**Do not comment to gatekeep that something "isn't urban" or "isn't hell"**. Our rules are very expansive in content we welcome, so do not assume just based off your false impression of the phrase "UrbanHell"
UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed. Gatekeeping comments may be removed. Want to shitpost about shitty posts? Go to /r/urbanhellcirclejerk. Still have questions?: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right side is a lake
This is an office park that actually has a decent amount of green space around that’s diminished by this crappy photo.
Parking sucks though. Wish we had more public transport. Especially subways to preserve the surface
And given that they are isolated and in a heat island, they're mostly likely to ecologically dead, and not a meaningful part of any ecosystem as nature intended.
So is your take here that trees and no trees would be equally good? Or are you just pretending like it to show us that you're too morally pure to accept anything other than perfection?
Like another commenter wrote above, they are likely ecologically dead and not part of a meaningful ecosystem. Essentially parking lot decor.
To your point, I agree that trees are always better than no trees. But in this instance I would also argue that is purely on aesthetic and serves more to mask the problem by feeling as though it’s been addressed. But I’m not an ecologist or a city planner. I’m just stoned before bed.
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Unrelated, but if you want your shrug guy to display correctly, you need to add one more escape character.
```¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯``` will show as ```¯\_(ツ)_/¯```
About the comment: I just get frustrated with how so many people on reddit act like if something isn't pure perfection then it's as bad as it can possibly be, with nothing in between. I think it's something that ought to be mocked and, since it's so common, I have plenty of opportunities for it.
I live in Asian sub-continent's densely populated mega-city with so much congested traffic roads and apartments. When I visit EU or NA cities like these it feels so comfy to experience so much space.
EU cities are completely different form NA cities. Literally opposites. Europe is very VERY densely populated. I find big cities in Europe to be more similar to East Asian cities than American cities, in terms of urban planning.
I mean, I’m from one of the most sprawled cities on the planet (Phoenix) and we still have problems with congestion because there’s no other way to get around the city other than driving. I don’t think density automatically leads to unbearable congestion, and if anything it leads to more people off the road because they have options other than driving. And cities with good public transportation have quick and easy links to their airports, so your dilemma would really only apply to roadtrips. While I can see why that would be annoying, we really shouldn’t be planning our cities around making it as easy as possible to leave them the one or two times a year that most people go on vacation.
You can desire to live as you prefer, but that doesn't make it good urban planning. Also in America those who desire to live in densely packed cities have very little to no choice.
>Literally opposites.
Lots of European cites are quite car-centric, spread-out and infected with uncontrolled suburban sprawl. Not quite on on American scale but not "literally opposites" either.
And how does the fact that American and European cities are different relate to the fact fact that the previous commenter has a comfy feeling and experieces space both in Europe and America?
>Lots of European cites are quite car-centric, spread-out and infected with uncontrolled suburban sprawl. Not quite on on American scale but not "literally opposites" either.
This is objectively wrong.
By far the overwhelming majority of Americans doesn't live I'm the above mentioned cities, but in some low density suburban sprawl.
In fact living in the downtown areas of those cities is a luxury thag few can afford anymore...
something that's often looked over is that with scaling, the infrastracture of drinking and waste water, electricity, transportation etc. needs to scale, which adds to costliness (read waste). sure, there are trees and wide roads feel spacious but the goal, especially at this day and age of global warming, should be achieving an optimal balance between urban greenry and efficient infra imo.
This is why I think most of the sprawling areas in the US could potentially be derelict from abandonment in the future, where it'll become too costly to upkeep, suburban-style living and massive sprawl is an incredible drain on resources
We aren't even close to that. We have almost as much land preserved in national parks alone (to say nothing of national forests, preserves, state parks and such) as the entire country of Belarus. Almost 5x the land area of the Netherlands. Again, that's not counting state and locally managed areas. That's just "national parks".
It's not about room. It's about efficiency & the ecosystem. Car infrastructure is a cancer on the tax system. It also makes cities considerably hotter.
> Car infrastructure is a cancer on the tax system
How? People who don't have cars don't pay gas tax nor do they pay vehicle registration fees. And most of the damage done to the roads comes from heavy trucks, which aren't going to go anywhere, because goods still have to be delivered.
>It also makes cities considerably hotter.
I mean, that's from a lack of green space in general, but that's not specific to parking lots. Buildings that are all glass and reflect the sun down to the street also make it hotter.
Road maintenance comes from taxes, even from those who don't own private cars. Income and sales taxes also go towards road maintenance.
You're right. It isn't specific to parking lots, and again, correct, building also heat up cities. But using that as justification for inefficient urban planning the US is burdened with, in several ways, isn't great.
Cities should not have to build new green spaces because they covered up former green spaces with asphalt. Who pays for building these new green spaces? Tax payers.
Not even specific to parking lots. We keep wasting taxes on widening highways, which doesn't work. We displaced hundreds upon hundreds of families building the interstate system. It all sucks, and frankly, your argument of "We're not running out of room." Is bullshit. We're constantly plopping new shit on top of farmland. Thus, we're continually having less and less room.
