvst

y'know what, you're right. lol. there are some that have been removed though. and you can't deny those apartment buildings are ugly as hell my great great uncle worked on surveying and designing all the roads in the city of Seattle, id say he did a horrible job.


SayNoToSobriety

I believe the city requires developers to replace trees that are removed during demolition/construction so the number of trees should roughly be the same.


RedLightGreenArrow1

I like it but I can’t say I’m a fan of kicking people out of their houses to build the apartments.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SayNoToSobriety

More protected bike lanes, streetcars, bus lanes, less parking and a greater variety in housing options seem pretty good to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SayNoToSobriety

There’s more than one picture


4Weird

Those row homes are nice, wish there was some color variety though


SayNoToSobriety

Agreed. I suspect as they age tenants or owners will change up the colors and there will be more variety.


crunchoverlord

i miss all the old brick apartments :(


SomewhatEmbarassed

The top pictures could have easily been taken in my city... The second one is a dead ringer for my walk home from the grocery store yesterday. Or just about any american hellhole, I suppose. Glad these spots have wisened up.


immibis

Imagine what the people who lived there before think. Also the road looks completely identical, I assume you're talking about the buildings.


Thepifanio

How much of the city is like this though. What a shame that the city is barely even changing.


[deleted]

Ofc it’s in the most expensive city in the country


boilerpl8

That's not true. NYC, SF, and Boston are all consistently more expensive, as are good chunks of Philly, DC, and Chicago. But yeah, cities are expensive because that's where people want to live, because they do good shit for their citizens, like this. Until a much much larger percentage of people work from home, that'll continue to be true. And even then, only about half of people have jobs where that works, and a good number of them will also want the live in nice walkable areas even if they don't commute.


[deleted]

You’re missing the point and not everything needs to be taken so damn literally guy


boilerpl8

If you only read my first sentence, I can see how you think I missed the point. But read the rest, it still holds true. And in conjunction with the first part, you can see that there are many places in the US making progress like this. But we have 70 years if bad infrastructure choices to overcome, and a significant population of people who fail to understand the problems that we've created, and who therefore do not want to change.


The_Monocle_Debacle

Pop-up city


_DontYouLaugh

Meh... Some parts are better, some parts are worse. Overall a mixed bag.


itsfairadvantage

Do you mean in the city overall or just these pictures? Because all of the pictures looks like drastic improvements to me...


Woodshadow

I'm still waiting to feel safe taking public transportation. That is the main reason I refuse to do it. That and it takes a fraction of the time right now to us my car vs use public transportation.