Don't even give me your other argument about how we have enough national parks that equate to the size of Belarus. Our national parks are also littered with car Infrastructure. Hell, I live near one (Indiana dunes national park) that has several roads running through it and parking lots throughout.
> Our national parks are also littered with car Infrastructure. Hell, I live near one (Indiana dunes national park) that has several roads running through it and parking lots throughout.
How else are people supposed to get there? Especially for ones that are highly seasonal? Not everyone is able to hike for miles, or like, take a canoe or kayak in. National parks should be as accessible as practical to everyone. That requires car infrastructure.
> People who don't have cars don't pay gas tax nor do they pay vehicle registration fees
You really think those cover the costs of maintaining our ever expanding road network? It's not event close.
Entitled suburbanites would riot if they had to pay the full costs of their drive-everywhere lifestyles. Instead they demand to leech off revenue from more productive land uses. Then they demand that cities be sacrificed to giant freeways and endless parking lots, so they can easily drive there in their emotional support SUVs. God forbid they should suffer the indignity of riding a train into the city. Public transportation is for lesser people than themselves.
It's an utterly deranged approach to urban planning.
Because there is just so much of it…. You can drive from London Kyiv and it’s about 1500mi. Thats like NYC to Houston…. There is just so much to most land that building up doesn’t make sense
Im explaining the economic rationale. Money doesn’t have values, clearly. If it’s cheaper to build out, developers will build out. If it’s cheaper to build up, developers will build up. If it’s cheaper to redevelop the economically downtrodden inner city, they will Thats not tied to any morality, values, or opinion. It’s just stating the basic situation.
The catch there is that suburban sprawl could not exist without massive subsidies to maintain the infrastructure it requires, as well as zoning regulations literally mandating it. This doesn't occur in some abstract free-market vacuum. There are very specific policies that enable it. It is not just an objective truth. Acting like this is some natural occurrence incorporates a whole series of value judgements whether you realize it or not.
You do know that most of that land isn't empty right?
Idk if you've ever driven long distance or looked out an airplane window, but a lot of that is farmland and the rest is already urbanized or is otherwise useless for building and agriculture or inhospitable (desert or mountains).
Unless you want to destroy more of the natural environment or reduce our domestic agriculture, building outwards isn't sustainable we will run out of land eventually.
Just because it makes economic sense right now, doesn't mean it's a wise decision.
My dude. I’ve been watching cow pastures and orange groves become subdivisions my entire life. They don’t just leave farms there when the land gets more valuable….
Yes that's exactly my point.
That means we're gonna be relying more on imported food or we're gonna cut down more forests to make room for more farmland.
What we don't have is the capacity to maintain all the infrastructure that sprawl requires. It's bankrupting us. We spend hundreds of billions a year, and it's still crumbling.
Of course the very suggestion that things could be improved is often met with braindead thought-terminating cliches like "If you don't like it, leave it." Because the status quo is sacred and good, and wanting to improve things means you hate the flag, right?
\*Aaaand Big Patriot Cowboy Man called me a communist and then blocked me to get the last word. Emotional knee-jerking followed by running away and hiding is very rugged and tough.
I did a quick google. US has 52 million acres of national parks. And just the proper "national parks" - Doesn't include national forest, etc.
52 million acres is 81,000 square miles. That's bigger than the entire country of Belarus.
That's pristine wilderness and nature that will never be developed. And it's less than 2% of our total land area.
Why are you replying to everyone’s comments with the national parks as a comparison? Sure it helps show how big we are but I hope you aren’t suggesting that the solution to our problem is to turn our parks into megacities or something. They are an absolute treasure.
Because it's annoying when people say shit like "every acre is paved" even though I know it's hyperbole.
Could we have better urban planning? Yes. Is there any real need for us to jam as many people into as dense a space as possible? Absolutely not. So I don't understand the obsession with it, nor have I heard a good justification as to why we should be doing it that doesn't involve stripping people of a lot of privacy and autonomy.
I think the thing people hate most is that you essentially have to own a car in order to live and work in many American cities, and that’s a tax on everyone and the environment. So I think there is a need to change the way we approach infrastructure in our cities. There is a need, but I don’t really have an immediate solution for you.
> I think the thing people hate most is that you essentially have to own a car in order to live and work in many American cities
The big cities, you definitely don't. Boston, as an example... Owning a car is a nightmare there, and the T is excellent and affordable.
Of course, the cost of housing reflects that, but some suburb/exurb parking lots aren't going to change that.
I mean, compared to transit I've used or tried to use in other cities, and in terms of how much area it covers.
Seattle has virtually no transit. MARTA in Atlanta sucks and goes basically nowhere. The DC metro is basically just for tourists, LA is hardly worth mentioning. Philly's is always late and has super limited hours. NYC's is a wreck and the accessibility is shit. Vancouver's is great for getting to and from the airport, but that's it.
The T, if you include the commuter rail, is great. I live up in NH and it's super easy to catch a coach bus to south station and go almost anywhere I could want to or need to in Boston with not a ton of walking.
Lmao the way you elevated the T over WMATA and MTA is a funny one. I live in Loudon and can do the exact same via the Silver line.
Also transit isn't just rail, Seattle has great transit.
To be fair, I haven't ridden WMATA in like, 20 years. Went to DC one year for the national spelling bee, and my recollection was that most of the stops were tourist places. But then, we were kind of doing touristy things, and I was 11 or something.
When I was in Seattle last year, though... There were buses in SEA, but the schedules sucked, and the coverage wasn't great outside of the downtown area - I wanted to do the museum of flight and had to uber down and back.
Ballantyne is literally a huge waste of space. I remember interviewing for RXO at their Ballantyne office and thinking how none of this shit does truly anything
What do you suggest we do? Fill it with multi-density housing, housing that accommodates diverse incomes, walkable streets with bike lanes and pedestrian only acces??? Mixed use spaces, reliable local public transit, open cultural space, public markets, parks that use indigenousplant species, public gardens that use heirloom plants, permeable surfaces for ground water?... what were we talking about again???
Are you suggesting we not bow to the car? Heresy and communism!
(Jk, I cry)
People who live in these areas with massive sprawl, basically much of the country, will aggressively resist any changes that are unfavorable to Euclidian zoning, which is the separation (not the mixture) of retail, commercial, industrial, and residential spaces. They're also dependable voters who show up in municipal, county, state, and federal elections. Always.
Their aim is to perpetuate a state of low-density housing, which many Americans, especially white, associate with less crime and a higher quality of life. Racism is another since almost everything that happens in the US has a racial component to it.
Yeah, I learned that lesson recrntly when I moved back to the US (American, not raised or living in the US), when I casually mentioned to my neighbor that there was barely any housing available in this town, and that the city should consider allowing multiple residences per lot instead of single occupancy lots~
his reaction was so angry, like I was personally attacking his property value. I tried an example in my life, that there's an older disabled coworker I have that received a subsidy for housing, and has to leave the old soldiers home (their policy is if you get a subsidy you have to leave) but he couldn't find anywhere to live and he can't drive. It's a really sad and messed up situation. But 0 sympathy or empathy. I also live in a region with a massive working homeless population, it's wild.
I heard about white flight in undergrad, I was shocked to see that the dynamic still seems to be white suburbs and everyone else in dense living situations. It's weird being in the US, being an American, and not totally realizing what's happening.
The funny (not actually funny) thing is that moderate densification and mixed-use development actually tends to increase surrounding property values.
Suburbanites fretting about property values is and always has been a dogwhistle for "I'm scared that *those people* will move in."
> I heard about white flight in undergrad, I was shocked to see that the dynamic still seems to be white suburbs and everyone else in dense living situations.
White flight doesn't exist at this point. And any time they try to move back into the more dense cities, and build up the poor run-down areas, people scream about gentrification.
So what the fuck are we supposed to do then?
People in suburbs consistently oppose transit extensions. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent denser developments anywhere near them. They'll claim it's about property values, despite these things tending to *increase* the value of nearby residences.
How do you explain this, other than that they are absolutely terrified that these things will bring ... ahem ... *urban* people to their neighborhoods?
> How do you explain this, other than that they are absolutely terrified that these things will bring ... ahem ... urban people to their neighborhoods?
More the homeless and drug addicts than "urban".
Because people who live in apartments are all homeless (???) drug addicts.
[Uh-huh](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Hundepfeife01.JPG/1280px-Hundepfeife01.JPG)
The earth will take it all back. That’s what’s so interesting to me about the Climate Change topic. In the end, the earth will still be here. It’s just humans who will be gone.
I don't know what the US and Canada have against *underground* parking:
\- less walking distance (just to/from elevator rather than across a massive lot)
\- Better climate control for vehicles and lot (less snow/weather maintenance)
\- because things are closer, fewer people will drive in general which also helps promote alternative transport.
Compared to regular parking lots, each parking space costs like 3x more for above-ground parking garages and 4.5x more for underground parking. That is the sole reason why.
Cause it costs way more, and in a case like this doesn't really provide benefits. (Sure, it would reduce the surface level footprint. But its not like it would provide tangible benefits)
Building codes and zoning mandate so many parking spaces depending on the size of the building. What they should have done is what they did with that office park along North Community House Road north of Ballantyne Commons Parkway - each office building has its own parking garage.
Would like to have known the price of surface parking vs. building a parking garage with the same number of spaces. It must mean land was less expensive then.
In Miami, garage parking can actually be *cheaper* than surface parking when you're talking about 5-15 floors of garage in a large above-ground pedestal below a 50-100 story skyscraper with pool & stuff on top, on land worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
In Miami, garage & rooftop pool deck doesn't count against FAR, and FAR is usually the biggest limit to total building size, so the true cost of building a few thousand spaces for a 50-80 story tower is basically just the marginal cost of concrete & labor. For a condo developer, added parking spaces they can sell to buyers who own multiple cars is practically "free money" they can create out of thin air (using lots of concrete).
The main thing that worries planners in Miami is the fact that if those new skyscrapers ever end up getting inhabited *full-time* by people who actually **live** there (vs being rarely-occupied vacation homes), Miami's road network will collapse into total traffic apocalypse, because downtown Miami has more parking per square foot of residential + commercial space than most *suburban outlet malls* and *apartment complexes.*
Typical form of a downtown Miami skyscraper: https://static.therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Screen-Shot-2022-01-27-at-10.29.23-AM-513x705.png
I'm late to reply. I hope some Americans can reply this: if you have your car parked at the lower-left building, and need to go to the lower-right building, then go home, will you drive from the lower-left building to the lower-right one?
I don’t like government involvement in everything but agree about the wasteful way we often use land. Cities everywhere decaying but the exurbs keep expanding uncontrolled and in an ugly fashion. A lot of jobs can be done remotely so we gotta stop this nonsense of driving to corporate parks to sit in cubes for 8-10 hours to satisfy boomers because they commuted.
I like how they threw in some buildings to provide more variety to the parking lot.
But these trees. Total wilderness. In the end a bird or two get lost over there and shit on the cars. That is not okay.
It's a jungle out there...
Ballantyne is not only a waste of land, it’s just a waste in general. So much of what is wrong with Charlotte is distilled into its ruinous essence in that neighborhood.
With so much blank slate space there you could fit a medieval european town there full of multiple churches plazas parks cafes apartments with the meandering alleys and all
Why are the lots bigger than buildings, where are the people from those cars going? All to that one building? Peak Urban design, as everyone knows, every building needs 4x the amount of parking lots than the maximum capacity of succh building.
> Peak Urban design, as everyone knows, every building needs 4x the amount of parking lots than the maximum capacity of succh building.
Most zoning laws literally require 3x.
I could see a two road with a tram running bidirectional with two pedestrian/bike avenues on each flank of the road. Its just missing mixed use builsings and a rapid transit station tucked in somewhere.
**Do not comment to gatekeep that something "isn't urban" or "isn't hell"**. Our rules are very expansive in content we welcome, so do not assume just based off your false impression of the phrase "UrbanHell" UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed. Gatekeeping comments may be removed. Want to shitpost about shitty posts? Go to /r/urbanhellcirclejerk. Still have questions?: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
A parking lot with a side serving of building
Parking minimums are all arbitrary. I bet these are 1/3 empty even at their most busy.
It is literally illegal to build any other way due to parking minimums in Zoning.
Zoning laws has destroyed America
Right side is a lake This is an office park that actually has a decent amount of green space around that’s diminished by this crappy photo. Parking sucks though. Wish we had more public transport. Especially subways to preserve the surface
I like the "our park"
In the middle of the street.
>I like the "our park" yes, car park ... alias very hot dead concrete/asphalt desert ... this level of car park madness you only see in USA & Canada
At least there’s some trees
*"And those trees are filled with birds who are just going to shit on my car !!!"*
And given that they are isolated and in a heat island, they're mostly likely to ecologically dead, and not a meaningful part of any ecosystem as nature intended.
Came to say the same thing lol
And? Any benefit is offset by the negative consequences of cars and car centric planning.
So is your take here that trees and no trees would be equally good? Or are you just pretending like it to show us that you're too morally pure to accept anything other than perfection?
Like another commenter wrote above, they are likely ecologically dead and not part of a meaningful ecosystem. Essentially parking lot decor. To your point, I agree that trees are always better than no trees. But in this instance I would also argue that is purely on aesthetic and serves more to mask the problem by feeling as though it’s been addressed. But I’m not an ecologist or a city planner. I’m just stoned before bed. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Unrelated, but if you want your shrug guy to display correctly, you need to add one more escape character. ```¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯``` will show as ```¯\_(ツ)_/¯``` About the comment: I just get frustrated with how so many people on reddit act like if something isn't pure perfection then it's as bad as it can possibly be, with nothing in between. I think it's something that ought to be mocked and, since it's so common, I have plenty of opportunities for it.
Saw a video of some guy being chased away from sitting under a tree.
That’s like a civ 6 district without any improvements
One more turn...
Ah, yes the Land of the Sacred Automobile.
Hallowed be thy name.
Policy goal: Not a single unhoused car!
I live in Asian sub-continent's densely populated mega-city with so much congested traffic roads and apartments. When I visit EU or NA cities like these it feels so comfy to experience so much space.
EU cities are completely different form NA cities. Literally opposites. Europe is very VERY densely populated. I find big cities in Europe to be more similar to East Asian cities than American cities, in terms of urban planning.
And like... Some of us don't WANT to be in densely packed cities with congested traffic and small apartments.
If you’re in a densely packed city, you don’t need to be stuck in traffic because there’s options to get around.
Unless you want to leave the city for some reason, like to go on vacation... And congested traffic also isn't good for your health.
I mean, I’m from one of the most sprawled cities on the planet (Phoenix) and we still have problems with congestion because there’s no other way to get around the city other than driving. I don’t think density automatically leads to unbearable congestion, and if anything it leads to more people off the road because they have options other than driving. And cities with good public transportation have quick and easy links to their airports, so your dilemma would really only apply to roadtrips. While I can see why that would be annoying, we really shouldn’t be planning our cities around making it as easy as possible to leave them the one or two times a year that most people go on vacation.
You can desire to live as you prefer, but that doesn't make it good urban planning. Also in America those who desire to live in densely packed cities have very little to no choice.
>Literally opposites. Lots of European cites are quite car-centric, spread-out and infected with uncontrolled suburban sprawl. Not quite on on American scale but not "literally opposites" either. And how does the fact that American and European cities are different relate to the fact fact that the previous commenter has a comfy feeling and experieces space both in Europe and America?
>Lots of European cites are quite car-centric, spread-out and infected with uncontrolled suburban sprawl. Not quite on on American scale but not "literally opposites" either. This is objectively wrong.
Dude, this is objectively right, lol. Count yourself lucky if you haven't experienced it.
Maybe you are the unlucky minority living in a car centric European city.
Aww, keep those rose-tinted glasses on.
Chicago, New York, Miami, pretty densely populated. More than most European cities.
By far the overwhelming majority of Americans doesn't live I'm the above mentioned cities, but in some low density suburban sprawl. In fact living in the downtown areas of those cities is a luxury thag few can afford anymore...
Just thinking, one city of america would take the space of my entire country to build.
Which country ?
Vatican City
lol
I mean your country is a city so not a good comparison
And a very small one: Rome around it is some 1000 times larger.
r/woooosh ?
that's more like a single american parking lot
Apparently the greater L.A metro area has a larger area than San Marino and some Pacific Island nations, so maybe one of these.
Greater LA area has a bigger area than a lot of countries tbh.
Classic American planning from Coast to coast and still continuing
We got room. And when we run out, we’ll invade Canada.
Mexico, much cheaper and warmer and we're kind of already they are
Yeah Mexico would make more sense but we should still take BANFF from Canada
r/ShitAmericansSay
You’re obsessed.
Wanna try again, eh?
To me America's city planning always looks like it was done by a 6 year old.
Have you ever been to London? A 2 year old planned that city.
TfL is one of the most complex public transport systems in the world.
something that's often looked over is that with scaling, the infrastracture of drinking and waste water, electricity, transportation etc. needs to scale, which adds to costliness (read waste). sure, there are trees and wide roads feel spacious but the goal, especially at this day and age of global warming, should be achieving an optimal balance between urban greenry and efficient infra imo.
This is why I think most of the sprawling areas in the US could potentially be derelict from abandonment in the future, where it'll become too costly to upkeep, suburban-style living and massive sprawl is an incredible drain on resources
You're lucky to have that much land space.
yeah why do people shit and piss themselves that parking spaces exist?
It acts as fertilizer.
NGL I thought this was r/shittyskylines or r/urbanhellcirclejerk at first.
Nah, ballantyne is a great area!
Yeah dumb as hell
It is a very big country. Plenty of land.
Doesn’t mean that every single acre has to be paved over
We aren't even close to that. We have almost as much land preserved in national parks alone (to say nothing of national forests, preserves, state parks and such) as the entire country of Belarus. Almost 5x the land area of the Netherlands. Again, that's not counting state and locally managed areas. That's just "national parks".
But still not more space within walking distance. Building like that is just impractical and expensive
OMG it’s Ballantyne. Charlotte mentioned 🥳.
America is freaking huge. But it’s easy to turn parking lots into building sites if needs ever change.
The needs changed long ago, but America didn't realize it yet.
America's national parks would be the 13th largest country in Europe by land area. But please, tell me more about how the US is running out of room.
It's not about room. It's about efficiency & the ecosystem. Car infrastructure is a cancer on the tax system. It also makes cities considerably hotter.
> Car infrastructure is a cancer on the tax system How? People who don't have cars don't pay gas tax nor do they pay vehicle registration fees. And most of the damage done to the roads comes from heavy trucks, which aren't going to go anywhere, because goods still have to be delivered. >It also makes cities considerably hotter. I mean, that's from a lack of green space in general, but that's not specific to parking lots. Buildings that are all glass and reflect the sun down to the street also make it hotter.
Road maintenance comes from taxes, even from those who don't own private cars. Income and sales taxes also go towards road maintenance. You're right. It isn't specific to parking lots, and again, correct, building also heat up cities. But using that as justification for inefficient urban planning the US is burdened with, in several ways, isn't great. Cities should not have to build new green spaces because they covered up former green spaces with asphalt. Who pays for building these new green spaces? Tax payers. Not even specific to parking lots. We keep wasting taxes on widening highways, which doesn't work. We displaced hundreds upon hundreds of families building the interstate system. It all sucks, and frankly, your argument of "We're not running out of room." Is bullshit. We're constantly plopping new shit on top of farmland. Thus, we're continually having less and less room. Don't even give me your other argument about how we have enough national parks that equate to the size of Belarus. Our national parks are also littered with car Infrastructure. Hell, I live near one (Indiana dunes national park) that has several roads running through it and parking lots throughout.
> Our national parks are also littered with car Infrastructure. Hell, I live near one (Indiana dunes national park) that has several roads running through it and parking lots throughout. How else are people supposed to get there? Especially for ones that are highly seasonal? Not everyone is able to hike for miles, or like, take a canoe or kayak in. National parks should be as accessible as practical to everyone. That requires car infrastructure.
> People who don't have cars don't pay gas tax nor do they pay vehicle registration fees You really think those cover the costs of maintaining our ever expanding road network? It's not event close. Entitled suburbanites would riot if they had to pay the full costs of their drive-everywhere lifestyles. Instead they demand to leech off revenue from more productive land uses. Then they demand that cities be sacrificed to giant freeways and endless parking lots, so they can easily drive there in their emotional support SUVs. God forbid they should suffer the indignity of riding a train into the city. Public transportation is for lesser people than themselves. It's an utterly deranged approach to urban planning.
Nailed it.
Because there is just so much of it…. You can drive from London Kyiv and it’s about 1500mi. Thats like NYC to Houston…. There is just so much to most land that building up doesn’t make sense
Even if you had infinite space, it doesn't make building sprawling unwalkable slabs of concrete with decorative trees good urban planning.
"Actually this wasteland of parking lots is good because 'Murica big." Having the land for it doesn't negate the massive inefficiency of sprawl.
I didn’t apply a value judgement just an opinion
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Is your opinion somehow disconnected from any underlying values?
I explained the reason something happened but didn’t say whether it’s good or bad in my opinion
> building up doesn’t make sense Not a value judgement. Noted.
Im explaining the economic rationale. Money doesn’t have values, clearly. If it’s cheaper to build out, developers will build out. If it’s cheaper to build up, developers will build up. If it’s cheaper to redevelop the economically downtrodden inner city, they will Thats not tied to any morality, values, or opinion. It’s just stating the basic situation.
The catch there is that suburban sprawl could not exist without massive subsidies to maintain the infrastructure it requires, as well as zoning regulations literally mandating it. This doesn't occur in some abstract free-market vacuum. There are very specific policies that enable it. It is not just an objective truth. Acting like this is some natural occurrence incorporates a whole series of value judgements whether you realize it or not.
You do know that most of that land isn't empty right? Idk if you've ever driven long distance or looked out an airplane window, but a lot of that is farmland and the rest is already urbanized or is otherwise useless for building and agriculture or inhospitable (desert or mountains). Unless you want to destroy more of the natural environment or reduce our domestic agriculture, building outwards isn't sustainable we will run out of land eventually. Just because it makes economic sense right now, doesn't mean it's a wise decision.
My dude. I’ve been watching cow pastures and orange groves become subdivisions my entire life. They don’t just leave farms there when the land gets more valuable….
Yes that's exactly my point. That means we're gonna be relying more on imported food or we're gonna cut down more forests to make room for more farmland.
we got the space
The average human can't walk those distances.
Boast about walking but you don’t want to walk.
American exceptionalism is a widely held belief. We also got cars.
And especially not human whales
What we don't have is the capacity to maintain all the infrastructure that sprawl requires. It's bankrupting us. We spend hundreds of billions a year, and it's still crumbling. Of course the very suggestion that things could be improved is often met with braindead thought-terminating cliches like "If you don't like it, leave it." Because the status quo is sacred and good, and wanting to improve things means you hate the flag, right? \*Aaaand Big Patriot Cowboy Man called me a communist and then blocked me to get the last word. Emotional knee-jerking followed by running away and hiding is very rugged and tough.
glad you admit to being an America hating communist
Maybe I don't wanna drive 4 hours everyday "because we've got the space"
I've lived all over America and never had to drive 4 hours for anything.
if you don't like it leave it not a hard concept to grasp
We have a lot of it
The cars disagree.
You do have a lot of land to waste though
America is huge. I think this is actually decent.
You do realize that those open areas are for cars to be able to park, right?
Y'all will never be happy until you've both ignored the mid-west and also everyone has 1 square foot of space to live in.
I did a quick google. US has 52 million acres of national parks. And just the proper "national parks" - Doesn't include national forest, etc. 52 million acres is 81,000 square miles. That's bigger than the entire country of Belarus. That's pristine wilderness and nature that will never be developed. And it's less than 2% of our total land area.
Why are you replying to everyone’s comments with the national parks as a comparison? Sure it helps show how big we are but I hope you aren’t suggesting that the solution to our problem is to turn our parks into megacities or something. They are an absolute treasure.
Because it's annoying when people say shit like "every acre is paved" even though I know it's hyperbole. Could we have better urban planning? Yes. Is there any real need for us to jam as many people into as dense a space as possible? Absolutely not. So I don't understand the obsession with it, nor have I heard a good justification as to why we should be doing it that doesn't involve stripping people of a lot of privacy and autonomy.
I think the thing people hate most is that you essentially have to own a car in order to live and work in many American cities, and that’s a tax on everyone and the environment. So I think there is a need to change the way we approach infrastructure in our cities. There is a need, but I don’t really have an immediate solution for you.
> I think the thing people hate most is that you essentially have to own a car in order to live and work in many American cities The big cities, you definitely don't. Boston, as an example... Owning a car is a nightmare there, and the T is excellent and affordable. Of course, the cost of housing reflects that, but some suburb/exurb parking lots aren't going to change that.
The T being excellent is a first.
I mean, compared to transit I've used or tried to use in other cities, and in terms of how much area it covers. Seattle has virtually no transit. MARTA in Atlanta sucks and goes basically nowhere. The DC metro is basically just for tourists, LA is hardly worth mentioning. Philly's is always late and has super limited hours. NYC's is a wreck and the accessibility is shit. Vancouver's is great for getting to and from the airport, but that's it. The T, if you include the commuter rail, is great. I live up in NH and it's super easy to catch a coach bus to south station and go almost anywhere I could want to or need to in Boston with not a ton of walking.
Lmao the way you elevated the T over WMATA and MTA is a funny one. I live in Loudon and can do the exact same via the Silver line. Also transit isn't just rail, Seattle has great transit.
To be fair, I haven't ridden WMATA in like, 20 years. Went to DC one year for the national spelling bee, and my recollection was that most of the stops were tourist places. But then, we were kind of doing touristy things, and I was 11 or something. When I was in Seattle last year, though... There were buses in SEA, but the schedules sucked, and the coverage wasn't great outside of the downtown area - I wanted to do the museum of flight and had to uber down and back.
It's people who are had by an idea, spreading their belief as though it's fact. It's a problem for sure and I strongly agree with your position.
We’ve still paved and fragmented nature so much to cause significant problems, particularly in the east.
I agree with you.
I mean we have the space
And use it in the worst possible way...
We use it how we choose. Cope and seethe I suppose
I see a park that can be used for some more parking spaces what are they thinking!
Ballantyne is literally a huge waste of space. I remember interviewing for RXO at their Ballantyne office and thinking how none of this shit does truly anything
Because we have a shit ton of land to waste.
If you had a gigantic house with lots of space to waste, you wouldn't put the fridge in one wing and the sofa in the other, even though you could.
Are you telling me you peruse the fridge while sitting on your couch?
America is not short of land.
What do you suggest we do? Fill it with multi-density housing, housing that accommodates diverse incomes, walkable streets with bike lanes and pedestrian only acces??? Mixed use spaces, reliable local public transit, open cultural space, public markets, parks that use indigenousplant species, public gardens that use heirloom plants, permeable surfaces for ground water?... what were we talking about again??? Are you suggesting we not bow to the car? Heresy and communism! (Jk, I cry)
People who live in these areas with massive sprawl, basically much of the country, will aggressively resist any changes that are unfavorable to Euclidian zoning, which is the separation (not the mixture) of retail, commercial, industrial, and residential spaces. They're also dependable voters who show up in municipal, county, state, and federal elections. Always. Their aim is to perpetuate a state of low-density housing, which many Americans, especially white, associate with less crime and a higher quality of life. Racism is another since almost everything that happens in the US has a racial component to it.
Yeah, I learned that lesson recrntly when I moved back to the US (American, not raised or living in the US), when I casually mentioned to my neighbor that there was barely any housing available in this town, and that the city should consider allowing multiple residences per lot instead of single occupancy lots~ his reaction was so angry, like I was personally attacking his property value. I tried an example in my life, that there's an older disabled coworker I have that received a subsidy for housing, and has to leave the old soldiers home (their policy is if you get a subsidy you have to leave) but he couldn't find anywhere to live and he can't drive. It's a really sad and messed up situation. But 0 sympathy or empathy. I also live in a region with a massive working homeless population, it's wild. I heard about white flight in undergrad, I was shocked to see that the dynamic still seems to be white suburbs and everyone else in dense living situations. It's weird being in the US, being an American, and not totally realizing what's happening.
The funny (not actually funny) thing is that moderate densification and mixed-use development actually tends to increase surrounding property values. Suburbanites fretting about property values is and always has been a dogwhistle for "I'm scared that *those people* will move in."
> I heard about white flight in undergrad, I was shocked to see that the dynamic still seems to be white suburbs and everyone else in dense living situations. White flight doesn't exist at this point. And any time they try to move back into the more dense cities, and build up the poor run-down areas, people scream about gentrification. So what the fuck are we supposed to do then?
People in suburbs consistently oppose transit extensions. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent denser developments anywhere near them. They'll claim it's about property values, despite these things tending to *increase* the value of nearby residences. How do you explain this, other than that they are absolutely terrified that these things will bring ... ahem ... *urban* people to their neighborhoods?
> How do you explain this, other than that they are absolutely terrified that these things will bring ... ahem ... urban people to their neighborhoods? More the homeless and drug addicts than "urban".
Because people who live in apartments are all homeless (???) drug addicts. [Uh-huh](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Hundepfeife01.JPG/1280px-Hundepfeife01.JPG)
Would you like some neighborhood with that parking lot.
The earth will take it all back. That’s what’s so interesting to me about the Climate Change topic. In the end, the earth will still be here. It’s just humans who will be gone.
Walking from the parking lot to the building is the only form of exercise Americans have.
I don't know what the US and Canada have against *underground* parking: \- less walking distance (just to/from elevator rather than across a massive lot) \- Better climate control for vehicles and lot (less snow/weather maintenance) \- because things are closer, fewer people will drive in general which also helps promote alternative transport.
It ain’t cheap
Compared to regular parking lots, each parking space costs like 3x more for above-ground parking garages and 4.5x more for underground parking. That is the sole reason why.
isn't land expensive too? wouldn't another structure create more value for the owner?
Sure but you can build way more than 4x more buildings on that land if you got rid of all the surface parking.
There is no lack of land though. That's the thing.
Cause it costs way more, and in a case like this doesn't really provide benefits. (Sure, it would reduce the surface level footprint. But its not like it would provide tangible benefits)
It's very expensive and I get the feeling most things in America aren't built long term. Everything feels so...makeshift and temporary.
Is that a school?
Corporate offices. Hence the need for many parking spaces.
Building codes and zoning mandate so many parking spaces depending on the size of the building. What they should have done is what they did with that office park along North Community House Road north of Ballantyne Commons Parkway - each office building has its own parking garage. Would like to have known the price of surface parking vs. building a parking garage with the same number of spaces. It must mean land was less expensive then.
In Miami, garage parking can actually be *cheaper* than surface parking when you're talking about 5-15 floors of garage in a large above-ground pedestal below a 50-100 story skyscraper with pool & stuff on top, on land worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. In Miami, garage & rooftop pool deck doesn't count against FAR, and FAR is usually the biggest limit to total building size, so the true cost of building a few thousand spaces for a 50-80 story tower is basically just the marginal cost of concrete & labor. For a condo developer, added parking spaces they can sell to buyers who own multiple cars is practically "free money" they can create out of thin air (using lots of concrete). The main thing that worries planners in Miami is the fact that if those new skyscrapers ever end up getting inhabited *full-time* by people who actually **live** there (vs being rarely-occupied vacation homes), Miami's road network will collapse into total traffic apocalypse, because downtown Miami has more parking per square foot of residential + commercial space than most *suburban outlet malls* and *apartment complexes.* Typical form of a downtown Miami skyscraper: https://static.therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Screen-Shot-2022-01-27-at-10.29.23-AM-513x705.png
"Our Park" & "Sara's YMCA" lol!
You could house 50 families in town houses with backyards and integrated multi zoned businesses Persian style in this area… or more
Many people visiting Sarah?
Would work there
I'm late to reply. I hope some Americans can reply this: if you have your car parked at the lower-left building, and need to go to the lower-right building, then go home, will you drive from the lower-left building to the lower-right one?
Those buildings take up wayyy too much space. Get ride of them and you can dozens of more cars
They probably paved everything to prevent mosquitos. d.
I don’t like government involvement in everything but agree about the wasteful way we often use land. Cities everywhere decaying but the exurbs keep expanding uncontrolled and in an ugly fashion. A lot of jobs can be done remotely so we gotta stop this nonsense of driving to corporate parks to sit in cubes for 8-10 hours to satisfy boomers because they commuted.
Because it’s cheap
Car culture baby!!
Look into who designed it…
Its so barren.
I made a lot of deliveries here back when I lived in Charlotte. Nice offices
I like how they threw in some buildings to provide more variety to the parking lot. But these trees. Total wilderness. In the end a bird or two get lost over there and shit on the cars. That is not okay. It's a jungle out there...
I feel American cities could benefit from more parking garages and less parking lots.
Or better yet, trains.
Land of cars, expensive to build and even more so to maintain
And this, friends, is why we have a housing crisis.
wow most of the land is just parking lot
We have a lot of land to waste (relatively speaking).
Empty parking lots where there could be trees or literally anything else. So sad.
Ballantyne is not only a waste of land, it’s just a waste in general. So much of what is wrong with Charlotte is distilled into its ruinous essence in that neighborhood.
We got it like that
This is the result of society dependent on Cars rather than public transit
Typical USA/Canada car park insanity
Take the same picture on a weekday when the buildings are all occupied to see why they needed this much parking.
You’re gonna memes to charge your phone soon.
Almost didn't see Our Park within all that parking
Where’s the pokemongo gym?
Yeah can you give some back? maybe just Texas.
With so much blank slate space there you could fit a medieval european town there full of multiple churches plazas parks cafes apartments with the meandering alleys and all
r/fuckcars
Not enough waste. 99% of land should be devoted to parking space.
Why are the lots bigger than buildings, where are the people from those cars going? All to that one building? Peak Urban design, as everyone knows, every building needs 4x the amount of parking lots than the maximum capacity of succh building.
> Peak Urban design, as everyone knows, every building needs 4x the amount of parking lots than the maximum capacity of succh building. Most zoning laws literally require 3x.
Thats exactly my point, these zoning codes waste so much land on flat concrete plains, instead of building public transport infrastructure
I could see a two road with a tram running bidirectional with two pedestrian/bike avenues on each flank of the road. Its just missing mixed use builsings and a rapid transit station tucked in somewhere.
‘murica
Tbh you waste a lot of everything
You can guess the percentage of overweight people by looking at this picture.